131–140 of 188 posts
I remember this vaccine being part of political discourse, so I everyone should be extremely skeptical of any news about it.
At one point, it was encouraged that 9-year-olds get the vaccine. As a parent, I'd rather my child wait until their immune system is more developed, with the idea being that if they're getting STDs at age 9, then there's a bigger problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A shot of tequila? Or my team having a shot at winning world series? There are lots of shots.
Don't brits use the same way, i.e. "Take a jab at it"? - not a brit so idk
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> given how low the base rate is, the reduction in number of procedures (and the resulting negative impacts on the women) would be incredibly low Correct. These data are more a preview of what we can expect to see as the vaccinated cohort (in countries that aren’t pro-disease) advances in age.
Indeed, Australia will be one of the first countries to eliminate cervical cancer (by 2035) due to their HPV vaccine vaccination uptake rates. Two decades to get here, one to go. https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-hon-rebecca-white-mp... https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13036706/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009829972... https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd6w15vgp7lo
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At one point, it was encouraged that 9-year-olds get the vaccine. As a parent, I'd rather my child wait until their immune system is more developed, with the idea being that if they're getting STDs at age 9, then there's a bigger problem.
Men raping children is why they wanted to start at 9.
I thought it was because the vaccine is most effective for people before sexual activity begins.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think fire alarms is the right analogy. More like an Amish person getting antivirus software for their nonexistent computer.
That's a broken analogy because everyone has the 'computer,' which in this situation is cells which are capable of being infected.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Completely agree. If kids are getting HPV before their teens, the solution is not vaccination ...
As a parent, you cannot control when your child becomes sexually active and potentially exposed to HPV (at which point vaccination is less effective based on HPV strain). Therefore, it behooves you to protect them with a vaccine before potential exposure, as the vaccine risk is very low, based on all available data. I cannot imagine what it would feel like to face your child who experiences cancer that could’ve been…
It's not entirely out of your control, even though you can't control it entirely.
Also, giving your kid vaccines that are only relevant for sexually active people sends a message, which is that you expect that they may be sexually active. That's not a message that some people want to send to their tweens.
edit: when people downvote this, is it because they think it is untrue, or they just don't like it?
I wasn't allowed to have it from the official health service because I'm already 50 even though I've not been very active in earlier years. But I paid for it myself (600€ for the 3 shots, quite expensive). I'm glad I did, when reading stuff like this. They don't usually give it to older people because the more you have been exposed to the virus the less effective the vaccine is. But it protects against 9 variants and…
I paid for it out of pocket as well with a cursory understanding of the data and why it wasn’t given to men at all at the time, and then not to men in my age range before expanding to far beyond my age range
This affected it being covered by insurance
Even to help protect women was good enough, but I had predicted the throat cancer link as well
On the self serving side, it was also a supporting reason to pursue relations with younger women going forward since they would have received the vaccine and older would more likely be carriers. The situation with men being that there is no test for men to tell if exposure occurred already and like the above person said, the vaccine doesnt work if youve already been exposed. I didnt really need a reason to date specific age range its a timeless tale, but now I can adapt it to herd immunity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, not everyone.
HPV spreads even when condoms are used - any skin to skin contact can spread it. So yeah, not everyone, but it’s exceptionally prevalent. Luckily most strains are relatively harmless.
the things you can get are either
A) benign when caught early. Test 3 weeks after every partner. Take a medication for a week if positive, your next test will be negative
B) can be vaccinated against in advance
or C) condoms don't prevent at all to begin with
D) new HIV infections is faaaar more rare to a hetero man, compared to women and people doing anal. And Prep/Pep has essentially solved that too.
the landscape is different for people being receptacles and their risk profile just has to be different.
devs left this unpatched
I can understand why districts wouldn't want teenagers to know it this way. That has nothing to do with you.
This doesn’t make you seem like a good person. It makes you seem like you don’t trust public health officials.
I had this conversation with my doc. He said dont get it. Going around that doesn’t make me a good person, it makes me dumb.
Don’t listen to what a forum says. Listen to your doctor.
From what risk level without them? How many people actually die of cervical cancer before age 30?? I mean, vaccinations and cancer prevention are both great, but this headline is ridiculous.
The estimated number of deaths from cervical cancer in the US in 2026 is 4,200. The death rate is 2.2 per 100,000 people down from 3.1 per 100,000 in 1992. If we multiply 3.1e-5 by 50 years that's about a 0.15% chance of dying of this cancer. The HPV shots cost $500-1000 for the three shots, so the cost per life saved is about $650K. With the statistical value of a human life being about $12M this is quite cost effec…
Cervical cancer disproportionately affects older women, even moreso than other cancers. The average age of diagnosis is 50 [1] and so the years of lost life due to cervical cancer is both going to be extremely low and going to disproportionately be very late life years lost. Rates in U30 are already near zero with an extremely high survival rate for those that do get it.
[1] - https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/cervical-cancer/about/ke...