HPV vaccine cuts risk of dying from cervical cancer before 30

> It's not entirely out of your control, even though you can't control it entirely.

--

> "Unfortunately, the modern-day parental rights movement is predicated on a belief that children are the property of their parents, and therefore parents, “should be able to do anything they want to them."

is a quote I read today in https://www.404media.co/are-public-libraries-becoming-childr... that perfectly encapsulated this problem space, which linked to

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236...

https://archive.org/details/hfvemhgahusmfvqxur73qccoumjmqg6z...

> The illusion of control is obviously not working and will have devastating consequences for the rest of us, which people do not want and vehemently reject. This means the answer likely lies somewhere between meeting your kids where they’re at, even when where they’re at bears no resemblance to the Devil You Know. Which is scary and sucks, but that’s also what parenting is, and which a lot of parents don’t seem to get. “We talk about parents’ rights, but what we really need is parent remedial education,” Magnussun added.

(while in the context of parents prohibiting access to library materials a parent may disagree with, I believe the concept transfers and holds to this situation as well)

> 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.

Various studies show this to be false. If you think this is the message it sends, this is not borne out in the data. Update your priors.

HPV vaccination status is not associated with increased risky sexual behavior - https://www.hpvworld.com/articles/hpv-vaccination-status-is-...

> The consistent, replicated findings across the 20 studies examined in our systematic review provide strong evidence refuting the proposed association between HPV vaccination and risky sexual behavior. The 20 studies, which utilizing at least four distinct study designs and included a total of 521,879 participants, found no evidence for increased numbers of sexual partners, younger age of sexual initiation, decreased use of contraception (including both condoms and hormonal contraceptives), increased STI diagnoses, increased pregnancy rates, or increased history of abortion among those vaccinated against HPV. In fact, some studies found that vaccinated women engaged in fewer risky behaviors than unvaccinated women. The findings from our systematic review should alleviate any parental concerns that HPV vaccination will lead to risky sexual behaviors.

Kasting, M. L., Shapiro, G. K., Rosberger, Z., Kahn, J. A., & Zimet, G. D. (2016). Tempest in a teapot: A systematic review of HPV vaccination and risk compensation research. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 12(6), 1435–1450. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2016.1141158

HPV Vaccine Doesn't Make Teens More Promiscuous, Says Study - https://www.christianpost.com/news/hpv-vaccine-doesnt-make-t... - October 15th, 2012

> "The takeaway here is that this vaccine is safe and effective, and it's not associated with any risk of … outcomes related to sexual activity," Benarczyk explained. "This is reassuring to physicians and the parents that the concern doesn't need to be there."

You're again playing very fast and loose with numbers there. The average female life expectancy is 81. And the shots only matter during the window of your life where cervical cancer is remotely relevant, which is during a typical sexual window where somebody may have multiple partners. 50 was already pushing the limits there, but I accepted it because even with that exaggeration, it's not close. But at some point you've got to start being remotely reasonable. And this is again before we even get into real efficacy, side effects, and other issues which matter quite a lot with diseases that have as low an impact as cervical cancer. E.g. a quick search shows a rate of severe side effects from the vaccines at 1.8 per 100k (which you need to multiply for a multi-shot regime). That matters quite a lot when the death rate from cervical cancer is 2.2 per 100k.

And more generally, I think converting this issue into weeks starts to emphasize how broken a metric statistical value of life is. Nobody, again outside of millionaires, is paying thousands or even hundreds of dollars for one more week of life expectancy. Even if they wanted to, the overwhelming majority of people just don't have that degree of disposable wealth. It's akin to you ask people how much they'd be willing to pay to e.g. deal with climate change, and they give some ridiculously large number. But then when it comes time to really pay, and not hypothetically pay, that number suddenly becomes quite close to $0.

> The average female life expectancy is 81.

This is a quibble that does not substantially alter the conclusion.

> And the shots only matter during the window of your life where cervical cancer is remotely relevant, which is during a typical sexual window where somebody may have multiple partners.

Already taken into account in your "save 1 week" conclusion. No double counting please.

> And this is again before we even get into real efficacy, side effects, and other issues which matter quite a lot

This argues in favor of the shots, as I have been ignoring the real cost of cancers to those who don't die of them, or who suffer before they die.

> And more generally, I think converting this issue into weeks starts to emphasize how broken a metric statistical value of life is.

You're calling it broken because it's showing you're wrong.

Something like the statistical value of a life is necessary because tradeoffs between different options must be made. If those tradeoffs are made consistently, a value of life naturally falls out.

I see one single comment from a person who self-identifies themselves as a 50yo male. Nothing in his comment could be reasonably interpreted as "bragging."

Where are you seeing "a ton of old guys bragging"?