101–110 of 188 posts
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.
Completely agree. If kids are getting HPV before their teens, the solution is not vaccination ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Granted they also do less alcohol and drugs I hear. But it's still very early in that cohort's life, and there's also going to be other next cohorts. The expected timespan for the benefit of this cure to dissipate would be in the decades.
Is your expectation that Gen Z is going to do something no other generation has done and start having more sex as they get older? For most policymakers, if curing STDs is what it takes to coax people into having more sex (and thus hopefully adding net positive numbers to their labor force) they'd put Manhattan Project-level funding into the effort. Meanwhile cervical cancer was never really a thing that people associ…
My claim is about a specific phenomenon of human behaviour which has acted upon humanity for milenia. Not a specific generation.
There's variance and other factors involved, porn being a major one. If one generated is behaviourally castrated by Virtual Reality headsets and AI girlfriends, then I'd venture a guess that those that do reproduce will have children that tend towards inheriting an inmunity against the event that wiped out their competing genes.
So yeah, this might take more than one generation, might not, maybe this generation is economically dominated and does not have chidlren or even go out due to debt, work, and poverty, but who knows, maybe something something happens and that generation finds wealth and figures out that going out, travelling, spending money, having a house to invite people over to leads to that cool thing people called sex, and they start doing it.
Who knows
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.
Also, it takes 3 jabs and about 8 months (increasing intervals) so it's important to do it early for that reason too.
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…
herd immunity: Vaccines benefit even those that don't take the vaccine now. eradication effects: vaccines benefit those that don't take the vaccine in the future.
fertility increase: non lethal cervical cancer can cause inability to get pregnant or carry a pregnancy to term. I don't know if it can cause birth defects.
Life Years: Early deaths save more Life Years than diseases that protect against later disease.
Quality Adjusted Life Years: Very nuanced, and I don't know how HPV cancers compare against the baseline of QALY. But being a vaccine that prevents, the Quality of life gained should be 100%, which would compare positively to treatments that do not cure completely
Death risk was already low in many places. Over a period of 30 years, approximately 400 women died of the disease under age 25 in the USA. [1] So many women's deaths were reported to VAERS in relationship to the HPV vaccination that it exceeded the death rate of the disease itself in the United States after approval. In the safety systems setup in 1986 in exchange for immunity for the vaccine manufacturers, the death…
In particular, you've mistaken the result of the second study.
> The vaccinated patients were even older, which makes it even worse, because those are older women who have had more time to be pregnant.
^ this is incorrect. Indeed according to the study, the vaccinated patients are younger (33.1) than the unvaccinated patients (37.4), which could easily explain the difference in gravidity. The authors do not report having controlled for age when computing the gravidity effect.
Note also that the entire study was conducted with a population of patients seeking fertility care, so the study can't support the general claim "gravidity is halved for the HPV vaccinated" even were the significance level to survive age-controlling statistics (which it likely would not).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Out of curiosity, have there been any other advances in medicine that would make it less likely that women would die from cervical cancer before hitting 30? I don't keep up on oncology developments, but I assume that this particular shot is not the only thing that has reduced cervical cancer deaths in women under 30. If they were looking at rates of acquiring cancer, that would be more focused on this intervention.
I'm not a doctor and certainly not an oncologist. The CDC mentions that not smoking and wearing condoms also lower the risk. https://www.cdc.gov/cervical-cancer/prevention/index.html Anecdotally people smoke less thant they uses to. Don't know what condom usage rates have done in the past quarter century. > I assume that this particular shot is not the only thing that has reduced cervical cancer deaths in women under…
Because cancer interventions have moved forward in general?
Death risk was already low in many places. Over a period of 30 years, approximately 400 women died of the disease under age 25 in the USA. [1] So many women's deaths were reported to VAERS in relationship to the HPV vaccination that it exceeded the death rate of the disease itself in the United States after approval. In the safety systems setup in 1986 in exchange for immunity for the vaccine manufacturers, the death…
To be clarify for everyone: both of the cited articles argue in favor of HPV vaccination. I assumed they would be arguing against since the comment is arguing against, but that is not the case. In particular, you've mistaken the result of the second study. > The vaccinated patients were even older, which makes it even worse, because those are older women who have had more time to be pregnant. ^ this is incorrect. Ind…
Here's an a pair of articles on the mental model called inversion, which is about avoiding stupidity. [2] [3]
An example of inversion "If going down Route A in the dark in the rain is correlated with traffic accidents, take Route B, regardless of the fact that one's super tires or eagle eyesight might supposedly negate causation."
The same reality holds up at scale, and not just at the one university clinic, but they retracted it for political reasons. [4]
That is a very serious math situation if one wants more babies. Most parents would simply tell the young driver to stay off Route A in the dark or rain.
I did misread the ages between the two, and I have removed the age references.
3. https://www.theengineeringmanager.com/growth/invert-always-i...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> my kids are all fully vaccinated on a spaced-out schedule and not taking more than one shot in at least 2 months Why? At what point did you say “I know a better vaccine schedule than highly trained specialist doctors who have done decades of research on hundreds of thousand of children”? You don’t find this incredibly naive to think you know better than them?
[flagged]
This is like saying "We don't need fire alarms (and all the risks involved with installing them) because we're responsible people, not reckless morons who go playing with matches in their home."
There are, on the low end, thousands of people who've died of cervical cancer they caught from HPV given to them by their one and only partner.
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.
Glad to see it, except it is still a sensationalist headline IMO because HPV deaths, and specifically below 30 years old, is already extremely low.
If you take it in terms of absolute risk rather than relative risk, even though it's very clearly the latter as always, sure.
Sometimes it's not on the writer, but the reader. Important context, sure, but it was plenty clear what was being meant.