Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark

eurosurveillance.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 383 posts

Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark

#371

Post by LorenPechtel »

electriclove wrote: post #364
LorenPechtel wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Sending a message" is generally a cover term for evil. And there is no issue of having faith in them--you are trying to make a decision you have no right to make. You're a parent, not a slavemaster. The real world data is that the "good" girls are more likely to get pregnant, more likely to get STDs. And more likely to end up in bad marriages. And lets add another data point. I used to have a bunch of coworkers from…

The decision to vaccinate absolutely belongs with the parent. The child does not know enough to make this decision when they are 9 years old.

No, you have an obligation to do the best job you reasonably can with raising children. We generally do not permit parents to do things which pose an undue risk to their children, and most of the exceptions to this involve religion being given a weight it shouldn't get.

Trying to make sex more dangerous to me falls squarely in the realm of child abuse.

Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark

#372

Post by LorenPechtel »

apparent wrote: post #368
toomuchtodo wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither does a parent, based on all available evidence, and multiple jurisdictions make vaccination compulsory without exception. Parents aren’t special, and they are failing in this regard by believing they should have a right to say no, simply for being a parent. Anyone, broadly speaking, can have children. That does not make them good or qualified parents unfortunately. It just makes them temporary guardians (unti…

> based on all available evidence, and multiple jurisdictions make vaccination compulsory without exception Can you share which jurisdictions mandate the HPV vaccine and have no exceptions? I am aware of only a few jurisdictions where it is required, and all such jurisdictions have exceptions. They also only require it for kids in schools, so any kid who is homeschooled is not subject to the mandate in the first plac…

I think he's referring to countries, not states.

Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark

#373

Post by LorenPechtel »

apparent wrote: post #366
LorenPechtel wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Faith" is fundamentally belief without knowledge. Thus you by definition have no reason to rely on it. (Although the word also gets used in situations where there is a track record to rely on but no specific evidence in the particular case.) And you're using the wrong yardstick. What you should be looking at is the number of adverse events. STDs. Unintended pregnancies.

Everyone hopes for and has faith in their kids with regard to some actions. It could be going to class, staying out of gangs, not drinking/doing drugs. We don't know for a fact our kids will do what we hope, but we act in a way that shows we have faith in them, so as to avoid undermining their confidence. I don't need to use the yardstick you propose. There are many confounders in aggregate data, and there are not pu…

The available data indicates that you're wrong. You *think* you know, you don't.

Would it be acceptable to not belt your kids because you have faith in your driving skills? (And never mind that the one time in my life where a seat belt mattered was when I was essentially PITted by someone who didn't look left. I walked away with nothing but a pulled muscle and because I was belted my foot correctly found the brake pedal while I was spinning around and totally disorientated.)

Or how about the woman from ~30 years back that said that DUI doesn't really matter if your faith is strong enough as god will protect you.

Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark

#374

Post by LorenPechtel »

electriclove wrote: post #362
LorenPechtel wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A parent has a duty to do the best job of raising their child that they can. Trying to force abstinence does not work and leads to more problems down the road.

Why assume I am trying to force abstinence? I am aiming for a long-term, healthy, communicative relationship with my children.

You are trying to make a lack of abstinence more hazardous.

As far as I'm concerned this is child abuse.

Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark

#375

Post by electriclove »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #371
electriclove wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The decision to vaccinate absolutely belongs with the parent. The child does not know enough to make this decision when they are 9 years old.

No, you have an obligation to do the best job you reasonably can with raising children. We generally do not permit parents to do things which pose an undue risk to their children, and most of the exceptions to this involve religion being given a weight it shouldn't get. Trying to make sex more dangerous to me falls squarely in the realm of child abuse.

For a 9, 10, or 11 year old? I'm definitely not encouraging them to have sex. I surely hope we go after actual child abusers than parents who delay or opt-out of this OPTIONAL vaccination for their kids.

Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark

#376

Post by electriclove »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #374
electriclove wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why assume I am trying to force abstinence? I am aiming for a long-term, healthy, communicative relationship with my children.

You are trying to make a lack of abstinence more hazardous. As far as I'm concerned this is child abuse.

I'll never understand how differences of opinion can make people so extreme. Child abuse is a serious issue and you have gone through some mental gymnastics to conflate child abuse with my decision to not vaccinate my 9, 10 or 11 year old child for HPV.

Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark

#377

Post by apparent »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #372
apparent wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> based on all available evidence, and multiple jurisdictions make vaccination compulsory without exception Can you share which jurisdictions mandate the HPV vaccine and have no exceptions? I am aware of only a few jurisdictions where it is required, and all such jurisdictions have exceptions. They also only require it for kids in schools, so any kid who is homeschooled is not subject to the mandate in the first plac…

I think he's referring to countries, not states.

Ah ok I'd be curious to know what those are, though I would find them to be less persuasive/relevant from a policy perspective. There are countries that have no freedom of speech, outlaw non-govt schools, etc., and I don't want to be taking cues from such countries.

Regardless, I would imagine that very few jurisdictions, and a relatively small percentage of the world, lives somewhere that mandates these vaccines and has no opt-outs.

Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark

#378

Post by apparent »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #373
apparent wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone hopes for and has faith in their kids with regard to some actions. It could be going to class, staying out of gangs, not drinking/doing drugs. We don't know for a fact our kids will do what we hope, but we act in a way that shows we have faith in them, so as to avoid undermining their confidence. I don't need to use the yardstick you propose. There are many confounders in aggregate data, and there are not pu…

The available data indicates that you're wrong. You *think* you know, you don't. Would it be acceptable to not belt your kids because you have faith in your driving skills? (And never mind that the one time in my life where a seat belt mattered was when I was essentially PITted by someone who didn't look left. I walked away with nothing but a pulled muscle and because I was belted my foot correctly found the brake pe…

Not belting your kids when you put them in the car is unsafe and is illegal. However, not getting your 9 year old a vaccine for STDs is not unsafe if that kid is not sexually active, and therefore not at risk for contracting the STD. As the kid gets older, the calculus changes because they are more independent. But pretty much any responsible parent has a very accurate sense of whether their 9 year old is having sex.

And the parents who have a sexually active 9 year old that they do not realize is sexually active are probably not taking them in for their regular doctor appts and vaccines.

Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark

#379

Post by LorenPechtel »

electriclove wrote: post #375
LorenPechtel wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you have an obligation to do the best job you reasonably can with raising children. We generally do not permit parents to do things which pose an undue risk to their children, and most of the exceptions to this involve religion being given a weight it shouldn't get. Trying to make sex more dangerous to me falls squarely in the realm of child abuse.

For a 9, 10, or 11 year old? I'm definitely not encouraging them to have sex. I surely hope we go after actual child abusers than parents who delay or opt-out of this OPTIONAL vaccination for their kids.

There's nothing gained by waiting to vaccinate.

The problem here is the do-it-later crowd is going to wait too long. Same thing as we see with sex-ed, knowledge is treated as encouraging when reality says it's exactly the opposite. Honest sex ed leads to later sex and fewer problems.

Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark

#380

Post by LorenPechtel »

apparent wrote: post #378
LorenPechtel wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The available data indicates that you're wrong. You *think* you know, you don't. Would it be acceptable to not belt your kids because you have faith in your driving skills? (And never mind that the one time in my life where a seat belt mattered was when I was essentially PITted by someone who didn't look left. I walked away with nothing but a pulled muscle and because I was belted my foot correctly found the brake pe…

Not belting your kids when you put them in the car is unsafe and is illegal. However, not getting your 9 year old a vaccine for STDs is not unsafe if that kid is not sexually active, and therefore not at risk for contracting the STD. As the kid gets older, the calculus changes because they are more independent. But pretty much any responsible parent has a very accurate sense of whether their 9 year old is having sex.…

It's not that they'll be active at 9. Rather, that you don't know when they'll be active and the ones who see this as encouraging sex will delay too long. Thus it's better to do it early.
Post reply on HN