Rendered at 01:42:20 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
alistairSH 3 hours ago [-]
Reducing deaths is great, but shouldn’t they also mention the reduction in treatment (which is usually surgical or chemo, both of which are massively expensive, traumatic, and life altering in negative ways).
zeristor 1 hours ago [-]
The people that died there's the numbers for that, but the people that didn't need treatment in the first place.
Not just a reduction in trauma but freeing up Drs to treat other cancers too.
apparent 3 hours ago [-]
They could do that, but 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. It seems the base rate for cervical cancer deaths under 30 was already near zero.
Arodex 3 hours ago [-]
>the base rate for cervical cancer deaths under 30 was already near zero.
It has never been zero between 1970 and 2019. It has been completely 0 between 2020 and 2024.
apparent 2 hours ago [-]
Not according to the age-bucked histogram in the data you linked to below.
JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago [-]
> 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.
toomuchtodo 2 hours ago [-]
Indeed, Australia will be one of the first countries to eliminate cervical cancer (by 2035) due to their HPV vaccine vaccination uptake rates.
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.
3 hours ago [-]
pfdietz 1 hours ago [-]
The vaccine presumably also protects those getting it when they are older, but the data doesn't show that yet. Still, if it does (as seems reasonable) then the benefit is even larger.
Arodex 3 hours ago [-]
As mentioned already several times in the comments, there is also a long tail of people who survive but after a grueling and costly treatment that disrupt their lives.
giantg2 2 hours ago [-]
What are the numbers on that post vaccine vs pre vaccine?
eek2121 3 hours ago [-]
Just a note: the article focuses on the ladies, but men should absolutely get it as well because it cuts risk for other types of cancers. I was looking for a better link, however this is the only one I found (I had an older one saved, however I can't find it):
yes! Apparently the rate of penile and throat cancer occurs at only half the rate in men as it does as cervical cancer in women, but the harm caused by the male versions of the cancer are worse, so in actual fact it may overall cause more harm in the male population.
TZubiri 2 hours ago [-]
My bet is that it has to do with the mechanics of receptive vaginal and oral sex, the penis just reaches deeper and causes more lesions. Compared to insertive vaginal sex and oral vaginal performance, those lesions would be less frequent and on more distal parts of the body.
If the rate is 50%, I'd also expect MSM to be overrepresented there, which would make the difference of risk between heterosexual sex even more imbalanced.
3 hours ago [-]
blcknight 3 hours ago [-]
For some reason not really talked about in mainstream medicine for straight men. It makes no sense. Very safe vaccine and you're eligible into your 40's to get it. Everyone sexually active probably has some strains but not all.
chasely 44 minutes ago [-]
I was denied the vaccine by my healthcare provider as a man in my mid-20s. Their reasoning being that I was likely already exposed.
It may have been true, but would still have liked to get the vaccine since it covers many multiple strains.
Avshalom 2 hours ago [-]
the reason is no one realized hpv was connected to much more than cervical cancer until fairly recently.
apparent 3 hours ago [-]
Yeah, not everyone.
QuiEgo 54 minutes ago [-]
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.
ls612 2 hours ago [-]
This was the case a decade ago but now the US recommendation is that all children, boys and girls, get the vaccine.
Supermancho 2 hours ago [-]
Why is a this news headline using the slang "jabs"?
graeme 2 hours ago [-]
In the UK it's commonly said, and the Guardian is a UK paper.
Though you've noticed a real thing: for some reason during and after the pandemic publications outside of the UK started saying it too and I don't know why.
rationalist 2 hours ago [-]
> outside of the UK
> I don't know why
My guess is because it has a negative connotation (the pre-2020 definition of jabbing someone was to hit someone, not inject someone).
smelendez 2 hours ago [-]
In the UK, I believe jab has long been equivalent to shot in the US (complete with nonviolent connotation despite the word meaning something violent in other contexts).
jhbadger 10 minutes ago [-]
Maybe, but it's a bit weird to complain about connotations for "jab" when the US word is "shot" which surely has even more violent connotations,
Supermancho 2 hours ago [-]
> UK during the COVID-19 pandemic of 2021, when public health campaigns urged people to "get the jab."
Asked and answered, ty.
The term was popularized the US during the pandemic as well. It seemed like it was used by conservative media in the US to try to further politicize vaccination as something being inflicted on them.
kstrauser 50 minutes ago [-]
Yep, often accompanied by an idiotic fake distinction between "jab/shot" and "vaccine", like "it's not a vaccine, it's a shot!"
True: There are shots which aren't vaccines, and vaccines which aren't shots.
False: "The COVID 'vaccine' isn't actually a vaccine! It's a jab!"
rationalist 54 minutes ago [-]
I got the covid vaccine (Pfizer) and I still get other vaccines, but it was 100% "inflicted" on everyone (especially with the Federal government requiring civil servants to get it). To believe otherwise is to succumb to the politicalization of it (from everyone other than the conservative media). The rush job was sketchy, which is why I went with the established brand when I volunteered with CERT at our vaccination POD to distribute vaccines to the public.
Edit: and the politicalization of it continues... sigh
> Asked and answered, ty.
Yes, the person I responded to asked, and yes, I was the only person who answered. You're welcome?
redwall_hp 1 hours ago [-]
Commonwealth countries say "jab" instead of "shot."
cmrdporcupine 1 hours ago [-]
Canada is a Commonwealth country but we say shot.
arjie 2 hours ago [-]
Every time HPV comes up, someone says “guys should get the vaccine too” but I’ve never managed to succeed. Even after last time someone mentioned it I tried and I got the absolutely worst result where they recorded me as being given it but then said it wasn’t meant for men my age. Had to get it removed from the record by the One Medical people I saw next.
And when I saw them, they said it wouldn’t be covered under insurance and would be like $1.2k. I intended to just get it on my next visit to India but ended up not traveling.
I don’t get it. Is this like those Internet memes “don’t mess with the postal police” and stuff or is it a real thing? Any guy in their late 30s in the US who managed to get it?
ggm 2 hours ago [-]
American experience. It's free in Australia for people aged 12-25 and men who have sex with men (increased risks) and nothing like that price for private script.
jrgoff 1 hours ago [-]
I got it in the US in my late 30s or early 40s - I think it was even at One Medical (though I assume One Medical may be fairly different now after Amazon took it over). It was covered by my insurance.
iknowstuff 2 hours ago [-]
Yes I got Gardasil 9 for free in San Francisco.
cmrdporcupine 1 hours ago [-]
Here in Ontario it's just offered to all grade 7s, boy or girls.
toomuchtodo 2 hours ago [-]
I (male, 40s) paid Planned Parenthood in Florida for the three Gardasil doses out of pocket after the male age limit was raised to 45 circa October 2018 (as I wanted to ensure I was vaccinated before exiting the permitted age limit). Insurance covered it for my kids with no cost at their pediatrician.
Ask your doctor, get a quote, if you’re unsure what the cost might be. Your insurance may cover it with no cost to you.
What's the rate for the unvaccinated group? So a comparison can be made vs. the vaccinated one.
The fact that they leave this out is a bit weird, sloppy journalism I guess.
apparent 1 hours ago [-]
Sloppy or because the base rate is so low that it would undercut the narrative.
WorkerBee28474 29 minutes ago [-]
Looking at https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11733696/ it seems like the base rate was 0.04 per 100,000. So ~70 female deaths per year in a population the size of the USA. That link suggests the mortality rate was reduced by a factor of 2-4, so vaccinating 2 million (?) girls per year saves 30-50 lives.
Some back-of-the-napkin math puts the price tag per life saved in the 8 digit range.
Taniwha 19 minutes ago [-]
This is a vaccine that does contribute to herd immunity, if enough people get it then transmission goes to 0 and it dies out, even unvaccinated people wont get it, because of the vaccine. The article says "0 cases" in the entire population, in this case the people who get vaccinated are carrying the unvaccinated
SanjayMehta 30 minutes ago [-]
It's The Guardian. Typical.
apothegm 4 days ago [-]
[flagged]
pfdietz 3 hours ago [-]
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 effective.
I'm assuming the reduction in death continues to later in life after 30, but that's a reasonable assumption, IMO.
Gigachad 3 hours ago [-]
Even if you just consider all of those 4000 + survivors would have got treatment for the cancer after getting it which costs far more than a vaccine.
cma 2 hours ago [-]
Yep and significantly more than the death count would have needed expensive treatment and be out of the workforce for a time or permanently. Also the charged price isn't real cost to the economy. If they have a big margin on it after fixed research/approval expenses lots of it feeds back into the economy through taxes and dividends/reinvestment in other drug development.
Beyond death, it can also cause sterility and people may end up with extremely expensive IVF surrogacy pregnancies etc.
JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago [-]
> From what risk level without them?
“Approximately 0.6 percent of women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer at some point during their lifetime, based on 2021–2023 data” [1].
Given “reports of serious health issues after HPV vaccination were consistently rare—around 1.8 per 100,000 HPV vaccine doses, or 0.0018%” [2], a woman suffers a 300x higher hazard (assuming we measure a serious vaccine reaction as being equivalent to cancer, which is silly) from going unvaccinated.
> How many people actually die of cervical cancer before age 30?
4,462 young women under the age of 30 died of cervical cancer in 2022 worldwide [3].
4,462 out of the whole population (of women etc.).
Would you subjectively describe that number as "almost zero"?
JumpCrisscross 15 minutes ago [-]
> Would you subjectively describe that number as "almost zero"?
Sure. If the only effect were on under-30s, this wouldn’t be a great vaccine. What 5,000 people is good for, however, is confidently measuring decline in a cohort. Zero deaths, even against a baseline of tens, strongly implies this should cross into the tend or hundreds of thousands over the next decades in populations that keep vaccination rates up.
Arodex 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
apparent 3 hours ago [-]
So 5 deaths across 3 years? Doesn't seem worth a headline, especially since it could literally just be noise in the data.
Also, no need to post snarkily about LMGTFY. TFA should have included the base rate, and the fact that it didn't signals that it's not much of a reduction. It also signals that the journalist who wrote it is more in it for clicks than conveying accurate information.
bonsai_spool 3 hours ago [-]
Absolutely is - this is such a no-brainer of a public health intervention. We're not touching on the cost of treatment (including inability to have future children! very much something a State should be interested in avoiding).
Arodex 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
apparent 3 hours ago [-]
The linked chart shows that there were none in the 20-24 age range during the during the recent few years. Is the entire population vaccinated? If not (the article doesn't claim this), then the fact that no one in that age range died (and only 5 in the entire under-30 cohort) tends to indicate that it was not a very high base rate.
Are there other sources that show data going back to the 1970s? Probably! I didn't go searching for them. I looked at what was linked above and saw there were very few. As I said, the Guardian journalist didn't include a base rate, which surely would have been included if it bolstered the argument.
EDIT: I just scrolled down further and saw that even the chart that shows trends over time (which I hadn't seen before, having stopped scrolling earlier) doesn't support your point. It shows there were roughly .2 deaths per year per 100k. Not having any deaths in 20-24 for 3 years is not a statistically significant difference, I would imagine, than the .2 figure. Also, there are undoubtedly other cancer-related advances that have made it less likely that a young woman would die of any kind of cancer.
And the data regarding under-30 deaths is muddled because the next bucket up is 25-34, and we don't know what it is up to 29.
Lastly, at the bottom there's this disclaimer, which makes it even harder to tell what's going on with small numbers:
> Note: Non-zero counts of 5 or less are suppressed and presented as 5.
If you have another source, please feel free to share. What we've seen so far (nothing in TFA, nothing of import in the commenter's linked data) isn't remotely compelling.
Arodex 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
apparent 2 hours ago [-]
Your source doesn't say what you think it says, as evidenced by your other mistaken comments in this thread. I was referring to other sources (other than the one you posted, which doesn't say what you think it does) because I wanted to know if anything supported your claims.
Please stop with the ad hominem business, which is frowned upon by the HN guidelines (I see you're new here).
Arodex 1 hours ago [-]
I see you didn't go down the page to "trends by age".
It is not ad hominem to point out you don't search and you don't understand.
tomhow 1 hours ago [-]
> You are not a serious person. Please stop being noise.
This is specifically against the guidelines, notably these lines:
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Please stop registering accounts to break the guidelines with. You know what is expected here.
comrade1234 4 hours ago [-]
Your questions are sort-of answered in the article. 3300 die each year of cervical cancer in the uk. So at 0% it saves 3300 lives per year. However the vaccination is fairly new so they have to wait longer to see if it applies 20-years, 30-years, etc later. I assume it would though.
lithocarpus 4 hours ago [-]
Parent's question isn't answered in the article - no figure is given for how many deaths under 30 there are as a baseline.
From the article:
“We estimate that since its introduction [in 2008], HPV vaccination has prevented nearly 200 young women from dying from cervical cancer in England.”
This is an estimate of 200 total of any age total across 18 years. The article doesn't say 3300 die each year, 3300 are diagnosed each year.
> Between 2020 and 2024, no cervical cancer deaths were recorded in women aged 20 to 24 - the first time that had happened over a five-year period.
> Without vaccination, around 23 deaths would have been expected.
Note the first chart in the link showing the historical trend for the 20-24 cohort since 2000 plumetting from 25 to 0.
apparent 3 hours ago [-]
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.
estebank 2 hours ago [-]
I'm not a doctor and certainly not an oncologist.
The CDC mentions that not smoking and wearing condoms also lower the risk.
AIDS was killing over 40,000 people per year in the US at its peak. It’s now almost 10x lower despite a significantly larger population. I don’t think there’s some other STD killing tens of thousands per year to fill that gap.
mullingitover 1 hours ago [-]
> I fear that we have a risk budget, so when STD risk is reduced via a cure or prophylaxis, humans increase the amount of sex they have until the STD rate stabilizes again.
Nope.
Gen Z rather famously is not having a lot of sex despite all the scary STDs not being as scary as they’ve been historically.
TZubiri 58 minutes ago [-]
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.
mullingitover 48 minutes ago [-]
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 associated with STDs, up until the point that the vaccine knocked out the strain of HPV that was causing it.
kelipso 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
zulux 2 hours ago [-]
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.
root_axis 22 minutes ago [-]
What age do you recommend and why?
>* I'd rather my child wait until their immune system is more developed*
At what age is the immune system fully developed?
moralestapia 1 hours ago [-]
Completely agree.
If kids are getting HPV before their teens, the solution is not vaccination ...
toomuchtodo 1 hours ago [-]
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 prevented with a vaccine a parent chooses to delay or even skip. Luckily, this conversation and pain is easily avoided.
I completely understand there are some parents who will ignore this idea out of ideology or other non data and risk driven mental models, but am confident this cohort continues to shrink generation over generation. The cost of this will be cancer incidents that could’ve been avoided, but humans will human, so it is what it is. “Better luck next generational cohort.”
(day job is risk management, I get paid to assess and quantify risk, this is just another risk exposure to quantify and manage; my kids get all of their vaccines as soon as they’re eligible for them, no hesitation, no regrets)
seattle_spring 2 hours ago [-]
The only ones making the HPV vaccine "political" are the morons who think it shouldn't be administered because it increases promiscuity, or the ones who mistakenly think vaccines cause more harm than they help.
nikolay 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
apparent 1 hours ago [-]
Yeah I thought about mentioning the fairly rare but awful cases that seem pretty clearly linked to the shot. It may be not very common, but it is a thing, and it's worth considering in the cost-benefit analysis.
bluedevil2k 40 minutes ago [-]
> 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?
naturalmovement 33 minutes ago [-]
Because it's his kid and he can raise her however he wants.
Vaccines represent a calculated risk.
Maybe he's raising his daughter in a culture that doesn't celebrate hedonism and massive numbers of casual sexual partners, effectively reducing the risk of HPV-induced cervical cancer to near-zero, no magic potion needed.
mullingitover 1 hours ago [-]
Anaphylaxis is going to happen something like 3 per million Gardasil doses.
The math doesn’t math on the decision not to get the vaccine unless you know for a fact that you’re going to have an anaphylactic reaction. The risk of cancer is far higher if you choose to take the alternative risk.
moralestapia 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
ourmandave 25 minutes ago [-]
When you got the shot didn't they tell you about the possible side effects and what to watch for?
I know for the Covid vaccine I had to sit for an hour to make sure of something not happening.
Not just a reduction in trauma but freeing up Drs to treat other cancers too.
It has never been zero between 1970 and 2019. It has been completely 0 between 2020 and 2024.
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.
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
https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/24/health/hpv-men-vaccine-cancer...
If the rate is 50%, I'd also expect MSM to be overrepresented there, which would make the difference of risk between heterosexual sex even more imbalanced.
It may have been true, but would still have liked to get the vaccine since it covers many multiple strains.
Though you've noticed a real thing: for some reason during and after the pandemic publications outside of the UK started saying it too and I don't know why.
> I don't know why
My guess is because it has a negative connotation (the pre-2020 definition of jabbing someone was to hit someone, not inject someone).
Asked and answered, ty.
The term was popularized the US during the pandemic as well. It seemed like it was used by conservative media in the US to try to further politicize vaccination as something being inflicted on them.
True: There are shots which aren't vaccines, and vaccines which aren't shots.
False: "The COVID 'vaccine' isn't actually a vaccine! It's a jab!"
Edit: and the politicalization of it continues... sigh
> Asked and answered, ty.
Yes, the person I responded to asked, and yes, I was the only person who answered. You're welcome?
And when I saw them, they said it wouldn’t be covered under insurance and would be like $1.2k. I intended to just get it on my next visit to India but ended up not traveling.
I don’t get it. Is this like those Internet memes “don’t mess with the postal police” and stuff or is it a real thing? Any guy in their late 30s in the US who managed to get it?
Ask your doctor, get a quote, if you’re unsure what the cost might be. Your insurance may cover it with no cost to you.
https://sph.umich.edu/pursuit/2018posts/fda-approves-hpv-vac...
The fact that they leave this out is a bit weird, sloppy journalism I guess.
Some back-of-the-napkin math puts the price tag per life saved in the 8 digit range.
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 effective.
I'm assuming the reduction in death continues to later in life after 30, but that's a reasonable assumption, IMO.
Beyond death, it can also cause sterility and people may end up with extremely expensive IVF surrogacy pregnancies etc.
“Approximately 0.6 percent of women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer at some point during their lifetime, based on 2021–2023 data” [1].
Given “reports of serious health issues after HPV vaccination were consistently rare—around 1.8 per 100,000 HPV vaccine doses, or 0.0018%” [2], a woman suffers a 300x higher hazard (assuming we measure a serious vaccine reaction as being equivalent to cancer, which is silly) from going unvaccinated.
> How many people actually die of cervical cancer before age 30?
4,462 young women under the age of 30 died of cervical cancer in 2022 worldwide [3].
[1] https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/cervix.html
[2] https://www.cancer.gov/news-events/cancer-currents-blog/2021...
[3] https://gco.iarc.who.int/today/en/dataviz/pie?mode=populatio... Mortality, cervix uteri, females, 0 to 29
4,462 out of the whole population (of women etc.).
Would you subjectively describe that number as "almost zero"?
Sure. If the only effect were on under-30s, this wouldn’t be a great vaccine. What 5,000 people is good for, however, is confidently measuring decline in a cohort. Zero deaths, even against a baseline of tens, strongly implies this should cross into the tend or hundreds of thousands over the next decades in populations that keep vaccination rates up.
Also, no need to post snarkily about LMGTFY. TFA should have included the base rate, and the fact that it didn't signals that it's not much of a reduction. It also signals that the journalist who wrote it is more in it for clicks than conveying accurate information.
Are there other sources that show data going back to the 1970s? Probably! I didn't go searching for them. I looked at what was linked above and saw there were very few. As I said, the Guardian journalist didn't include a base rate, which surely would have been included if it bolstered the argument.
EDIT: I just scrolled down further and saw that even the chart that shows trends over time (which I hadn't seen before, having stopped scrolling earlier) doesn't support your point. It shows there were roughly .2 deaths per year per 100k. Not having any deaths in 20-24 for 3 years is not a statistically significant difference, I would imagine, than the .2 figure. Also, there are undoubtedly other cancer-related advances that have made it less likely that a young woman would die of any kind of cancer.
And the data regarding under-30 deaths is muddled because the next bucket up is 25-34, and we don't know what it is up to 29.
Lastly, at the bottom there's this disclaimer, which makes it even harder to tell what's going on with small numbers:
> Note: Non-zero counts of 5 or less are suppressed and presented as 5.
If you have another source, please feel free to share. What we've seen so far (nothing in TFA, nothing of import in the commenter's linked data) isn't remotely compelling.
Please stop with the ad hominem business, which is frowned upon by the HN guidelines (I see you're new here).
It is not ad hominem to point out you don't search and you don't understand.
This is specifically against the guidelines, notably these lines:
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Please stop registering accounts to break the guidelines with. You know what is expected here.
From the article:
“We estimate that since its introduction [in 2008], HPV vaccination has prevented nearly 200 young women from dying from cervical cancer in England.”
This is an estimate of 200 total of any age total across 18 years. The article doesn't say 3300 die each year, 3300 are diagnosed each year.
> Between 2020 and 2024, no cervical cancer deaths were recorded in women aged 20 to 24 - the first time that had happened over a five-year period.
> Without vaccination, around 23 deaths would have been expected.
Note the first chart in the link showing the historical trend for the 20-24 cohort since 2000 plumetting from 25 to 0.
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 30.
Why would you assume that when presented with a study that tracks with long standing belief in the medical community that the HPV vaccine works?
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
Nope.
Gen Z rather famously is not having a lot of sex despite all the scary STDs not being as scary as they’ve been historically.
The expected timespan for the benefit of this cure to dissipate would be in the decades.
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 associated with STDs, up until the point that the vaccine knocked out the strain of HPV that was causing it.
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.
>* I'd rather my child wait until their immune system is more developed*
At what age is the immune system fully developed?
If kids are getting HPV before their teens, the solution is not vaccination ...
I completely understand there are some parents who will ignore this idea out of ideology or other non data and risk driven mental models, but am confident this cohort continues to shrink generation over generation. The cost of this will be cancer incidents that could’ve been avoided, but humans will human, so it is what it is. “Better luck next generational cohort.”
(day job is risk management, I get paid to assess and quantify risk, this is just another risk exposure to quantify and manage; my kids get all of their vaccines as soon as they’re eligible for them, no hesitation, no regrets)
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?
Vaccines represent a calculated risk.
Maybe he's raising his daughter in a culture that doesn't celebrate hedonism and massive numbers of casual sexual partners, effectively reducing the risk of HPV-induced cervical cancer to near-zero, no magic potion needed.
The math doesn’t math on the decision not to get the vaccine unless you know for a fact that you’re going to have an anaphylactic reaction. The risk of cancer is far higher if you choose to take the alternative risk.
I know for the Covid vaccine I had to sit for an hour to make sure of something not happening.