[wemdyjreichert]

HPV is elective, because activities that cause it are elective. Cancer-causing strains are transmitted largely by risky behavior, which is a choice. That is why I called it elective. Being in a room with someone with measles can cause you to get it; being in a room with someone with cancer-causing HPV cannot. It requires a conscious choice.

Edit: down-voters care to explain why I'm wrong?

[technofiend]

>HPV is elective, because activities that cause it are elective.

This is patently absurd because if nothing else it's unfortunately a fact not all exposure to HPV is elective. Did you miss the recent article about a baby born with HPV nodes on her throat that damaged her vocal cords? By vaccinating the mother and the father and preventing them from having HPV there's no chance of in-vitro tranmission to the child. Just as vaccinating for tetanus, measles mumps and rubella and all the rest building herd immunity prevents current and future generations from passing on the disease.

And regardless of your implied moral judgements preventing a cancer-causing disease is a net benefit to public health.

[wemdyjreichert]

> no chance

A 100% effective vaccination? Also, I didn't imply any moral judgement, I'm simply stating it's not as important as others.

With respect to the baby story, was that a strain which was prevented by a HPV vaccination?

I understand there is a benefit, and wasn't disputing that. All I was saying was that it was elective and less important. There is a reason it is not required for schools as MMR is, and that it is not standard.

[technofiend]

You're not implying that if people just abstained from sex they wouldn't need the HPV vaccination? That's a judgement about people having pre-marital sex, is it not? And your stance that it's "less important" is based on the idea that simply abstaining from sex prevents all HPV exposure, correct? That is not a science-based conclusion. HPV can be transmitted outside of sex by walking barefoot across a bathroom floor.

But if you want a morality-driven argument it is IMHO undeniably imperative to vaccinate the general public against disease including cancer causing disease regardless of the mode of transmission of said disease and that imperative and benefits outweigh any counter argument that simply abstaining from a given behavior lowers that risk.

If I can find the citation for the article I mentioned (I did Google for it but couldn't find it the first time) I'll happily address whether in fact it's one prevented by Gardasil, etc.

[wemdyjreichert]

> You're not implying that if people just abstained from sex they wouldn't need the HPV vaccination? That's a judgement about people having pre-marital sex, is it not?

No, because I said nothing about pre-marital anything. There is still a risk, even in marriage, though people who take only one sexual partner are less likely to contract such diseases. That's not a judgement, as I am not saying whether anything is right or wrong, it is simply a fact.

> And your stance that it's "less important" is based on the idea that simply abstaining from sex prevents all HPV exposure, correct? That is not a science-based conclusion. HPV can be transmitted outside of sex by walking barefoot across a bathroom floor.

Correct. You are correct about some varieties, none of which are currently known to cause caner.

> But if you want a morality-driven argument it is IMHO undeniably imperative to vaccinate the general public against disease including cancer causing disease regardless of the mode of transmission of said disease and that imperative and benefits outweigh any counter argument that simply abstaining from a given behavior lowers that risk.

Again, I didn't say that it was necessarily bad, I was pointing out that it was less important than MMR or other such vaccinations, an assertion by which I stand.

> If I can find the citation for the article I mentioned (I did Google for it but couldn't find it the first time) I'll happily address whether in fact it's one prevented by Gardasil, etc.

I couldn't find it through internet-searching either, which is why I made the above point.

I still maintain that a HPV vaccination is less important than other vaccinations. This is especially true for men, as the largest cancer risk by far is for cervical cancer. You are unlikely to get major traction for people being vaccinated against a disease that will most harm another at their expense and pain. Why did you take such issue with a passing remark I made as part of a broader, positive point? I am not saying anything that is wrong; the risks are there and the benefits for a large part of the population that would be required to achieve herd immunity are not.

Again, there is reason it is not standard or required. The herd immunity argument is not as relevant because it is much less important for men (especially because existing vaccines focus mostly on strains that cause cervical cancer) and so a large portion of the population will remain unvaccinated against it.

[tapland]

> I still maintain that a HPV vaccination is less important than other vaccinations. This is especially true for men

Yes. Because stopping cancers at disease spreading vectors is just silly, right?

We don't vaccinate children and give boosters when they are young (at booster time and have great immune systems) for them to not be kinda sick for a while. We do it to prevent others, who are more vulnerable, from getting really sick and/or dying.

How are you missing the simple fact that most women get the cancerous strains from men?

How can you argue that virgins having sex with anything but another virgin and having no other sexual partners for life is what is needed for non-risky behavior? Because if any one has more than one partner and that partner is allowed more than one partner we are going to have spread of cancerous strains.

Moralistic arguments are what keeps us from mass-vaccinating against HPV-strains.

Literally 2019 and arguing on the internet for abstinence only?

[hooba]

That guy is saying that 400k cases of diagnosed cancer per year is “unimportant” because apparently[1] you can just choose not to have sex. They doesn’t seem to grasp the fact that 100%[2] of the population are affected by HPV, and that cervical cancer is just 2 of the 14 strains of cancer causing HPV that we know of. Their judgement is indeed clouded by the whole “it’s a SEX thing” whether they want to admit it or not.

[1] Of course you can choose to not have sex, and many people do, but my point wasn’t literal. Abstinence is absurd, regressive, arcane, etc, and doesn’t belong in 2019 nor does it work on 2019.

[2] Just to pre-emptively cover my base against pedantic people: I’m sure that the number isn’t 100% because of genetic mutations but those are exceptions not the rule.

[wemdyjreichert]

> How are you missing the simple fact that most women get the cancerous strains from men?

This is exactly the problem. How do you plan to convince men to get vaccinated to prevent a cancer that affects women?

> Moralistic arguments are what keep us from mass-vaccinating against HPV-strains.

This is not a moralistic argument; I made no argument about what is right or wrong. What keeps that from happening is that many people who would need to do so would get little benefit. It's a positive externality.

> Literally 2019 and arguing on the internet for abstinence only?

I didn't argue for it, but there's nothing wrong with it. What's bad about that approach? It's 100% effective at preventing the spread of disease. Literally 2019 and we have super-STDs because people won't stop sleeping around. From the CDC: "Gonorrhea has progressively developed resistance to the antibiotic drugs prescribed to treat it." [0] Show me another approach that will work. Vaccine? Oh wait, we don't have one for that, and our antibiotics don't work. It's for good reason that society used to shun this sort of behavior. Promiscuous people are causing a serious public health issue because they are too lazy to keep it in their pants.

[0] https://www.cdc.gov/std/gonorrhea/arg/default.htm