[alistairSH]

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]

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]

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.

[JumpCrisscross]

> 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]

Indeed, Australia will be one of the first countries to eliminate cervical cancer (by 2035) due to their HPV vaccine vaccination uptake rates.

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

[Arodex]

>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]

Not according to the age-bucked histogram in the data you linked to below.