After you define “a lot” you can multiply it by 10% because that is the percentage of women who’s immune system doesn’t take care of it.
If you think this is a good idea then give it to your children.
Who is finger-wagging? I don’t even know what you mean by that.
Well, it’s good of you to want the vaccine tested before I am forced to give it to my kid.
And BTW, my objections have nothing whatsoever to do with religion…you are the only one who has brought religion into this.
If a kid is old enough to drive a car, they are old enough to know to put on a seatbelt.
Does that same logic apply to measles, mumps, polio? Why are they different?
Aren’t we talking about 11 year-olds?
The finger-wagging is in the “if you are abstinent, you can’t get this!” brigade.
Because “we” don’t want it. YOU want it. YOU can have it, along with every other preventative shot. Knock yourself out.
I’ve lived long enough to know drug companies rush their product to market. I could easily have been killed by a drug I was taking. I was fortunate enough to recognize the danger before it was taken off the market. It was approved by the same FDA who expedited the shots we’re talking about.
This is a drug that affects 10% of sexually active women. If you think this is necessary for an 11 year old girl then go for it. Leave my family out of the guinea pig pool.
If I have to worry about my 11 year old having sex, then I have a lot more to worry about than HPV.
As for the second part, the point isn’t about abstinence, at all. It’s levels of risk.
They’re different because they can be contracted in school. This is a behavior specific disease. While I’m sure there’s an 11 year old girl having sex in school “somewhere” on the planet it’s not enough to warrant shots for it.
That’s exactly it…HPV is never going to run rampant through a 5th-grade classroom.
There are two different arguements here. The first is that the vaccine shouldn’t be mandatory until we are sure it’s safe. The second is that it should never be mandatory. Sarahfeena is arguing the second. Which are you arguing?
Way more than 90% of people have immune systems that fight off chicken pox. For that matter, measles and mumps are passing things for most people. Do you object to those vaccines being mandatory? Why is that different?
But it does run rampant through high schools and colleges. If they changed it to where you had to have an HPV vaccination to attend high school (and assuming further testing revealed it to be safe), would you be comfortable with that?
Then don’t get it. Sign the affidavit and opt out. I’m sure a lot of Texans will welcome the chance to help protect their daughters from a common reproductive cancer.
Should poor women die because we didn’t protect them as little girls and they grew up and later engaged in normal adult activities?
Polio, btw, only affects one in 200 people who get it seriously. Should we stop vaccinating against it? You can’t extrapolate from your own personal experience with the FDA and use that to argue that it applies in all other circumstances.
Well, I certainly think it’s more appropriate than for an 11-year-old, but the definition of “run rampant” is a little different when it comes to an STD than an airborne disease. There is still no chance of catching HPV simply by attending school. So, no, I would not like to be forced to have my child vaccinated for such a disease.
I would certainly never suggest that the vaccine should not be available, along with plenty of public-health information about why it is a good idea.
Polio is easily spread person-to-person, so it is inherently different from HPV. People literally feared going out in public due to the risk of contracting it from casual contact.
The vaccine is supposed to be given before onset of sexual activity. A casual look for statistics didn’t tell me anything, but if I remember correctly it’s something like 40-50% of girls have their first sexual activity before they are 17.
You can’t tell by looking at a room full of girls which of them will be sexually active at 12, or 14, or 16. The longer you delay a vaccine like this, the more girls will be unprotected by it–and the younger the girl, the more likely, I would guess, that whatever sex she’s having isn’t “safe” at all.
A lot of the girls who start sex extremely young also have other issues in their lives that increase their risks for not getting good medical care including having this vaccine available to them electively.
You’re going to have to back up your numbers or withdraw the comparison on that basis.
Yes, you are right that 2 arguments are being made. Just as the statistics run in 2 different behavioral groups. Again, there is nothing stopping you from inoculating your 11 year old if you think its necessary. When an AIDS vaccine comes out you can be the guinea pig for that too. OR, you could wait until the people who are most at risk take it first. NOT 11 YEAR OLDS.
This is a behavior-specific disease with a low mortality rate. It poses little risk to 90% of the people who contract it and zero risk for people who do not engage in the behavior.
The 11 year olds are the ones who have the most to gain from the vaccine. This is a disease that kills thousands of women each year. Why is it so awful that we try to save them before they grow up?
Hep B is also often sexually transmitted yet I believe the vaccine is also given to babies and often required for school admittance. Should we stop using that vaccine as well because of the sexual component to transmission?
Bull pucky. 11 year olds are not at risk. And Hep B does not require sex for transmission nor do babies have sex. Your argument makes no sense.
You want me to back up the claim that fewer than 10% of the people that get chickenpox die from it?
I am confused. There is the “not a guinea pig” arguement and the “never my kid” arguement. Clearly you are making the former–which I tend to agree with. Are you also making the latter?
How many people are perfectly celibate? For life? It’s probably pretty close to the number of people that never leave their house at all, and so not at risk from polio, either.
Please clarify your claim.
Is it your claim that there are no sexually active 11-year-old girls, whether willing or unwilling?