My penile warts, your herpes,
My syphilitic sore,
Your monilial infection
How I miss you more and more
Your dobies itch my scrum-pox
Ah, lovely gonorrhea
At least we both were lying
When we said that we were clear
– Monty Python
:mad: Blasphemer!
All things scabbed and ulcerous
All pox both great and small
Putrid, foul and gangrenous
The Lord God made them all!
You will get rid of HPV no matter how many you vaccinate. It’s very sturdy skin/object virus. You may get rid of the sexually transmitted part, but it’s unlikely, too. It’s just a variant and one I expect will mutate.
There is a reasonable alternative, too. HPV sites which causes cervical cancer can be detected and dealt with pretty easily and with a very high rate of success.
Ah screw it, nobody’s listening anyway. Heck, odds are everyone on this thread has HPV, possible multiple variants, right now. This thing has degenerated into an MPSIMS thread.
Fine, if you want to address the OP: How does the sex aspect make HPV vaccination controversial?
Does anyone disagree with this as stated?
Uh, I do. Nothing is 100% safe and nothing is free. The sexual nature is irrelevant. The fact that these are not neccessary to any kind of herd immunity and that these diseases have other treatments is definitely a nontrivial point.
I am not so sure, but I think I disagree.
The incidence of gonorrhea is below 100/100K and of syphyllis is below 15/100K. Some regions see no syphillis at all. Both are treatable illnesses. Neither disease is caught by casual contact.
It might be a reasonable decision to have a shot to help further reduce risk of catching those diseases, but given the low rate of getting the diseases, and the mortality rate associated with each of them, the availability of treatment and of fairly easy options to avoid exposure, forcing everyone to get a shot, whether they want one or not, would be hard to justify.
Forcing a choice on everyone requires an overwhelming case of the greater good to offset the cost of removing the freedom to choose. It should be a high bar. That high bar is met for most of the required vaccines and we make a mistake when we require a vaccine by lowering it to mere “good ideas.”
Not sure how to Google this but I’ve been told by more than one medical professional that the vaccination is suppose to be more effective when given to pre-teens.
If this is not true I see no reason to expose young girls to a new vaccination. It sure seems like thee was a massive push for this product. Maybe a couple of years of monitoring side effects before we give it to 12 year olds
Well it is highly ineffective if given after someone already has caught the bug. Giving the vaccine well before there is any significant risk of exposure is therefore much more effective.