You can't infect anyone yet, at least
Some estimate up to 99% of cervical cancer cases are caused by HPV, but having HPV causes has a lifetime cancer risk of 0.6%.
I agree we have a preventative treatment for a cancer and not everyone takes it. What conclusions do you draw from this point as it relates to this thread (or in general)?
Personally, I'm surprised that uptake is so fast for a relatively new and elective treatment. Even moreso when considering that it addresses a rare disease that effects people many decades later.
https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/partners/outreach-hcp/hpv-coverage.h....
This isn't surprising because the CDC shows adoption going up a few percent per year. This year over year increase is more or less what you would expect given we are still in the adoption phase of this new medicine.[2] Eventually this increase will stall out with some people refusing to use it, but we aren't there yet.
If it's proposed as a vaccine for cancer that you don't have yet, there would be more hesitancy.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009174352...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/13/well/live/hpv-vaccine-chi...
"that parental intent not to vaccinate their adolescents against HPV rose from 50.4 percent in 2012 to 64 percent in 2018. Many parents resisted the vaccine despite their doctors’ recommendations, Dr. Sonawane said. Ironically, parents were most resistant — at 68.1 percent — to vaccinating girls, the very group for whom this vaccine was initially developed to prevent cervical cancer."
https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/parents/vaccine-for-hpv.html
When in a doctors office with a cancer diagnosis, people will take it.
When my 15 year old son went to his new doctor earlier this year, they immediately strongly suggested it as a very good idea.
My experience suggests that it was something the doctor's office wasn't actively pushing -- they made it known that it was available without me having to ask, but it was presented very much as a "do you want to?" thing, rather than as part of the "of course you'll be getting this" set of earlier vaccines.
Then it was sort of a pain to actually get, because it required an extra doctor visit for the second shot in the series.
I can see all that adding up to hurting uptake.
That's a bit late.
HPV is most commonly known for being a cause of cervical cancer, but it can lead to other sorts of cancer that men are also prone to. HPV vaccines are good for everyone!
Seems akin to "I'm going to forbid my child from wearing a seatbelt to ensure they pay attention while they drive."
Source: have a trumpy FIL.
This immunotherapy is cotemporal with "traditional" immunological and chemo treatments, so the mortality calculus is different: "Suffer potential unknown side-effects of an mRNA therapy or content myself with that 'three months' number the doctor gave me?"
So this misses the full Covid-19 vaccine critique and provides a disturbing slant instead of the proposed hazards. The specific critique is that the protein chosen in C19 vaccines is in fact dangerous in its own right.
mRNA as a mechanism of delivering a protein to the body is anything but an empirical debate -- the tech works, and works decently well for risk profiles who have no other option. The philosophical / duty of care debate is whether or not the risks associated with mRNA therapies / vaccines are worth the inherent risks.
Equating Covid 19 for the common person as the same as cancer for the common person doesn't appear to balance. If C19 had cancer mortality rates, this pandemic would look drastically different -- with far few people in the room.
Cancer scares people in a way that COVID doesn't.
Many of the anti-vaxxers do not perceive COVID as a credible risk, so they let their contrarian/anti-authoritarian/"don't tell me what to do" instincts kick in, because none of it actually matters to them in their mind.
When faced with a form of cancer that has a <10% survival rate they will shut up and take the mRNA treatment in a heartbeat.
If the risk of hospitalization or death was 10%? 30%? Almost everyone would want the vaccine except the real hardcore anti-vaxxers. You wouldn't have to mandate or otherwise coerce people to take something if the threat was that credible generally. Few resist the smallpox vaccine, for example.
If the odds were that good for the lottery I'd be playing.
"For unvaccinated hospitalization risk, 2% of Democrats responded correctly, compared with 16% of Republicans. In fact, 41% of Democrats replied that at least 50% of unvaccinated people have been hospitalized due to COVID-19."
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/354938/adults-estimat...
But yes, on the other side of it, if a 60 year old obese person isn't taking the vaccine, they're misinformed too. Their risk benefit analysis is off.
"Nearly 40% of American adults aged 20 and over are obese. 71.6% of adults aged 20 and over are overweight, including obesity." (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2017-2018; Harvard School of Public Health, 2020).
So 71.6% of American adults are at elevated risk for severe Covid. Because even just being overweight increases your risk of hospitalization if you get it.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e4.htm
So IF the unvaccinated have the same demographic profile as general US adults, then 71.6% have an elevated risk of hospitalization if they catch Covid because they are overweight and unvaccinated.
You will notice that there is no political affiliation in that conclusion. Also, risk is not actuality, and levels of comorbidities vary from person to person, so population risks and personal risks are different.
Now, as to how many have actually had covid and been hospitalized I will admit that there is a perception difference based on political affiliation. But for that data, I will respect the actual statistics, not my perception based on displayed attitudes.
Basically, the problem is that a lot of adults think that they aren't fat, or don't know they have high cholesterol, etc. and are declining the vaccine because they are 'healthy'.
https://www.the-hospitalist.org/hospitalist/article/238272/c...
It's a sad day for honest debate when being skeptical of an item gets you labeled as being "anti" an entire category of things to which that item belongs.
To be clear I don't think your question is expressly stating that anti-vaxxers are a big concern, but if there's a genuine concern that a vaccine is well established to work, an incredibly large majority of people take it in the U.S. so I don't think the concern is warranted.
It's also clear that the authorities are not pushing this meme more than the people. Which is also a characteristic and one where some in charge are capitalising on.
Interestingly its also fear and worry at the root of this is the same as the "antis" and their scapegoat is those above us. Others capitalise on this too.
Antivaxxers are real, downplaying the risk they pose is dangerous.
Over-amplifying the risk is dangerous. Wales, according to [1] has had well over 94% MMR vaccination since 2012. The herd immunity threshold for measles is >95%, which is very unique to measles since it's so much more contagious, but to blame anti-vaxxers for that incomplete vaccinated status seems like a likely wrong conclusion. Getting a 100% willing population to 100% vaccination status is _hard_. I see anti-anti-vaxxers everywhere, what I don't see is any evidence or solutions coming from that group, just people whining that "the others" are causing problems.
1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/380453/mumps-measles-and...
The problem is not getting vaccination rates close to 100%, but actually staying there when people stop seeing why it is important to vaccinate. It's entirely a communication problem, and legitimizing antivaxxer stances makes the problem worse.
Do you believe what I've posted legitimizes antivaxxers stance? If so, what specifically have I said that does such?
Speaking of the dangers of over amplifying the fear, MMR vaccines have been delayed 6+ months for 2 million kids according to the UN if I recall correctly. This is due to disproportionate fear being spread around covid. Measles is hands-down worse than covid for kids. This is the effect of scaring everyone away from hospitals rather than having rational risk/benefit analysis conversations.
edit: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
sorry it was the WHO who said 3 million more than the previous year missed MMR in 2020 which was the largest increase in two decades.
>> but to blame anti-vaxxers for that incomplete vaccinated status seems like a likely wrong conclusion
It isn't the wrong conclusion! Press-spread antivax paranoia post-Wakefield was directly responsible for rates falling under safety levels! The reasons it hit harder in Wales are due to additional factors (lower educational levels, higher isolation, higher culture of distrust of (English) authority, etc etc), but there is absolutely no question that the fall in vaccination rates was due to the dawn of antivaxxers.
That MMR vaccines have been delayed as result of lockdowns is tragic and should absolutely be fixed as soon as possible, of course. That's the case for any health-related procedure, we know the logistical impact of lockdowns has been massive - my son finally managed to get a dermatologist appointment in England after 10 months of waiting... The only way out of this state of things is to take Covid19 vaccination rates as close to 100% as possible, so that we can really turn it into "just a flu". Antivaxxers are an obstacle to this and should NOT be legitimized in any way, if we want to go back to a situation where we can safely prioritize other illnesses again.
agreed, but also anti-anti-vaxxers are an obstacle that sensationalize and demonize rather than converse and educate.
> The only way out of this state of things is to take Covid19 vaccination rates as close to 100% as possible
This is incorrect. We have 200+ viruses that are endemic and likely can't be eradicated with vaccines (at least not with modern tech). Even if the vaccine was effective at preventing transmission (it isn't, if it has any benefit it's marginal and the U.S. federal government even went on record during a court hearing admitting just as much) it certainly has no hope of preventing transmission in all of the many animals that are transmitters.
> if we want to go back to a situation where we can safely prioritize other illnesses again
This is the danger I'm talking about, there is no "going back" - we should be safely prioritizing every disease at all times _especially_ during a time of mass panic. No ones fear or mass panic should determine how we approach medicine, that should be obvious to everyone, but fear kills rationality. Someones fear of covid, for example, should never take precedence over someones cancer. Being more scared of something does not merit getting priority for anything.
I'm sorry but I strongly disagree there, and I don't think we'll ever be able to reconcile our views in that area. With all due respect to cancer patients everywhere, civilization can survive with current rates of cancer much better than it can survive with high ratios of unchecked covid. And that determines priority.
> This is incorrect. We have 200+ viruses that are endemic
You are either repeating a talking point or failed to read my comment. The point of vaccination is to remove the likelihood of death and severe outcomes, turning covid into a flu, not necessarily to eradicate it. If we push vaccination rates high enough, this is achievable; but we can only do that if antivaxxers are not legitimized. Once covid really is just a flu, then we're more or less back to 2018.
I hate to be "you have to choose a side", but when it comes to health issues that can dramatically affect the whole population, I get draconian. Every time you contest or argue against the vaccination effort, willingly or unwillingly you are on the side of antivaxxers.
Well, at least you're willing to admit your logical fallacies that have lead to your authoritarian opinions.
That isn't a small amount.
If you don't think this has/will cause at least minimal problems you are mistaken.
Personally, I think this vaccine has done a great deal of harm reduction and I'm glad people in at-risk categories have access to it, but pretending there is some big social consequence for these people not taking the vaccine is ill-informed. They might be hurting themselves, but literally no one who is alive for the next few years will escape being attacked by covid. Because no one will escape covid, there is no logic behind suggesting people refusing vaccinations is a social consequence. It's a personal consequence alone.
we live in a society. basically all choices impact others.
https://www.kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/trends-in-overa...
Yes I can. They use a disproportionate share of hospital resources by refusing to get vaccinated. And some hospitals were dangerously full this year (and last year). I know someone who died because their non-emergency procedure was pushed back because of hospital conditions.
And this ignores the vaccines' likely impact on virus spread or costs.
I'm sorry to hear this, but let's be clear about what happened here. They did not die because hospitals were full. Even the previous NY mayor has said multiple times their hospitals were never too full to take in patients.
I also lost a couple people due to hospital failures. I don't blame anyone, it was and is a tough period, but if we did not instill mass panick we wouldn't be in the situation we are in today. Hospital capacity is _shrinking_ nationally. For the first time in decades medical staff employment was on a decline. In 100 years historians will look back and baffle at how a medical emergency made the US decrease our capacity in healthcare across the board. A virus did not make this happen. Panic made this happen. My partners dad died many decades before he should have because he got really bad covid, was put on a ventilator, cleared covid and was recovering for a couple of weeks and then the ventilator failed and the nursing was so understaffed they didn't check on him until he was already brain dead.
There is no doubt in my mind that had that hospital not decreased the wages of some 30% of their staff (leading to a huge exodus of workers) because society demanded they shutdown profitable procedures - my partners dad would no doubt be alive and healthy today.
This particular hospital never approached max capacity even once during 2020. This was purely the repercussions of panic affecting healthcare.
1. This is article is describing a therapy, not prevention. Your sensibilities will be influenced if you already have a deadly illness.
2. This would be a choice and not a mandate, like chemotherapy is today. Or at least I imagine it would be.
I'm sure many anti vaxxers who've died from covid would've accepted the vaccine on their death beds if it improved their chances of fighting the disease at that point.
With something like this, I would expect it to go through those trials and see that we'd have some sort of safety data and further research.
Again, I am actually very positive about mRNA therapies—I just want them to be fully tested and vetted first.
Let's face it: anyone who takes it is participating in an experiment. It may be that the risks are OK for a lot of people. But obviously there is more to discover.
The problem with misinformation is that it took me considerably longer to disprove this bullshit than it did for you to type it.
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-appr...
https://www.pfizerclinicaltrials.com/find-a-trial?search=Cor...
If they did, some places would likely be completely free of COVID. However, they are not.
They lessen the effects but many people have pointed out that this whole thing is entirely new territory: We have a flu "vaccination" but the flu us just something people learn to live with.
We have never——ever——forced mass vaccination against a viral respiratory infection. Because we cannot vaccinate it away. COVID is here to stay and I (personally) don't think anything will happen until people contract it enough to get a good natural immunity and then things will go away.
Cynical me says it would.