Silly - poor people don’t get choices
| February 4th, 2007Brownfemipower has a really interesting post about the governer of Texas’s decision to make the HPV vaccine compulsory for all girls sixth grade or above. This would also make the vaccine available for free for those who were uninsured or whose insurance doesn’t cover the vaccine:
I’m really conflicted about the news that the governor of texas just wrote into law the requirement that all girls get vaccinated for HPV virus (the same one that causes cancer).Unlike a lot of Texans who oppose the shot, I don’t for a minute think that this shot is going to cause girls to run out and screw anything that moves. But as a parent who has had to make the decision to vaccinate my child (or refuse to, depending) for anything from ear infections to polio–I’m really wondering if this governor is writing this requirement into law because he’s some big lover of women (as a lot of the leftist blogosphere seems to be thinking), or if he’s just gotten himself some pretty pocket money from the drug companies who make this vaccination (according to the article, at least 6000$ in campaign donations).
In New Zealand there is an immunisation schedule, and immunisations on the schedule are free (see we still have some tatters of a socialised medicine system left). However, there is no requirement for parents to get their child immunised, either before starting school, or at any other time. I am a strong supporter of the HPV vaccine going on the immunisation schedule, because I believe all women have the right to protect themselves from cancer. But here, we don’t have to make any trade-offs.
As I understand it the only way a vaccine can be available to all, and publicly funded in America is if it is compulsory before a child can attend school (there are exemptions available to parents for conscience reasons). I can understand the public health argument which says that a kid must be immunised from certain infectious diseases before they start school (I don’t necessarily agree with it, but I understand it), disease can travel very quickly among unorganised children at school and this can cause an epidemic. But this logic does not apply to the HPV vaccine, HPV is a lot harder to contract than measles, so it isn’t going to spread round a school in the same way (it is clear that the vaccine is as important for later in life as it is for 6th grade, unlike other vaccines) and any genuine worry about the disease spreading would require both boys and girls to be immunised. There appears to be two reasons to support compulsory vaccination, either because your in the pay of the drug company, or you believe that it’s important that poor women get access to the vaccine (or both). Neither of these are based on genuine health concerns, which would be solved by making the vaccine compulsory.
This puts feminists in an impossible position. I’ll leave it for American feminists to discuss how they deal with this problem; I’ll just be glad that I don’t have to choose between access and choice.
February 4th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Maia, I don’t know how you do things in NZ, but in the United States one of the reason children are immunized against ‘adult’ diseases is so that they will be immunized at all. When it’s presented as simply another childhood vaccination, you get more people immunized. It’s the same reason we vaccinate children against Hepatitis B. If you figure they’ll do it when they’re sexually-active adults, well, they won’t; it’s not as though teens are going to say “Mom, Dad, time for me to get my Gardasil!” And, sadly, it’s not as though 11-to-13-year-old girls are free from worrying about sexual assault.
Unless Texas is very unusual, it allows parents to opt out of immunizations if they object.
I also doubt that Perry took a big wad of cash from Merck to do this. Merck may well have him on the payroll, but that would be for “tort reform” and anti-consumer work, not for Gardasil.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 10:15 am
This kind of confused me, Maia:
Maybe I’m missing something, but how is believing that it’s important for poor women to have the same access to vaccines as wealthier people not a genuine health concern?
This comment was written by trillian.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 10:46 am
I don’t see what’s the problem here. Why are feminists in a bind? Forcing girls (who attend public school, which is the vast majority of them) to be vaccinated as children ensures that women won’t have the opportunity to “choose” to risk cancer in the future. This seems like a uniformly positive outcome to me. Did I miss a memo on how the ability to choose to risk getting a horrible disease is an important feminist principle?
This comment was written by Elliot Reed.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 11:27 am
As I understand it the only way a vaccine can be available to all, and publicly funded in America is if it is compulsory before a child can attend school…
Not sure why you’d think that. You can get vaccines on the private market (so it’s available to all) and there’s public funding for vaccines for everyone who gets public funding for their healthcare (all poor kids).
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 11:33 am
robert;
vaccines available on the private market are only available to all in a technical sense, since some people can’t afford them
This comment was written by curiousgyrl.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Speaking about vaccinations in genral, not just the HPV issue, I tend to believe that if there’s a conflict between vaccination and choice (which I do not really believe), then vaccinations need to win, for both men and women.
By choosing not to receive a vaccination, I’m not only making a choice for myself, I’m potentially making a choice to be an infection vector for the people around me, not knowing who’s vulnerable and who’s not. Universal vaccinations are really the only way to wipe out certain diseases, and I think this is a situation where the good to society as a whole is more important than any one person’s choice.
It’s kind of an extreme situation, though.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Yes, curiousgyrl. Similarly, food is technically available only to SOME Americans. However, the fact of food stamps and soup kitchens - parallel to the fact of Medicaid and child health programs - mean that in actual fact, it is very unusual for anyone to go without.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
health care does not meet the same standard of availability in the US currently, while there is medicare/caid for the very poor, lots of people (like me) are uninsured or underinsured and cannot afford much in the way of healthcare.
This comment was written by curiousgyrl.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
I think that his issue shows the hypocrisy of many in the feminist blogosphere: they have absolutely no problem forcing parents to give their 6th grade-meaning 11 and 12 year girls-a vaccine to go to school but let someone tell them what they should or shouldn’t do with their bodies and they can’t complain loud enough. It doesn’t matter why a parent doesn’t want to get their child vaccinated against HPV because it is the right and responsibility of the parent to make choices for their child, not the state.
As Maia pointed out already, HPV is not something you get by people breathing on you so why should a vaccine be required for school attendance ?
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Robert, the fact of Medicaid does not mean that it is “very unusual for anyone to go without” health care in this country. It might have meant that back before our treasury was sacked (remember when there was a surplus? unimaginable now), but the requirements have tightened. From the CMS website:
“Apply if you have very high medical bills, which you cannot pay (and you are pregnant, under age 18 or over age 65, blind, or disabled).” [my emphasis]
You may be eligible if you are leaving welfare. Your children might be eligible if they exist. You might be eligible if you’re over 65, but then, you’re eligible for Medicare anyway, so why don’t you go get that?
I’ve been too sick to work since July of last year, I’ve had two surgeries and countless procedures and prescriptions and examinations that I have no way to pay for…you’d think I’d be the model of what Medicaid is supposed to be there for, but, uhm, there’s a war on didn’tcha know?
This comment was written by trillian.ok, /rant
Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
The most important point everyone has missed on this issue is what are the long term side effects to young girls of reproductive age??
What if in 10 or 20 years they find out it makes our girls infertile or causes them to miscarriage like the drug DES (diethylstilbestrol) that was given to women a generation or so ago. All I ask is that as parents you research what studies have been done in the long term and what are the long term side effects.
Yes it’s wonderful that the report states that it’s 90 something % effective against HVP but what potential damage can it wreck on our young girls later?? Is this really worth rushing into and making it mandatory for everyone across the board to be injected??
Why not just let every parent choice for themselves if they want their child to have the vaccine. Why should parent’s who are not yet convinced of the safety issues have to jump through whoops to op out?
We need to step back and ask ourselves if we had serious doubts about the long term safety of this vaccine to our daughter would we want to be on the other side trying to fight the government and the medical establishment because others rushed in to quickly to make it mandatory without having all the facts. It should be the responsibility of the parents who want the vaccine to ask for it and not the parent’s who don’t to op- out.
God every drug out there has side effects just watch the TV commercials the drug companies puts out and listen to the long list, many of them are deadly.
Are you really willing to gamble your daughters reproductive future on limited clinical history/data of the biological effects it may have down the road? I’m not, not till I know more.
When are we as parents going stop letting the pharmaceutical company’s and politician’s scare us into making health decisions for us and our kids without our input?
This comment was written by Marie.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
“I think that his issue shows the hypocrisy of many in the feminist blogosphere: they have absolutely no problem forcing parents to give their 6th grade-meaning 11 and 12 year girls-a vaccine to go to school but let someone tell them what they should or shouldn’t do with their bodies and they can’t complain loud enough. It doesn’t matter why a parent doesn’t want to get their child vaccinated against HPV because it is the right and responsibility of the parent to make choices for their child, not the state.”
Because people want parents to have choice in this matter for the same reason they don’t want women to have choice elsewhere: sluts who have sex must be punished. Unwanted pregnancy, cancer, it’s all good.
Even if we had as narrow a perspective as you, there’d still be no contradiction. The ‘right and responsibility of the parent’ has no equivalent in the abortion analogy, excepting perhaps the issue of parental notification. One could easily argue that bodily autonomy entails that parents do NOT have this ‘right’, as in the case of religious nuts withholding medical treatment for their child in favour of silly prayer.
The idea that the HPV vaccine should not mandatory is ludicrous. This isn’t the flu shot - this vaccine is the first of its kind, the first cancer vaccine. A new vaccine of this magnitude has never been made optional. Also, most places allow for religious exemptions for vaccinations anyway - the only reason to oppose a general vaccination program for everyone, is to prevent other people’s daughters from getting it. If you make it as difficult as possible, some people are bound to slip through the cracks, and some of them must have skanks for daughters who’ll engage in the premarital. Keep your fingers crossed.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Here’s my complaint: Why isn’t the vaccine being given to boys, as well? It would be more effective to vaccinate everyone, so that boys can’t be carriers of HPV.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Oh no I understand that, and the same happens in New Zealand, in fact most of the programmes are run through the schools. It’s just that the vaccination can only happen if it is specifically authorised by the parents, it’s an opt in not an opt out sysem (we still have pretty high levels of immunisation). It’s not the immunising kids for adult diseases I object to, it’s making it compulsory before those kids go to school.
I worded that badly - what I meant is that neither of these are health concerns that are solved by making the vaccine compulsory, it’s making it free, not making it compulsory that solves that health concern. A sixth grade girl who isn’t vaccinated is not a risk to herself, or to others, there is no reason why she shouldn’t attend school.
Incidentally I think it is young women, not their parents who should be making decisions about vaccines at that age.
This comment was written by Maia.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Cost, probably. If every girl is getting it, doubling the cost by adding every boy would have only a tiny impact on the overall effectiveness.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Incidentally I think it is young women, not their parents who should be making decisions about vaccines at that age.
In sixth grade?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Agreed completely. I believe that these vaccines should be compulsory and universal, for both boys and girls.
I don’t think that it’s a valid ‘choice’ to be a serious public health risk.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
I feel also that I should clarify that I’m not anti-immunisation, and I can’t think of a single good reason why people wouldn’t get immunised against HPV. But the same is true of pap smears, and they’re not compulsory. Just because I think a particular form of health care is a good idea, doesn’t explain why it should be compulsory before a child can attend school.
I agree with Amp as well - not vaccinating men puts unvaccinated women (who presumably are going to be the daughters of conservative christians) at much greater risk.
Robert: Sixth grade is eleven or twelve right? I think kids of that age are capable of making decisions for their own lives, and don’t think parents should be able to refuse health care for children who are old enough to be making their own decisions.
This comment was written by Maia.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Questioning Gardasil
… as someone with a little training and knowledge in biology and public health, I thought I might weigh in with a few ideas.
This comment was written by F-Words.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
They’re certainly old enough to articulate their own preferences, and parents should listen to those preferences. But the general cultural consensus, in the US at least (I think - anybody?) is that age group are still children, and parents still have final say.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Do you believe that kids that age should be able to refuse medical care against their parents wishes?
I ask because when I was 11, getting a shot scared the crap out of me, and I would have refused a tetanus shot, whether it was needed or not.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Me:
Cost, probably. If every girl is getting it, doubling the cost by adding every boy would have only a tiny impact on the overall effectiveness.
On the other hand, it occurs to me that if you’re likely to get spotty compliance (say 80%), then there would be real value to doing the other gender as well. You’d go from stopping 80% to 96% by adding another screen in the other gender. Certainly worth doing, it’s night and day in terms of outcomes.
On the principle of harm reduction, you’d want to take one gender off the vaccine once you had near-universal compliance, to reduce the side effects. But that’s something for the grandkids to worry about. (Good luck, kids! Sorry about the whole melting planet thing.)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
There was just a paper that came out last month that did a big statistical analysis on different vaccination strategies with Gardasil, and it came out that vaccinating only girls ended up being the best deal, as in disease prevented per dollar. I wrote about it here.
This comment was written by Sara.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
(I’m sorry if the comment monster didn’t eat the previous one of this and I’m double posting:)
In a way it almost makes *more* sense to vaccinate all the boys, since there’s no way (yet) to test males for HPV. Guys can’t know if they’re carriers*, so it seems important to make sure they can’t be.
*Plus, while men can’t get cervical cancer, they can get warts from HPV, which seems worth preventing.
This comment was written by trillian.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Some googling suggests that it’s not yet approved for men. I assume they put all their initial efforts into getting it approved for women because the cost/benefit ratio is so much greater. It does prevent genital warts, though, so I it’ll probably happen at some point.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
The other things to keep in mind about boy/girl vaccination is that Texas doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s surrounded by states that don’t have mandatory HPV vaccinations, so from that standpoint, I would think it’s more crucial to vaccinate absolutely everyone.
Also, if the goal is to wipe out the virus in the Americas, as we did with polio, the benefits of universal vaccination seem to outweigh the drawbacks.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
For the life of me I can’t figure out why this vaccination is any more of a “choice” issue than vaccinations for polio, measles, diptheria, whooping cough, the whole crowd. Do we ask the children if it’s OK with them? No, because they’d say, “Yikes no needles,” and there are good public health reasons for universal vaccination that outweigh, in our adult judgment, the natural fear of being stuck with a needle.
Parents have a choice on this one ONLY if they object to all vaccinations for religious reasons. We’re all hoping there aren’t too many of these folks, and that their kids will be protected by herd immunity.
So, why should feminists of all people be upset about this? If it’s the right of feminists to demand that children reject vaccination for HPV, then it follows that they have an equally good argument about polio. It’s YOUR body, right? Don’t you have the right to “choose” whether you’ll have your immune system thus altered? So polio vaccination is now suddenly a feminist issue?
Someone lost me at the curve.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Isn’t it funny to think that whatever not too good for your body is also voluminous and heavy to carry? But the reason I post this is this discussion over at Alas. Another entry shooting astray, as it so often is a case in feminist mindset (e.g. this, newer entry, about how laws on HPV vaccine oppresses poor Texan people, evidently (!!!?); and I consciously post a link to it before any comments officially appear below it). But the discussion that followed went from questioning what is good as propaganda via
This comment was written by Little White Crow.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Maia;
what percentage of NZ’ers DO get vaccinated? How does that compare to the US? Does anyone know?
This comment was written by curiousgyrl.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
There’s a goldmine of information at this site.
For DPT, the rate for 1-year olds is 90% in NZ, 96% in USA.
For measles, it’s 85% in NZ, 93% in USA.
For polio, it’s 82% in NZ, 92% in USA.
Perhaps they do it later in NZ.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Susan: The usual argument for vaccinating for things like diptheria, polio, etc., is that they’re very contagious. Mandatory vaccinations for school attendance are primarily to keep diseases that would spread easily through a student population from doing so; it’s a public health issue, as well as an academic one (sick kids means low attendance, disrupted classes, etc.). HPV, though, isn’t something a sniffly kid is going to pass along to her classmates, so it can seem disingenuous to make it a prerequisite for attending school.
An example of this kind of thinking is the meningitis vaccine, which isn’t required in many places until university, when students are in dorms. Students wouldn’t normally be at risk for meningitis in primary/secondary school, so even though meningitis is a potentially deadly disease, it’s not required to have the vaccine. In college, though, there’s a chance that an infected kid will spark an outbreak, so everyone’s got to have it.
Granted, I don’t think making the HPV vaccine mandatory is a bad idea at all, mostly because HPV could arguably be considered highly contagious once someone’s sexually active, but I see the logic behind Maia’s argument.
This comment was written by marie.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Well, sure, you’re not going to spread HPV by sneezing on someone, but in light of the studies that show that kids who make abstinence pledges are actually more likely to be sexually active, I think we have to face facts that, absent vaccination, HPV will be spread among students.
Kids aren’t going to stop having sex. We need to stop imagining that they will.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
As long as the future slut in question is my now prepubescent daughter, the decisions for what is and isn’t best for her need to be left up to the parents.
So because it’s the first of it’s kind every parent must make sure their kid gets it before the novelty wears off or something?
A vaccine for HPV is not the same thing as a vaccine for mumps or rubella which can be contacted by touch. Furtheremore, “because this is what we have always done” is not a logical reason to continue to do something. Things change.
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Thanks to everyone who answered my question. Lack of FCC approval is certainly a good reason!
Sara, thanks as well for your link. It does seem possible that the money spent on vaccine for boys might save more lives overall if spent elsewhere.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
As I said it’s not about the vaccine for me, it’s the issue of compulsory health care.
I just don’t understand how people could argue that vaccines are the sole sort of healthcare that should be compulsory. If we think the state is the best way to decide what health care is available then surely other forms of healthcare should be compulsory besides vaccinations.
Robert the vaccinations you mentioned are all on the New Zealand schedule for the under 1 years. Although the difference is unlikely to be the fact that the vaccines are compulsory to attend school, since 1 year olds aren’t in school.
Just out of curiosity is Rubella/German Measles compulsory for girls in America?
This comment was written by Maia.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
I think the problem is that if you ‘opt out’ of getting your teeth cleaned, getting your broken arm treated, or taking your insulin, you don’t actually infect the people around you with plaque, broken bones, and diabetes.
It makes sense for there to be public policy making vaccinations compulsory, because it’s a public health issue. Check out the statistics Bean posted in comment #34, especially the last one:
If there is other medical care preventing the contraction and limiting the spread of a potentially fatal disease, and that medical care is as non-invasive as a vaccination, I think it ought to be compulsory too.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Sensible, bean.
Also sensible, Myca.
In Anglo-American culture, health care is always voluntary with a few exceptions. There was a big fat fuss over quarantines back in the day, but they were upheld in the interest of limiting the spread of disease. Vaccination went through the same process. The default, for English-speaking peoples, has always been, and remains, you do NOT touch me without my consent. For medical care or for any other reason.
But we decided long ago that with a few exceptions for religious reasons (and then it has to be ALL vaccinations, not pick and choose) we will mandate vaccination against contagious diseases, in the interest of protecting other people. HPV is contagious. No quibbles on that point.
So unless you think vaccination in general is some kind of Big Wrong Violation of Someone’s Rights - and if you do think that, you’re majorly out of step, sorry - I can’t see why this vaccination should be treated differently from any other.
And how this or any other vaccination became or might become a feminist issue is quite beyond me, I just don’t get it.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
I hate that I’m technically defending the fundies here, but that’s not actually true, as much as I know it’s been repeated. Do a quick Google search on it. Recent studies have shown that while abstinence pledges do correlate with a delay in sexual activity, the kids who take them are more likely to contract an STD. And, in fact, I think that’s a more valuable lesson: sure, they’re a little helpful on the one end, but they’re a whole lot of harm on the other. It makes sense that having formally stated that you wouldn’t do something might go along with holding out for a few more years (especially with teenage peer pressure being what it is), but of course these are also the kids who have *no* knowledge about contraception and STD prevention.
To bring it back around to the point, it’s the kids of the parents who wouldn’t want their child to get this vaccine who are the most in danger, so I’m all for making it a huge pain in the ass to opt out. I don’t get the sense that anyone’s really comfortable with the idea of an absolutely 100% no exceptions compulsory vaccination (or anything else, for that matter).
This comment was written by trillian.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Bean - I’m questioning the validity of making vaccines a condition for receiving services (which doesn’t happen here). There’s no more logic to that than making screening a condition for receiving services.
To the extent that unvaccinated people are a public health issue why aren’t they actually compulsory? Why are they just required for attending public school? Why aren’t they a requirement for adults?
This comment was written by Maia.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Because with some exceptions attending school is compulsory (the vaccination requirement applies to private schools too) and it’s easier than trying to chase everybody down wheresoever. We know the kid will show up at school at 6 or so, we have them all together, and we can check records for something less than a zillion dollars.
This isn’t New Zealand. We have 300 million people here, of every description, all over the place. This is an easy way to check up on them.
The sort answer is, vaccination is compulsory, when you work it out, UNLESS you can show a religious objection.
Vaccination isn’t a requirement for adults because as a practical matter we can’t round them all up.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Maia, you still haven’t explained why vaccination is a feminist issue. Unless it’s because you think it’s a human issue and women are human? I’m totally confused by your argument, which I cannot figure out what it is.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
A vaccine for HPV is not the same thing as a vaccine for mumps or rubella which can be contacted by touch.
I am still waiting for y’all to explain to me why you are A-OK with compulsory vaccination for Hepatitis B, which is not contacted by touch and is not generally something passed around by schoolchildren.
Yet again, here are the reasons for mandatory (but opt-outable) vaccination:
This comment was written by mythago.–Herd immunity.
–Making sure that health insurance covers the vaccine and that it is available to poor kids.
–Getting everyone vaccinated long before they need it, rather than hoping that they will take care of it on their own.
Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Ah, my bad Trillian. Thank you for the correction.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
I’m not sure why nobody has mentioned this in the discussion of Perry’s motives but Texas is working on securing an investment of $3 billion dollars over 1o years to eradicate cancer. I think this could be one step in that direction. It builds political will and excitement over this initiative…and yes, it does have the side effect of will drawing more research and pharm. companies to the state.
This comment was written by Sandi.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
To the extent that unvaccinated people are a public health issue why aren’t they actually compulsory?
Because we’re free people.
Why are they just required for attending public school?
Technically, they are not required. You can opt-out. You also have to accept the consequence of that opt-out, which is usually that if there is an epidemic or public health emergency, you won’t be allowed in the school.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
The objections to this vaccine — whether by feminists or religious moralists — are nonissues and smoke screens: in terms of safety with speculations it might be dangerous or believing that it will make girls promiscuious. The primary reason for this is that it eliminates a cause for 90% of cervical cancers. The virus that causes it is everywhere and not many informed mothers would not want their daughters to have the opportunity to avoid a cancer that they’ve had a lifetime of pap tests in fear of getting. The main reason boys are not being vaccinated is primarily a public health reality: the vaccination is horribly expensive and girls are the ones who get cervical cancer so it makes since to prioritize them for protection. In fact, the costs of this is a major reason it is not more available to date:
This comment was written by Sandy.http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/02/02/cancer.vaccine.ap/index.html
Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
I believe the vaccine only works to prevent the formation of cervical cancer cells, NOT that it prevents the transmission of the virus that causes cancer. It is useless for boys for this reason.
Also, it is more effective if the vaccine is given before a female is exposed to the virus, that’s why it’s now being recommended for young girls, with perhaps a booster shot later. Articles did mention that it is also somewhat effective in women who are already sexual active.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/cervical-cancer-vaccine/WO00120
Half of the OP’s rant would have been eliminated if she had read one freaking medical article on the subject.
This comment was written by Johanna.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Mais, you are no journalist, and you did a dis-service to your readers today. Congratulations.
I suspect the primary reason the Texas gov is making the vaccine available free to those who can’t afford it is to shut up the feminists (I am one) who complained about the religious bias preventing it’s approval by the FDA.
Some people are never happy no matter what.
This comment was written by Johanna.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Making vaccinations compulsory makes sense because of the significant public interest in vaccinating a critical mass of individuals so that the disease vaccinated against is effectively stopped from spreading at all anymore. Why is that not a compelling enough reason for you?
Mass vaccinations allow diseases to be eradicated altogether, and mass vaccination is incredibly difficult to achieve if it’s not required.
This comment was written by Anacas.Report this comment to the moderators
February 5th, 2007 at 12:53 am
Johanna, the first story you link to explains clearly that Gardasil works by blocking infection from the HPV virus. No infection = virus in your system = you can’t pass it along. Immunizing boys would work just fine. (But it does make sense to immunize girls first, since they’re the ones who actually get sick.)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 5th, 2007 at 1:03 am
Johanna,
The link you provide is not particularly clear on the points you mention.
However, if you check wikipedia, you will find that you are wrong about how the vaccine works (it prevents infection, it is not a therapy), wrong about whether it is effectively used on men (it can be, although it doesn’t yet have FDA approval for use on men), and confused about why the vaccine is useful even if you are already sexually active (and therefore likely infected with HPV): the vaccine protects against 4 strains of HPV, so sexually active people may still not have been infected with all 4 strains.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
February 5th, 2007 at 1:05 am
Actually, I don’t see why it makes sense to immunize girls first (its not like there is a requirement to immunize one sex before the other sex), but I can see why Merck initially tested it on women (since they wanted to see if it prevented the formation of precancerous lesions, and that doesn’t happen to men), and so why its use on men is delayed by lack of FDA approval.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
February 5th, 2007 at 1:11 am
Actually, I don’t see why it makes sense to immunize girls first
Partial penetration coupled with visible vs. invisible
harmsbenefits.If you immunize 1000 girls and stop, you won’t solve HPV in the population, but you will have a pool of 1000 girls you can point to and say “these girls will never get cervical cancer from HPV.”
If you immunize 1000 boys, you’ve likely had the same statistical impact on the disease’s spread, but you can’t point to a pool of people who won’t get cervical cancer. They still exist - they’re the ones who would have been infected by those boys, except for the boys’ vaccinated status - but you can’t find ‘em.
It’s the same political reason we tax companies instead of consumers, when we can. Same revenue, same economic impact - but companies don’t vote, and consumers don’t understand that they’re paying the tax, so they’re not mad.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 5th, 2007 at 1:13 am
Blast. Benefits, not harms.
[Fixed! –Amp]
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 5th, 2007 at 1:56 am
“sylphhead Writes:
February 4th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
“I think that his issue shows the hypocrisy of many in the feminist blogosphere: they have absolutely no problem forcing parents to give their 6th grade-meaning 11 and 12 year girls-a vaccine to go to school but let someone tell them what they should or shouldn’t do with their bodies and they can’t complain loud enough. It doesn’t matter why a parent doesn’t want to get their child vaccinated against HPV because it is the right and responsibility of the parent to make choices for their child, not the state.
Because people want parents to have choice in this matter for the same reason they don’t want women to have choice elsewhere: sluts who have sex must be punished. Unwanted pregnancy, cancer, it’s all good.”
As long as the future slut in question is my now prepubescent daughter, the decisions for what is and isn’t best for her need to be left up to the parents.”
For all of you out there who can’t follow an argument - being able to quote Proverbs or ever having used the word ‘feminazi’, or both, is a dead giveaway - this is called dodging the argument. My argument there had no bearing on whether parents should or should not be given the choice in this matter. In fact, I started addressing that in the sentence immediately after where you cut it off. Where you quoted me, I’m afraid, was me proving that there is no inconsistency between a crazed sexual puritan force pregnancies, while also forcing vaccines i.e. giving the green light to fellow crazed sexual puritans out there to force cancer.
It IS up to the parents. By far the majority of states allow for religious exemptions for vaccinations (I don’t agree that even these should exist, but the fact is that they do exist). So if the parents wanted to, they could pull their kids out of the program. The only reason to not make this vaccination mandatory as a loose, general rule, is to prevent other people’s children from getting it. Poor people are a start.
” The idea that the HPV vaccine should not mandatory is ludicrous. This isn’t the flu shot - this vaccine is the first of its kind, the first cancer vaccine.
So because it’s the first of it’s kind every parent must make sure their kid gets it before the novelty wears off or something? ”
Huh? If you relate this sentence to the next one, which you must have read because you’ve quoted it also, you’ll have seen what my point was. Who needs computer programming, when we’ve got a machine of a reductionist here, being able to read each sentence not as part of a progression but in a vacuum. (Or break a two-part response into its constituent parts, and then quote the wrong half as it pertains to an argument.) I think even computers have moved beyond this sort of reductionism, though. About the time they left behind being sliding wood beads on a stick.
No, the significance of the fact that it’s the first of its kind, by which I mean the first cancer vaccine, isn’t that it’s a novelty. It’s that it’s essentially the first cancer vaccine in history. When was the last time a vaccine for a major disease like this - and cancer is in many ways the major disease of major diseases - was not made mandatory, and instead
“A vaccine for HPV is not the same thing as a vaccine for mumps or rubella which can be contacted by touch.”
Thanks mythago, for backing me up with the hepatitis example. As for whoever brought up the meningitis example, it is absolutely not true that meningitis does not affect children. It doesn’t affect them NOW, thanks to vaccinations and the like - which were mandatory. I think (s)he was referring to meningococcus B, a specific type of bacteria that can cause meningitis, for which vaccines are now being conducted on college students.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
February 5th, 2007 at 1:58 am
Should read: “there is no inconsistency between OPPOSING crazed sexual puritan from forcing pregnancies, while SUPPORTING forced vaccines i.e. not giving the green light to the same crazed sexual puritans out there to force cancer.”
Sentence is a mess.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
February 5th, 2007 at 2:07 am
The herd immunity doesn’t apply in this case, there will be no herd immunity to HPV, because even at best only half the population will be immune.
As for the others this is where New Zealand does it differently. You can still run an immunisation programmes through schools and not make it compulsory to attend school (takes care of your last point). You can provide immunisations free for all without making it compulsory to attend school.
The fact that it doesn’t work that way in the US doesn’t make it impossible.
I think making receiving services conditional on certain health care decisions is a really shitty way of getting people to undertake those health care decisions, no matter what I think of the health care decision. I think it’s true for HPV, Polio, HepB and all other vaccinations (none of which are compulsory in this country).
This comment was written by Maia.Report this comment to the moderators
February 5th, 2007 at 2:35 am
The herd immunity doesn’t apply in this case
You keep drifting between talking about required vaccination, period, and required HPV vaccination. Herd immunity applies in the case of all the other diseases against which American schoolchildren are required to be vaccinated, unless their parents state a religious or ethical objection to the process. As for HPV, I’d think that having half your potential carriers immune would limit the spread of a disease somewhat.
I think making receiving services conditional on certain health care decisions is a really shitty way of getting people to undertake those health care decisions
I think that just encouraging people to do the healthy thing on their own, especially when you’re talking about 400 million people, is a really shitty way of protecting public health. I don’t know about NZ, but in the US we have periodic outbreaks of things like measles and chicken pox in communities where people didn’t vaccinate their kids. Sometimes it’s people who are deeply distrustful of all medicine; sometimes it’s idiots who think they can free-ride off everyone else’s shots and are deeply shocked to find out that measles and whooping cough are, like, SERIOUS.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
February 5th, 2007 at 3:27 am
On the lower immunization rates in NZ for 1 year olds, the reason for the higher rates of immunization in the US is probably related to the mandatory immunization for school attendance rule.
If you take your infant to the doctor and the doctor says, “Your child should get immunized, this is the standard age to do these immunizations,” and you say, “Well, I’ll think about it,” the chance that your child gets the shots goes up if the doctor can then say, “Well, your child is going to have to get these shots before she goes to school, so why not do them now?”
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
February 5th, 2007 at 3:34 am
Robert,
The visible versus invisible benefits makes sense. And actually, with incomplete vaccination coverage, each vaccination is much more effective if the vaccinations are given to girls, since if 50% of boys get vaccinated, if the average woman has 3 sexual partners over her life, then the chance that one of them is not vaccinated is 87.5%. If 50% of girls are vaccinated, then that means that 50% of women are protected no matter who they sleep with. Also, of course, vaccination of girls protects lesbians as well as straights, while vaccination of boys only protects straights.
However, it would still be better if whatever areas are doing mandatory vaccination mandated it for boys too.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
February 5th, 2007 at 4:25 am
Mythago - you gave three reasons why compulsory immunisations were good, two aren’t necessarily true, and one doesn’t apply in this case. I don’t agree with making vaccinations compulsory to attend school, but think that most of the arguments in favour of compulsory vaccinations don’t apply in this case, because there is no her immunity, and schools are not going to be the epicentres for the disease.
People keep bringing up the fact that America has 400 million people is ridiculous when it is clear that immunisation programmes are run at the state level.
I really don’t understand why immunisation, as a public health issue, is seen as so different from so many other public health issues, such a screening. Or why people trust parents to raise children, make many complex decisions for them, but not to make decisions about vaccinations (or given that I think that children should be able to be the final decision maker in medical decisions from about age ten - why children should be able to decide whether or not to take medicine but not about vaccinations).
This comment was written by Maia.Report this comment to the moderators
February 5th, 2007 at 4:43 am
Immunization is seen as different from screening because immunizations are used to prevent contagious diseases. If you don’t bother to get screened for cancer, you may end up dying unnecessarily, but you won’t end up killing anyone else.
I agree that the 300 million people thing is a complete red herring.
On the other hand, I really don’t understand why you find an opt out system to be radically more oppressive than an opt in system.
Also, the reference to poor people in the post title also seems like a complete red herring. Most children in the US go to public schools, not just poor children. Also, the vaccination requirements generally apply to private schools as well.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
February 5th, 2007 at 5:29 am
I believe in an opt-in system becaues all other health-care is opt in. Because I don’t believe in restricting access to services on the basis compliance to government orders.
The title of this post was a reference to my understanding (that no-one has refuted) that the only way poor people were going to get access to this vaccine in America if it was compulsory (now I understand that it could be compulsory but not free, but that it would probably not be free if it wasn’t compulsory). My whole point is that that seems to me to be a really difficult position to make a decision, because of course I believe this vaccine should be available to everyone, but I don’t believe in compulsory health care.
The attitude towards contagious diseases seems to me really inconsistent (and of course in this case completely irrelevent, because half the population will continue to be able to infect people). Not screening for infectious diseases could lead to you infecting and killing someone else, but we don’t make HIV screening compulsory. There is no requirement to go to a doctor when you’re sick to find out if what you’ve got is contagious. There’s not requirement (or for many people no ability) to stay home from work if it is.
I have to say I’ve no idea where this very strong attachment to vaccinations being different from other non-emergency public health measures and compulsory comes from.
This comment was written by Maia.Report this comment to the moderators
February 5th, 2007 at 8:08 am
Maia said:
I asked this upthread, but there have been so many responses since that I wanted to ask again.
Do you believe that kids that age should be able to refuse medical care against their parents wishes?
I ask because when I was 11, getting a shot scared the crap out of me, and I would have refused a tetanus shot, whether it was needed or not.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
February 5th, 2007 at 8:31 am
I donno, New Zealand, what we do here sort of works for us, and to the (very large) extent that it doesn’t, we’re working on it.
We’ve decided over here that vaccinations are important enough to virtually require them. You think we shouldn’t do that? OK. We disagree. I personally disagree. Vaccinations have so little downside, and so much “upside” for everyone involved, including the kid vaccinated, that for me it’s a no-brainer.
We don’t ask 10 year olds for their opinion because we think, and rightly, I believe, that they aren’t mature enough yet to see the big picture. All they tend to see is the needle. There’s more to it than that. Adults understand that; children don’t. We are not yet ready, and may the day be long postponed, when we turn important decisions about public health over to children.
You don’t like it that we use school enrollment to “require” vaccination. We do it that way for reasons of ease and economy. I don’t know how or if this is done in New Zealand, but we’ve been doing this in the USA for time out of mind, and it works for us. Requiring adult vaccination would probably be wise, but we lack the ability, as a practical matter, to find every adult and check on this. We can’t even perform an accurate head-count every ten years.
Everyone thinks vaccinations should be easily available and free to those who cannot pay for them. There’s no one here, and probably no one anywhere, who would dispute that statement. How exactly we manage that in our particular situation has proven to be something of a problem, but again, we’re working on it. The currently sad state of the American health care “system” is acknowledged now by all, and is probably a better discussion for a different topic.
No one here has yet explained to me why vaccinations for HPV should be treated any differently than vaccinations for whooping cough. Both are contagious diseases with serious potential impacts on some of - not all of - the population (adults with whooping cough are in no real danger), and the vaccinations are, so far as we can tell, harmless. When the FDA decides that HPV vaccinations are safe and effective for males, they will undoubtedly be required for them too.
For the umpteenth time I ask, please to explain why any of this is a feminist issue.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
February 5th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Why doesn’t herd immunity apply in the context of HPV?
The rate of HPV transmission is so rapid once a person becomes sexually active that in order for the vaccine to have any assured benefit to that person, it must be administered prior to sexual initiation. And it is my understanding that HPV can be transmitted by sexual contact other than intercourse — though I would imagine intercourse is the mostly likely means of transmission.
Hepatitis B is the most analogous situation — we immunize infants at birth and require immunization for school attendance EVEN THOUGH there is virtually no way that a child will become infected without engaging in seriously risky activity (riskier than simply having sex), once the possibility of transmission from mother to child is eliminated (that’s why it’s given to newborns — so as not to have to test every pregnant woman for the infection — which has always seemed a little crazy to me, except that the disease does have some profound consequences if it is contracted, so even though the disease is unusual vaccination confers real public health benefits).
So in summary:
Vaccination works best for populations only if most of the population is protected, which means that mandatory vaccination is the only real way for a population to be protected (otherwise, too many free riders quickly dissipates herd immunity for those who legitimately can’t get vaccinated, like people who are HIV+). If you don’t believe me, Google articles about the rising incidence of measles in Britain, where large numbers of parents are taking advantage of their right not to vaccinate their children. Basically, some scientists believe that the rate is now so low that herd immunity no longer exists.
Which diseases are vaccinated against is largely a function of the success of R&D efforts for specific compounds. It would be even better to have a vaccine for TB or for HIV than HPV, but R&D has never been able to give us a vaccine for those diseases, at least not yet.
The vaccine for HPV is imperfect because it only protects against some and not all strains of HPV. Women still have to act as if they are unprotected, but the benefit is real, it’s just not as big as it appears to be.
One of the taboo subjects at the CDC is that the CDC often leans toward recommending (it can’t mandate) mandatory vaccination in order to ensure that companies continue to do vaccination research (i.e., so that they know that it can still be a profitable undertaking). Whether you live in NZ or USA, assuredly, you do benefit from continued research into vaccines.
Don’t knock vaccines too hard, even if you find the financial aspects a little disconcerting. It’s one of the true public health achievements of the modern age, compared to all the other vaunted medical miracles that benefit a lot fewer people and subject them to continuing, often expensive treatment and the continuing possibility of side effects.
Notwithstanding that I do plan to have my daughters vaccinated, I do think it’s a bit early to mandate HPV vaccination.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
February 5th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Another reason to make the vaccine compulsory is that it makes it guilt-free. If it’s compulsory, doctors don’t have to discuss with parents why yes, it really is a good idea and no, it will not turn your daughter into a slut. Parents who secretly think it’s a good idea but whose pastor told them it would turn their daughter into a slut don’t have to wrestle with their consciences. I would like to see it become compulsory by age 12 nationwide for both boys and girls, except of course for those who opt out of all vaccines.
Absent vaccines, something like measles will infect a lot of people obviously and quickly; HPV will do it quietly and slowly. Both are legitimate public-health threats.
The fact that the governor’s motives may not have been entirely pure (and really, whose are?) doesn’t change the value of compulsory vaccination for everyone, rich and poor.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
February 5th, 2007 at 10:26 am
To be honest, I wouldn’t even really have a problem with mandating vaccination for all children attending public school with no opt-out provision.
If you insist on choosing to be a public health risk, that’s cool, but I see no reason for us to include you in our government mandated public services.
Now, granted, this isn’t our system now, and that’s probably a good thing, but I don’t think that we’re out of line, as a society, to insist on some basic health provisions.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
February 5th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Sensible comments, Barbara, Lu.
An effective vaccine for HIV is the current Holy Grail for vaccine researchers. I am told that it is a very tough nut to crack because the virus mutates so readily. (That’s also why there is no vaccine for the common cold, and why flu shots only work sometimes.)
I am also told - I haven’t researched this - that in fact there does exist a vaccine for (most strains of) TB. The reason vaccination is not mandatory, in fact it is not encouraged, in first world countries is that so far the disease is fairly rare in those countries, and, most to the point, if you get the vaccine you test positive for TB for the rest of your life. This hampers efforts to locate and isolate the disease when it does show up. Vaccination is encouraged - WHO is trying, I hear, anyway - in countries where TB is more common. How much sense all this makes is for the more scientific than myself to worry out.
The only potential questions I can see about mandatory vaccination for HPV circle around effectiveness and safety and so forth, the very same questions we have asked ourselves about polio vaccine, measles vaccine, the lot.
We’re talking about a killer disease here. It has been shown to be related to a virus which can be passed from human being to human being. We now have a vaccine which is at least partly effective, and which can save many lives. Given that we’ve come to peace about requiring vaccination in other such situations, the problem with this one would be what again?
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
February 5th, 2007 at 11:21 am
1. To answer your question ‘way upthread, Maia, about German measles vaccinations: in the U.S., they are mandatory for everyone unless there is a health or religious objection to getting the vaccine. I had to get a booster after the birth of my second child (i.e., 12 hours after) because my titer during that pregnancy showed that I was no longer immune. My husband had to get a titer done after mine showed up negative, and if his had come back negative, he would have had to go get a booster immediately.
2. School is actually the 2nd catch basin for vaccination in many states. The 1st catch basin is daycare/preschool. Vaccinations must be up-to-date and on-schedule for children to be allowed to go to any licensed daycare facility or preschool in my state, which actually caused a problem with one of my kids because we had to delay giving the chickenpox vaccine (the kid kept getting ear infections just before we’d go in for the vaccine, and you’re not allowed to get the vaccine if you have a fever).
3. For colds and similar illnesses, children do not have to see the doctor to return to school, because while contagious, they are generally not serious or potentially life-threatening to the general school population. My kids’ school has a rule that children must be fever-free for 24 hours before returning to school, but they generally do not need a doctor’s note unless they are out for more than 3 days, which is a yardstick for seriousness of the illness. Exceptions include parasitic infestations, eczema, shingles, and contagious diseases like scarlet fever that don’t have immunizations available - these generally a doctor’s note no matter what in order for the child to return to school.
4. I will probably get the HPV vaccine for my daughter when she turns 12, but I would feel a lot better about it if it were not so new. I am one of those people who distrusts the new drug on the block automatically, though. I remember when the chickenpox vaccine was still relatively new, and there were reports that children who had gotten the early version of the vaccine were more susceptible to shingles. Friends worried that giving their children the vaccine would doom them to a lifetime of shingles outbreaks. But now that does not seem to be the case, so probably the HPV vaccine will turn out to be an equally good thing - it’s just that we won’t know for sure for years and years to come.
This comment was written by Original Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
February 5th, 2007 at 11:27 am
I took both of my preteen daughters to get the Gardasil vaccine. No qualms about it, at all. I think it’s hysterical how we (rightly) excoriate the religious right about not listening to science when it comes to evolution and global warming, but then when it comes to vaccination, we all go back to our inherent “well, I feel it’s icky and scary” standpoint instead of relying on real data. Vaccination is THE public health success of the 20th century. It’s about as non-controversial in the scientific community as, well … evolution and global warming.
This comment was written by Suzanne.Report this comment to the moderators
February 5th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
I think that’s an excellent, excellent point, Lu. Plus, the only trait more American than wingnuttery is laziness (I’m being half-facetious there, but only half), so even some parents who do somewhat oppose protecting their daughters from cancer will probably go ahead an vaccinate them anyway just because it’s easier than opting out.
The thing that sticks in my mind about HPV when I hear all this debate is that, if I’m recalling the numbers correctly, 85% of women (and who knows how many men) will be infected with some strain at some point in their lives. The always-absurd slut-shaming seems all the more ridiculous given that it’s the minority that won’t be affected. Do these people also think that Pap smears encourage promiscuity? Or do they just not realize that they’re looking for the same thing that they don’t want to vaccinate against?
Also, I’d like to second (or fifth or eighth or however many times it’s been said now) the statement that children should not be entrusted with their medical decisions. Rare is the eleven year old kid who would voluntarily receive a shot, so no one would get vaccinated for anything.
This comment was written by trillian.Report this comment to the moderators
February 5th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Vaccination is THE public health success of the 20th century. It’s about as non-controversial in the scientific community as, well … evolution and global warming.
Ever talk to a parent of an autistic child? Do a search on “vaccine autism” and you’ll find plenty of controversy.
I’m not arguing against this. If my kids were home I’d have (at least her) get this. But as this gets more well known you’ll see a lot of people who aren’t conservative Christians say to themselves, “Let’s see this be out in the market for a while and get some history” before they go for it.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
February 5th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
I was wondering a bit about the claim immunizing women only wouldn’t result in herd immunity in this particular case. I know that for most diseases it would not. But in this particular case, the contagion path is, for the most part, man->woman->man->woman and so on. In contrast, for measels, the path is person->person->person.
So, if a very, very large fraction of women were immunized — say 95% of women– it seems to me you might end up with pretty decent herd immunity from a practical standpoint. At the very least, it’s not reasonable to estimate the level of heard immunity by assuming the herd immunity level would be comparable to the level one would get with a 47.5% immunization rate for non-sexually transmitted infectious diseases.
This comment was written by Lucia.Report this comment to the moderators
February 5th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
As I understand herd immunity, if 80% of the population has immunity, for all intents and purposes, the disease will be eradicated within the entire population. Although it would be decades and decades before that could happen with the strains of HPV that are immunized against with Gardasil, I fail to see why it wouldn’t be feasible in theory.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
February 5th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
So many of the arguments here come down to the fact that people don’t trust people to make good decisions about vaccines, so they believe the state should make the decision for them. I disagree with that analysis - fundamental to my political positions is trusting people in the decisions they make - but can understand where it’s coming from.
Just to clarify my position on children’s consent to medical procedures. People appear to think that arguing that children should actively consent to medical procedures means that they should make the decisions alone. That’s not what I was saying. I think the current situation where parents make the decisions until the child is 18 is ridiculous, and obviously not how it works in practice. I think there should be a formalised staging in process of a child taking responsibility for their own medical care. I think from about age ten the child’s signature should be on the dotted line (possibly also with their parents). If there is a choice between two procedures they are the person who should make those decisions. And if a procedure is refused it should be the child, not the parent who is making that decision.
In my experience 10-12 year olds take any decision they have to make very serious (because they get to make so few). You can’t realistically give medical attention to an eleven year old who doesn’t agree. I’m saying that that process should be formalised and children should be taken seriously.
Barbara herd immunity doesn’t apply in the cont