Latest HPV vaccine info (little girl forced vaccine)

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There are clearly negative externalities....if YOU get sick, I am more likely to get sick. And if you want to make the 'voluntarily allow' argument, then the negative externality is that there are now fewer girls I can [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

cervical cancer is not contagious. either you didn't read my posts or you don't have a basic understanding of market failure and externalities. based on your last sentence, i would say the latter is true at the very least.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on...now you are just objecting to the facts in order to make your point.

First - cervical cancer is effectively contagious to the extent it is viral in origin. There is no rationale for distinguishing between the cancer itself and the virus in this case.

Second - A negative externality is a cost incurred by someone outside the transaction. The transaction in this case is a vaccination. The refusal of a girl to be vaccinated increases the prevalence of a disease. The increased prevalence of the disease increases my odds of contracting it. I know you understand this. You don't really think that vaccinations don't have any value beyond the recipient, do you?

If you still need help, google "vaccine externality".

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
First - cervical cancer is effectively contagious to the extent it is viral in origin. There is no rationale for distinguishing between the cancer itself and the virus in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. You're assuming a lot of things that aren't true. First, that all cases of the cancer are caused by HPV, second, that the relevant HPV strains always result in cancer, third that there is no useful general distinction between the virus and the cancer it eventually causes (should we not distinguish between HIV and AIDS, either?), and finally that treatment doesn't differ between the cancer and the virus.

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]

Come on...now you are just objecting to the facts in order to make your point.

First - cervical cancer is effectively contagious to the extent it is viral in origin. There is no rationale for distinguishing between the cancer itself and the virus in this case.

Second - A negative externality is a cost incurred by someone outside the transaction. The transaction in this case is a vaccination. The refusal of a girl to be vaccinated increases the prevalence of a disease. The increased prevalence of the disease increases my odds of contracting it. I know you understand this. You don't really think that vaccinations don't have any value beyond the recipient, do you?

If you still need help, google "vaccine externality".

[/ QUOTE ]

don't tell me to google about externalities when i said in my original post that flu vaccines are an example of good that creates positive externalities because it eliminates the flu which carries negative externalities with it.

HPV IS NOT THE FLU. the only way to get HPV is via a VOLUNTARY TRANSACTION (omitting the irrelevant, and it is irrelevant for this argument, case of rape). If the costs are only carried by individuals who voluntarily engage in the transaction it is BY DEFINITION not an external cost.

PWNED.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Come on...now you are just objecting to the facts in order to make your point.

First - cervical cancer is effectively contagious to the extent it is viral in origin. There is no rationale for distinguishing between the cancer itself and the virus in this case.

Second - A negative externality is a cost incurred by someone outside the transaction. The transaction in this case is a vaccination. The refusal of a girl to be vaccinated increases the prevalence of a disease. The increased prevalence of the disease increases my odds of contracting it. I know you understand this. You don't really think that vaccinations don't have any value beyond the recipient, do you?

If you still need help, google "vaccine externality".

[/ QUOTE ]

don't tell me to google about externalities when i said in my original post that flu vaccines are an example of good that creates positive externalities because it eliminates the flu which carries negative externalities with it.

HPV IS NOT THE FLU. the only way to get HPV is via a VOLUNTARY TRANSACTION (omitting the irrelevant, and it is irrelevant for this argument, case of rape). If the costs are only carried by individuals who voluntarily engage in the transaction it is BY DEFINITION not an external cost.

PWNED.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think thats quite the pwning you think it is. How is 'going out of your house' not voluntarily engaging in a transaction? You aren't going to be getting the flu if you don't leave your house.

Is it just because you think lots of sex is dirtier or immoral or somehow lower, and therefore we don't have to treat STDs are communicable diseases but instead as social diseases for degenerates?

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think thats quite the pwning you think it is. How is 'going out of your house' not voluntarily engaging in a transaction? You aren't going to be getting the flu if you don't leave your house.

Is it just because you think lots of sex is dirtier or immoral or somehow lower, and therefore we don't have to treat STDs are communicable diseases but instead as social diseases for degenerates?

[/ QUOTE ]

ZOMGWTF?

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First - cervical cancer is effectively contagious to the extent it is viral in origin. There is no rationale for distinguishing between the cancer itself and the virus in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. You're assuming a lot of things that aren't true. First, that all cases of the cancer are caused by HPV, second, that the relevant HPV strains always result in cancer, third that there is no useful general distinction between the virus and the cancer it eventually causes (should we not distinguish between HIV and AIDS, either?), and finally that treatment doesn't differ between the cancer and the virus.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't assume any of those things. "effectively" and "to the extent" encompass your caveats. For the purpose of this analysis, we can treat some subset of cervical cancers as contagious, and preventable by the vaccine. The distinctions you make are just about the numbers that go into the cost benefit analysis. Obviously your caveats are all true.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't think thats quite the pwning you think it is. How is 'going out of your house' not voluntarily engaging in a transaction? You aren't going to be getting the flu if you don't leave your house.

Is it just because you think lots of sex is dirtier or immoral or somehow lower, and therefore we don't have to treat STDs are communicable diseases but instead as social diseases for degenerates?

[/ QUOTE ]

ZOMGWTF?

[/ QUOTE ]

You only get the flu by voluntarily interacting with others. You only get HPV by voluntarily having sex with others. This isn't as significant of a difference as you seem to be making it out to be.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Of the many strains of HPV, relatively few cause cervical cancer. HPV 16 and 18, are the cause of 50% and 20% of cancers respectively. I think this is where people are getting the "70%" figure. HPV 35 and 41 both cause ~5% of cancers.

As a result of this, a quadrivalent vaccine which protects women against these 4 strains would effectively reduce the incidence of cervical cancer by 80%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the nature of statistics and their manipulation, I'll have to check on that. If anyone else would like to post on this feel free.

[PLOlover]

Btw, this is new genetically altered stuff. Things have gone wrong in the past with much simpler stuff.

http://www.sv40foundation.org/

So it's not inconceivable that the HPV shot may increase cancer rates. Just food for thought.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Btw, this is new genetically altered stuff. Things have gone wrong in the past with much simpler stuff.

http://www.sv40foundation.org/

So it's not inconceivable that the HPV shot may increase cancer rates. Just food for thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not inconceivable that HPV vaccine may cause me to develop x-ray vision and allow me to turn water into wine. Can you give me a single example of a vaccine that actually increased the incidence of its disease? Certainly, some people who got the polio vaccine got polio from their vaccine. But the overall rate of polio still went way down. And the way they make vaccines these days, genetcially modified rather than simply attenuated chemically, makes them far, far safer than they used to be.