Say Anything Blog

It’s also worth noting that nobody knows if the HPV vaccine will confer immunity beyond five years, but they’re recommending that girls get the vaccine by age 14 for a disease that is most often diagnosed at age 28.  So a mandate might not even be marginally effective.

Let me add some fuel to that fire: Guardasil only targets two HPV variants that cause 70% of cervical cancer cases.  Only 11 year-old girls in public schools can and will be mandated to take this vaccine.  But let’s assume that this ridiculous policy some how magically transmutes 100% immunity to all of the population.  According to the a CDC study cover 1996 to 2002 only 12,085 of cervical cancer were reported in 2002.  That’s only .0008% of all females in the U.S.  Now, let’s further assume that the 70% of cervical cancers covered by Guardasil is evenly distributed among survivors and non-survivors.  That would save only 2,766 lives if the 2002 mortality figure of 3,952 remained steady.  I know that 2,766 lives are nothing to dismiss, but let us put that in perspective.  There are roughly 153,000,000 females in the U.S. (~300,000,000 in population of which 51% are female according to the 2000 census).  That means we would have to require 100% inoculation for saving, at best, .0002% of females in the U.S.  What makes this even more ridiculous is that the same CDC study showed cervical cancer incidents decreasing by 4.5% and mortality decreasing 3.8% during the study period.

It would make much more sense to require flu vaccinations for school age children.  First, influenza is casually communicable in a school setting, unlike HPV (unless the school is teaching Group Sex 101).  Second, influenza caused approximately 36,000 deaths per year between 1990 and 1990 according to the CDC.  Assuming that the mortality rate for influenza is evenly distributed between males and females, it is 4.5 times higher than the mortality rate for HPV.

Strongly disagree: vaccines work best when they are used en mass to deny a disease a resivour (pretty sure I spelled that wrong) from which to propagate. Is there a health drawback to getting the vaccine? If not, the net good outweighs the supposed infringement on liberty (..but really, what fundamental liberty is eroded by public health?)

Is there a health drawback to getting the vaccine?

Other then some discomfort in the injection site, no, at least as we know so far. 

If not, the net good outweighs the supposed infringement on liberty (..but really, what fundamental liberty is eroded by public health?)

Would you say the same about tobacco use and overeating? There’s no harmful physical consequences to stopping either one. I think the point Rob is making is, that while mandating this vaccine is a very minor infringement on personal liberty, it can pave the way for future, potentially greater, infringements on liberty. Personally, while I think young women should be vaccinated, I tend to agree with Rob’s stance.

kbiel,
Whether or not I agree with you, some of your percentages are a bit misleading.  The 300,000,000 figure is total population, whereas the 12,085 is a per year figure.

At a birth rate of 14/1000/year, that would require a steady state vaccination rate of 2,142,000 girls per year for 100% vaccination, or preventing 1 incident of cancer for every 253 girls vaccinated (based on 8459.5 cases prevented each year).  At a cost of $450 per vaccination, that would be a cost of $113,850 for each case of cancer prevented.

Perhaps there would be some savings if frequency of pap smears could eventually be reduced, but I don’t think that can be figured into estimates at this time.

People are just too lazy for their own good. We need more liberal democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Dennis Kucinich to enact laws that will not only take are of the very health of the nation but will also keep health care costs lower, like other modern nations in Europe.

When our scientists are ready they will demonstrate how global warming not only is going to sink the coasts of every continent including New York, but they will also demonstrate how it causes the increased spread rate of HPV, as it has already done with lice.

Years ago when I was closely involved with the invention or the opening up of the internet, we were thinking of situations like these, where it can be used as not only a tool to raise money for candidates for political office but also for spreading information about global warming.

Today there are so many different unnecessary hazards Americans face, that congress can directly influence. They could stop building weapons of war and start spending money on how to stop global warming; they could ban Trans fat as they did in the nation of New York. There are so many things we can do to take care of our citizens, for example;

Sugary toothpaste, everyone could use Tom’s!

SUV’s everyone can use the bus and as more do more routes will be added

Trans fat we can mandate the use of new and better engineered oils and butters

Destroying life, we could eliminate meat eating by almost everyone simply by requiring the use of soy products in everyday things like milk, and as a meat replacement.

Uncomfortable toilet paper, that bulk warehouse brand is awful; we can demand that toilet paper meets a level of softness that is good for everyone’s disposition.

These are but a few ideas that we can implement to make America a better safer softer place, all done with soy and it also eliminates the need for racial profiling!

Regards,

Al Gore

One more figure:
If 3,670 women will die this year from CC, then the vaccine could be credited with eventually saving 2,569 lives per year, or a cost of $375,204 for each life saved, not counting savings from not having to treat 8459.5 cases per year. 

If the average treatment for crevical cancer is $30,000 (this figure is an anal extraction based on costs of surgeries I have observed.  I would imagine that actual treatment is much higher.) then the total saved per year for not having to treat these victims is 30000*8459.5=$253,785,000
This savings would come at a yearly cost of $963,900,000 for 100% vaccination.
The difference, $710,115,000 would be the cost between the current treatment vs. a vaccine and would be the cost of 3,670 less deaths for a net price of $193,492 per life saved.  If the average life saved is worth more than this, then 100% vaccination is profitable for society.

These figures don’t take into account lost productivity due to illness or treatments or positive benefits to the economy and govenment due to the profits and taxes paid as well as jobs create by the evil drug companies as a result of selling this vaccine.

Uncomfortable toilet paper, that bulk warehouse brand is awful; we can demand that toilet paper meets a level of softness that is good for everyone’s disposition.

Don’t forget a mandate on durability.  The soft stuff tears too easily, so I prefer the bulk brands that are sturdier.

Andrew: no, I wouldn’t say the same about tobacco and overeating. Those aren’t communicable diseases.

And while I too woory about slippery slopes, I do think that we can apply logic and weigh which evil is greater. I personally think that the pro outweighs the con.

Geez folks,

How about the old-fashioned concept that it be voluntary, and done out of enlightened self interest?

Dang.  What a concept.

Electnixon,

“anal extraction? “

Sounds painful!

...for great justice

“anal extraction? “

It’s a scientific term in the engineering community when you need a cost estimate and the only way to come up with it is to pull it out of your rectum.  Typical margin of error is 50%, plus or minus a pube.  The other numbers above came from CDC, etc. articles.  This one did not, so it needed a qualifying description to indicate the approximate margin of error.

Seth, good point, but the “herd immunity” really implies that we ought to be vaccinating first “the herd"--young men and women who are sexually active.

Moreover, there is a cost/benefit analysis, and while it’s distasteful to discuss this when lives are being lost, it’s still necessary.  If, say, vaccinating 2 million girls costs about $800 million annually and saves (assuming 1/10 reduction in cancer) about 200 lives, we’re talking about spending $4 million per life saved.

There are far cheaper ways of saving life, such as teaching children to respect sex enough to wait for a worthwhile partner.

99% of statistics on other blogs are just made up.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

we’re talking about spending $4 million per life saved.

I bet to differ: net price of $193,492 per life saved

(at least until proven wrong)

There are far cheaper ways of saving life, such as teaching children to respect sex enough to wait for a worthwhile partner.

As much as I like that idea, I’m pretty sure that (if that were even possible given today’s parents) such a solution would not come without a price.  Especially given the quantity of:

ameriki .. girl become the slut for every man and also to take the LBT

Here’s a compromise:  How about the vaccine be required prior to getting a LBT

Robert: you’re only considering the cost/benefit in terms of lives saved. What about the savings when you add in the number who develop cervical cancer and have to have a historectomy? They doubtless outnumber the ones who die. And how about the number of women who don’t develop full blown cancer, but have to have ongoing treatment for warts? How about that cost? That number surely exceeds the number of deaths and cancers put together.

electnixon, you’re low by over an order of magnitude because you’re assuming that the lives saved will start as soon as vaccination starts.  That’s completely false--you’re reducing the susceptible “herd” by about 5-10% each year, not 100%.  Moreover, as long as we’re not vaccinating promiscuous BOYS, the “carriers” are largely unaffected--they simply fail to infect 5-10% of their partners.

After a period of time, the cost might be reduced to the level you suggest, but that depends on the vaccine being effective for more than five years--not a tested hypothesis, by the way.

you’re assuming that the lives saved will start as soon as vaccination starts.

I already qualified the numbers as being steady state, but each girl vaccinated is one who is significantly less likely to die of cervical cancer:

...that would require a steady state vaccination rate of..

Of course the transient cost would be higher because more than one year’s worth of girls would require vaccination up front.  It would take a while for the benefits to manifest in lives saved, but in 60 years, cervical cancer would be significantly reduced.  If you want to work up the numbers on a transient response, be my guest, but please back it up with numbers. 

For every year of cost that you have right now, you would be racking up savings in future years.  That’s the way all vaccines work that are administered during youth.

you’re reducing the susceptible “herd” by about 5-10% each year, not 100%.

I’m not the one who was talking herd immunity, and obviously the use of the vaccine isn’t based on it or they would recommend it for males too. 

Yes, a long term effectiveness was assumed.  If boosters are required later, that would increase the costs, but not by an order of magnitude.

you’re low by over an order of magnitude

What figures did you use to arrive at this number?  Your math from above:

If, say, vaccinating 2 million girls costs about $800 million annually and saves (assuming 1/10 reduction in cancer) about 200 lives

Where’d you get 200?  What if none of the girls getting vaccinated in the first year would have otherwise died in the next?  Does that mean that the vaccine was ineffective and the cost per life was infinite?  Of course not, as these girls (a portion of which will statistically die from CC) are now protected.