Slashdot Mirror
Australia Set To 'Eliminate' Cervical Cancer By 2028 (cnn.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: Australia is set to be the first country to eliminate cervical cancer, aided by its national vaccination and screening programs, says a new study. The country is on track to meet the threshold of four or less new cases per 100,000 women each year, effectively eliminating the cancer by 2028, finds the new study published Wednesday. The cancer could be classified as "rare" as early as 2022, meeting a threshold of six new cases per 100,000 and deaths due to the diseases are expected to decline to one new case per 100,000 women by 2034. But this is all contingent on Australia's high vaccination coverage and screening being maintained, write the study authors.
An estimated 99.7% of cervical cancer cases are caused by infection with Human Papillomavirus (HPV), a group of viruses that spread though sexual intercourse and skin-to-skin contact around the genitals. In their new study, the researchers at Cancer Council NSW modeled data on HPV vaccination, natural history of the disease, and cervical screening to estimate the age-incidence of cervical cancer in Australia from 2015 to 2100. Currently, Australia reports seven cases of cervical cancer per 100,000 women, according to the study. As well as eliminating the disease within 20 years, the data showed that the annual incidence of cervical cancer will decrease and remain at fewer than one case per 100,000 women if screening for HPV every five years continues and as long as people have been offered the vaccine.
An estimated 99.7% of cervical cancer cases are caused by infection with Human Papillomavirus (HPV), a group of viruses that spread though sexual intercourse and skin-to-skin contact around the genitals. In their new study, the researchers at Cancer Council NSW modeled data on HPV vaccination, natural history of the disease, and cervical screening to estimate the age-incidence of cervical cancer in Australia from 2015 to 2100. Currently, Australia reports seven cases of cervical cancer per 100,000 women, according to the study. As well as eliminating the disease within 20 years, the data showed that the annual incidence of cervical cancer will decrease and remain at fewer than one case per 100,000 women if screening for HPV every five years continues and as long as people have been offered the vaccine.
but there are a ton of folks who can't afford the vaccine. We don't have single payer so we've got millions without healthcare. The numbers are higher than that stats since we define healthcare access as "having insurance" but lots can't afford to use the insurance they have.
But, hey, who's gonna pay for it, amiright?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You've got to be one stone cold prick to think that cancer is an appropriate punishment for having pre-marital sex. How can you be such a horrible person as to say 'Well honey, you made Jesus sad, so now you have to die miserably.' They're literally using disease as a cudgel to help enforce their views on sexuality. Congratulations, you've literally partnered with cancer, way to demonstrate your moral superiority.
Of all the evidence that the religious right is full of shit, this sure is some of it.
HPV is a virus - that causes cancer.
A cancer virus.
Yes, HPV causes cancer of the cervix, vulva, and vagina.
But also cancers of the penis, throat, mouth, anus, prostate.
Men get HPV cancers too.
Penetrative sex is not required.
So HPV is a virus - that causes cancer - of the sex organs.
I wish they called it "Sex organ cancer virus."
Unlike ALL the other cancers, these cancers can be prevented with a single vaccine.
A cancer vaccine.
We are sexually active, and we both received the Gardasil-9 series.
Our insurance (KP) would NOT cover it. Said we were too old.
We went to Costco and paid out of pocket
3 shots in the series, about $220 each.
I hear cancer is expensive too.
It cost me $300. Why should I pay that, when the vaccine is of zero benefit to him because he has no cervix? I paid for it, because I can afford it, and it is the right thing to do, but many people can not afford it.
Since it is not to his personal benefit, but for the benefit of society at large perhaps it should be publicly funded? You know ... the way it is in Australia? Or would that be socialism?
I belong to a Christian community and am from Australia where the vaccine was invented and there is ZERO objection to it here.
The real problem is your screwed up healthcare system that throws poor people on the scrapheap of humanity.
Our vaccination rates are high, simply because it is given free of charge to all school girls during school hours. No need to drag your bigotry into the discussion.
46137
not quite zero. Males can have issues caused by HPV as well.
As a Christian, I'd love to dispute your argument, but honestly, I agree with it. I think a lot of people have acted that way, consciously or otherwise. A lot of people have definitely gotten off the track and aren't reflecting Jesus at all. John 13:35, Matthew 7:1, etc.
Sorry for the pain they've caused you and others. The only thing I can say is the Jesus I know doesn't act like that, and there are many good Christians who actually reflect love, tolerance, and kindness--not judgement.
-=Lothsahn=-
The kind of evangelicalism I'm talking about is unique to the United States.
We've tried to have the HPV given to school children, but the evangelicals have blocked every single effort. We even had such a program going in Texas, if you can believe it, but the governor and lieutenant governor, one of whom used to be a radio host on an evangelical-owned network, made it their personal mission to stop the program.
Christians are fine people. But American evangelicals have nothing to do with christianity, I'm afraid.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Thats the thing though. These people are all about punishing women.
Think about all the arguments used for abortion. If someones not prepared to send a woman to death row for an abortion, one must conclude they don't *really* think its murder. And its not about health. And since the same people that want to ban abortion start hollering about communism when its suggested they might pay a little bit more tax to ensure a single mother has food to feed her child, its pretty clear they don't give a fuck about what to do with the child they forced on the woman.
Which really only leaves punishment. Banning abortion is to punish women for sex.
And so is opposing the HPV vaccine. And in this case, the stakes are even higher. Have sex, get cancer, that'll learn you for disobeying sky jesus.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Because you prevent him infecting his next GF or wife.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
People who want fathers (or even alleged fathers) to pay child support for children they didn't ask for, for 225+ months, use the exact same arguments and reasoning as those who want to force women to carry parental responsibilities they didn't want for 9 months.
[T]he vaccine is of zero benefit to him because he has no cervix
Well ... perhaps not zero benefit. He does have a throat I take it.
Which is in no way to disagree with your actual point, that this, and imo many other vaccines, ought to be freely available, where your argument should be irresistible.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
We might disagree on theology, but I respect your philosophy and your right to believe. I wish more were as tolerant as you.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
There's no evidence of dire side effects from vaccines, hyperactive immune systems can cause problems
HPV does cause cancer, that's the latest from science.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
But, hey, who's gonna pay for it, amiright?
Indeed, you're right this mentality is problematic.
Cue in tons of citations from Margarett Tatcher about "running out of somebody's else monney".
Despite the fact that :
- there are several European countries here around which managed to have successful public healthcare, without being an enconomic shit-hole.
- the health domain is typically the situation where it will end up costing tons of money to these "somebody else"s in the long term if you don't spend a bit now in advance. (usually, prevention costs a lot less to the society than the actual handling of a disease. And that's at the society level. At the personal level it's even worse).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
HPV also causes cancers in men including, potentially, your son. One can argue that vaccinating boys is even more important than girls since a penis plays a greater role in the spread of HPV than a cervix/vagina. Men absolutely benefit from the vaccine so you can take comfort in knowing that you only did what's really important---serve your own interests.
Perhaps you should not only pay for your son's but for those who "can not" afford it as well. You are not only ignorant but selfish as well.
"not quite"? Men get cancers from HPV as well. Men also suffer when family members get cancer. The OP is a fool.
...or BF or husband. Or preventing him from getting cancer from HPV given to him from his GF or wife...or BF or husband.
It should be obvious by now that this whole topic is rooted in sexism. The arguments for vaccinating boys are at least as strong as for girls.
Literally, topic. You cannot eliminate certain type of cancer by eliminating one of the risk factors. The claim is patently absurd.
As an evangelical God worshipper, I fully support the HPV vaccine (and my children have been vaccinated for HPV and all other diseases as per the recommended schedule) and I don't support a lot of what Trump has done, nor did I vote for him.
As an atheist it's nice to see a religious person being rational about science.
I know, sample size of one and all, but we're not all anti-science.
We know that. It frustrates and confuses me why folks like yourself aren't as a group shouting down the crazy ones among you because I know you aren't alone. I genuinely don't care if an adult wants to worship privately and I'm fine with people having views that differ from my own. But when they start pretending that their fictional holy book should supersede empirical evidence or that their mythology has a place in the science classroom or in public health policy then we have a fight. I don't care what the bible says - it's not a basis for any rational discussion much less public policy about science.
You are also welcome on my lawn. Sorry some of my fellow Christians have behaved so poorly.
Likewise. What I'm puzzled by is how many self proclaimed "values voters" among the religious right shamelessly dumped any pretense at morality by voting for Trump. Trump is a guy who is a near embodiment of many of the sorts of values they claim to hate (lying, philandering, etc) and yet a shocking number of them are among his most enthusiastic supporters. I get that they didn't like Clinton but how Trump ever won the republican party nomination with the support of so many of these hypocrites will probably forever elude me.
And there are a multitude of folks who would want to adopt those "unwanted children". So abortion also affects a people.
Several problems with that argument.
1) The people who allegedly might adopt those children don't have to endure the pregnancy and risks that come with it
2) Very few people who are supposedly against abortion are actually willing to adopt a child to save it from an abortion
3) There are already no lack of children in need of adoption so it's hard to argue we should be making more children
4) A woman should have the right to control her reproductive systems just like any other part of her body at all times. Another person's desire to raise a child should not change that fact.
Thats the thing though. These people are all about punishing women.
Think about all the arguments used for abortion.
You left out the most telling point. The people who are wish to ban abortion in all cases, are also overwhelmingly opposed to the availability of other forms of birth control, which if used - shall we say "religiously"? - would prevent said abortions from even being an issue. They are even opposed to accurate education about sex.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj