Tempus Edax Rerum said:
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/human-papillomavirus-hpv/studies-provide-more-evidence-hpv-vaccines-benefit-men
Vaccinate your children, they will thank you.
Mothra said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/human-papillomavirus-hpv/studies-provide-more-evidence-hpv-vaccines-benefit-men
Vaccinate your children, they will thank you.
Better yet, teach your children not to be promiscuous. They will thank you.
Mothra said:
My point remains simple: a child who is not sexually active has no present risk of acquiring HPV through sexual activity. So the argument for vaccinating that child is necessarily based on assumptions about future conduct. I
I'd rather focus on raising my children to make good decisions than treat future promiscuity as a foregone conclusion. If as adults they believe a vaccine with only 10-15 years of long term tests is worth the risk, so be it. But the idea that 9 year old need the vaccine is just ridiculous.
But the vaccine advocates have always been a one-size fits all crowd.
Tempus Edax Rerum said:Mothra said:
My point remains simple: a child who is not sexually active has no present risk of acquiring HPV through sexual activity. So the argument for vaccinating that child is necessarily based on assumptions about future conduct. I
I'd rather focus on raising my children to make good decisions than treat future promiscuity as a foregone conclusion. If as adults they believe a vaccine with only 10-15 years of long term tests is worth the risk, so be it. But the idea that 9 year old need the vaccine is just ridiculous.
But the vaccine advocates have always been a one-size fits all crowd.
You could raise your children just great but you left out half the equation. Keep sticking your head in the sand, it suits you.
One partner is enough. HPV isn't a promiscuity disease. You inherit your partner's entire exposure history, and theirs. Plenty of people acquire HPV from the only person they've ever been with. The relevant number isn't your partner count, it's whether any partner you ever have carries it and roughly 80% of sexually active people acquire HPV at some point.
You usually can't know. HPV is typically asymptomatic and clears on its own. There's no routine screening test for men at all. A partner who has never had a symptom, and honestly believes they're clear, may still be carrying it. So "I'll be careful and choose well" doesn't actually get you the information you'd need.
The decision isn't reversible in the right direction. You can always get vaccinated later, but you can't un-expose yourself. The vaccine's value decays as your possible exposure grows. So waiting only costs you it never gains you anything except the shots you didn't take.
Life doesn't stay put. Marriage ends, spouses die, plans change. You're deciding now for a person you'll be in twenty years.
Against that: the cost is a couple of shots, a sore arm, and possibly some money if insurance doesn't cover it at your age. That's the actual tradeoff a small, certain, minor cost against a small probability of a cancer that's hard to detect early.
The honest version of the skeptical case is "the absolute risk reduction for a low-risk person is modest, and I'd rather not bother." That's a defensible position. It's just a different argument than the moral one, and it holds up less well once you notice how cheap the insurance is.
Mothra said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/human-papillomavirus-hpv/studies-provide-more-evidence-hpv-vaccines-benefit-men
Vaccinate your children, they will thank you.
Better yet, teach your children not to be promiscuous. They will thank you.
Mothra said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:Mothra said:
My point remains simple: a child who is not sexually active has no present risk of acquiring HPV through sexual activity. So the argument for vaccinating that child is necessarily based on assumptions about future conduct. I
I'd rather focus on raising my children to make good decisions than treat future promiscuity as a foregone conclusion. If as adults they believe a vaccine with only 10-15 years of long term tests is worth the risk, so be it. But the idea that 9 year old need the vaccine is just ridiculous.
But the vaccine advocates have always been a one-size fits all crowd.
You could raise your children just great but you left out half the equation. Keep sticking your head in the sand, it suits you.
One partner is enough. HPV isn't a promiscuity disease. You inherit your partner's entire exposure history, and theirs. Plenty of people acquire HPV from the only person they've ever been with. The relevant number isn't your partner count, it's whether any partner you ever have carries it and roughly 80% of sexually active people acquire HPV at some point.
You usually can't know. HPV is typically asymptomatic and clears on its own. There's no routine screening test for men at all. A partner who has never had a symptom, and honestly believes they're clear, may still be carrying it. So "I'll be careful and choose well" doesn't actually get you the information you'd need.
The decision isn't reversible in the right direction. You can always get vaccinated later, but you can't un-expose yourself. The vaccine's value decays as your possible exposure grows. So waiting only costs you it never gains you anything except the shots you didn't take.
Life doesn't stay put. Marriage ends, spouses die, plans change. You're deciding now for a person you'll be in twenty years.
Against that: the cost is a couple of shots, a sore arm, and possibly some money if insurance doesn't cover it at your age. That's the actual tradeoff a small, certain, minor cost against a small probability of a cancer that's hard to detect early.
The honest version of the skeptical case is "the absolute risk reduction for a low-risk person is modest, and I'd rather not bother." That's a defensible position. It's just a different argument than the moral one, and it holds up less well once you notice how cheap the insurance is.
I appreciate you're too dumb to think for yourself, and need this sort of ChatGPT response, but the problem, is you're still basing your entire argument on population-level risk rather than an individual's actual circumstances.
Saying 80% of sexually active people acquire HPV doesn't mean every 9-12 year old needs the vaccine today. Indeed, that is completely asinine. It simply means some people may be exposed at some point in the future.
The real question is whether a child who is not sexually active faces a present need for the vaccine. Your answer is essentially, "They might someday." That's a prediction about the future, not evidence of a current necessity.
The bottom line is there is no reason to give a 9-year-old this vaccine, nor is there a need to give it to a non-sexually promiscuous teen.
But I realize you don't care if our kids are pin cushions.
Mothra said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:Mothra said:
My point remains simple: a child who is not sexually active has no present risk of acquiring HPV through sexual activity. So the argument for vaccinating that child is necessarily based on assumptions about future conduct. I
I'd rather focus on raising my children to make good decisions than treat future promiscuity as a foregone conclusion. If as adults they believe a vaccine with only 10-15 years of long term tests is worth the risk, so be it. But the idea that 9 year old need the vaccine is just ridiculous.
But the vaccine advocates have always been a one-size fits all crowd.
You could raise your children just great but you left out half the equation. Keep sticking your head in the sand, it suits you.
One partner is enough. HPV isn't a promiscuity disease. You inherit your partner's entire exposure history, and theirs. Plenty of people acquire HPV from the only person they've ever been with. The relevant number isn't your partner count, it's whether any partner you ever have carries it and roughly 80% of sexually active people acquire HPV at some point.
You usually can't know. HPV is typically asymptomatic and clears on its own. There's no routine screening test for men at all. A partner who has never had a symptom, and honestly believes they're clear, may still be carrying it. So "I'll be careful and choose well" doesn't actually get you the information you'd need.
The decision isn't reversible in the right direction. You can always get vaccinated later, but you can't un-expose yourself. The vaccine's value decays as your possible exposure grows. So waiting only costs you it never gains you anything except the shots you didn't take.
Life doesn't stay put. Marriage ends, spouses die, plans change. You're deciding now for a person you'll be in twenty years.
Against that: the cost is a couple of shots, a sore arm, and possibly some money if insurance doesn't cover it at your age. That's the actual tradeoff a small, certain, minor cost against a small probability of a cancer that's hard to detect early.
The honest version of the skeptical case is "the absolute risk reduction for a low-risk person is modest, and I'd rather not bother." That's a defensible position. It's just a different argument than the moral one, and it holds up less well once you notice how cheap the insurance is.
I appreciate you're too dumb to think for yourself, and need this sort of ChatGPT response, but the problem, is you're still basing your entire argument on population-level risk rather than an individual's actual circumstances.
Saying 80% of sexually active people acquire HPV doesn't mean every 9-12 year old needs the vaccine today. Indeed, that is completely asinine. It simply means some people may be exposed at some point in the future.
The real question is whether a child who is not sexually active faces a present need for the vaccine. Your answer is essentially, "They might someday." That's a prediction about the future, not evidence of a current necessity.
The bottom line is there is no reason to give a 9-year-old this vaccine, nor is there a need to give it to a non-sexually promiscuous teen.
But I realize you don't care if our kids are pin cushions.
Mitch Blood Green said:Mothra said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:Mothra said:
My point remains simple: a child who is not sexually active has no present risk of acquiring HPV through sexual activity. So the argument for vaccinating that child is necessarily based on assumptions about future conduct. I
I'd rather focus on raising my children to make good decisions than treat future promiscuity as a foregone conclusion. If as adults they believe a vaccine with only 10-15 years of long term tests is worth the risk, so be it. But the idea that 9 year old need the vaccine is just ridiculous.
But the vaccine advocates have always been a one-size fits all crowd.
You could raise your children just great but you left out half the equation. Keep sticking your head in the sand, it suits you.
One partner is enough. HPV isn't a promiscuity disease. You inherit your partner's entire exposure history, and theirs. Plenty of people acquire HPV from the only person they've ever been with. The relevant number isn't your partner count, it's whether any partner you ever have carries it and roughly 80% of sexually active people acquire HPV at some point.
You usually can't know. HPV is typically asymptomatic and clears on its own. There's no routine screening test for men at all. A partner who has never had a symptom, and honestly believes they're clear, may still be carrying it. So "I'll be careful and choose well" doesn't actually get you the information you'd need.
The decision isn't reversible in the right direction. You can always get vaccinated later, but you can't un-expose yourself. The vaccine's value decays as your possible exposure grows. So waiting only costs you it never gains you anything except the shots you didn't take.
Life doesn't stay put. Marriage ends, spouses die, plans change. You're deciding now for a person you'll be in twenty years.
Against that: the cost is a couple of shots, a sore arm, and possibly some money if insurance doesn't cover it at your age. That's the actual tradeoff a small, certain, minor cost against a small probability of a cancer that's hard to detect early.
The honest version of the skeptical case is "the absolute risk reduction for a low-risk person is modest, and I'd rather not bother." That's a defensible position. It's just a different argument than the moral one, and it holds up less well once you notice how cheap the insurance is.
I appreciate you're too dumb to think for yourself, and need this sort of ChatGPT response, but the problem, is you're still basing your entire argument on population-level risk rather than an individual's actual circumstances.
Saying 80% of sexually active people acquire HPV doesn't mean every 9-12 year old needs the vaccine today. Indeed, that is completely asinine. It simply means some people may be exposed at some point in the future.
The real question is whether a child who is not sexually active faces a present need for the vaccine. Your answer is essentially, "They might someday." That's a prediction about the future, not evidence of a current necessity.
The bottom line is there is no reason to give a 9-year-old this vaccine, nor is there a need to give it to a non-sexually promiscuous teen.
But I realize you don't care if our kids are pin cushions.
My logic is different. My 3 year old doesn't need college today but I sure as hell need to bank that money today. (And keep it away from grummy exes hands).
Tempus Edax Rerum said:Mothra said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:Mothra said:
My point remains simple: a child who is not sexually active has no present risk of acquiring HPV through sexual activity. So the argument for vaccinating that child is necessarily based on assumptions about future conduct. I
I'd rather focus on raising my children to make good decisions than treat future promiscuity as a foregone conclusion. If as adults they believe a vaccine with only 10-15 years of long term tests is worth the risk, so be it. But the idea that 9 year old need the vaccine is just ridiculous.
But the vaccine advocates have always been a one-size fits all crowd.
You could raise your children just great but you left out half the equation. Keep sticking your head in the sand, it suits you.
One partner is enough. HPV isn't a promiscuity disease. You inherit your partner's entire exposure history, and theirs. Plenty of people acquire HPV from the only person they've ever been with. The relevant number isn't your partner count, it's whether any partner you ever have carries it and roughly 80% of sexually active people acquire HPV at some point.
You usually can't know. HPV is typically asymptomatic and clears on its own. There's no routine screening test for men at all. A partner who has never had a symptom, and honestly believes they're clear, may still be carrying it. So "I'll be careful and choose well" doesn't actually get you the information you'd need.
The decision isn't reversible in the right direction. You can always get vaccinated later, but you can't un-expose yourself. The vaccine's value decays as your possible exposure grows. So waiting only costs you it never gains you anything except the shots you didn't take.
Life doesn't stay put. Marriage ends, spouses die, plans change. You're deciding now for a person you'll be in twenty years.
Against that: the cost is a couple of shots, a sore arm, and possibly some money if insurance doesn't cover it at your age. That's the actual tradeoff a small, certain, minor cost against a small probability of a cancer that's hard to detect early.
The honest version of the skeptical case is "the absolute risk reduction for a low-risk person is modest, and I'd rather not bother." That's a defensible position. It's just a different argument than the moral one, and it holds up less well once you notice how cheap the insurance is.
I appreciate you're too dumb to think for yourself, and need this sort of ChatGPT response, but the problem, is you're still basing your entire argument on population-level risk rather than an individual's actual circumstances.
Saying 80% of sexually active people acquire HPV doesn't mean every 9-12 year old needs the vaccine today. Indeed, that is completely asinine. It simply means some people may be exposed at some point in the future.
The real question is whether a child who is not sexually active faces a present need for the vaccine. Your answer is essentially, "They might someday." That's a prediction about the future, not evidence of a current necessity.
The bottom line is there is no reason to give a 9-year-old this vaccine, nor is there a need to give it to a non-sexually promiscuous teen.
But I realize you don't care if our kids are pin cushions.
You'd think as an attorney you'd have a better handle on logic, apparently I was wrong in the assumption.
1. The central move is a category error. The argument demands "current necessity" as the standard for a preventive intervention. But prophylaxis is by definition anticipatory. Applied consistently, this reasoning also rules out tetanus boosters before you step on a nail, seatbelts before a crash, and fire insurance before a fire. If a principle invalidates all preventive medicine, the principle is the problem.
2. It ignores the mechanism, which is the whole reason for the timing. The HPV vaccine works by generating immunity before exposure. It does not clear an existing infection. So the moment when "need" becomes visible under this argument's own criterion is precisely the moment the intervention stops being effective. The timing isn't arbitrary or a bureaucratic default; the recommended age exists because immunogenicity is highest in the 914 range (which is also why that age group needs two doses rather than three) and because it guarantees pre-exposure administration. The argument never engages this, which means the "bottom line" conclusion is asserted rather than earned.
3. It's self-refuting on predictions. It dismisses the other side for reasoning from "they might someday," then rests its own conclusion on a competing prediction: that this particular child won't be exposed. Both positions forecast the future. One is anchored to a high base rate; the other is anchored to a parent's confidence about a child's entire adult sexual life, including their future partners' histories, which no parent can know. Rejecting the other side's forecast while relying on a weaker one of your own is inconsistent.
4. The population-vs-individual critique backfires. Base rates are the correct tool precisely when individual-level information is unavailable. There is no test that tells you a 9-year-old's lifetime exposure risk. Refusing to use the only relevant information because it's statistical doesn't yield individualized reasoning; it yields no reasoning.
5. "Non-sexually promiscuous" smuggles in a false premise. HPV transmission doesn't require multiple partners. One partner with a prior history is sufficient, and it doesn't account for sexual assault. The moral framing does work the evidence doesn't support.
6. Straw man. No one claims a 9-year-old faces a present threat from HPV. The claim is that vaccinating before exposure is the only way to get the benefit. The argument refutes a position nobody holds.
Mothra said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:Mothra said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:Mothra said:
My point remains simple: a child who is not sexually active has no present risk of acquiring HPV through sexual activity. So the argument for vaccinating that child is necessarily based on assumptions about future conduct. I
I'd rather focus on raising my children to make good decisions than treat future promiscuity as a foregone conclusion. If as adults they believe a vaccine with only 10-15 years of long term tests is worth the risk, so be it. But the idea that 9 year old need the vaccine is just ridiculous.
But the vaccine advocates have always been a one-size fits all crowd.
You could raise your children just great but you left out half the equation. Keep sticking your head in the sand, it suits you.
One partner is enough. HPV isn't a promiscuity disease. You inherit your partner's entire exposure history, and theirs. Plenty of people acquire HPV from the only person they've ever been with. The relevant number isn't your partner count, it's whether any partner you ever have carries it and roughly 80% of sexually active people acquire HPV at some point.
You usually can't know. HPV is typically asymptomatic and clears on its own. There's no routine screening test for men at all. A partner who has never had a symptom, and honestly believes they're clear, may still be carrying it. So "I'll be careful and choose well" doesn't actually get you the information you'd need.
The decision isn't reversible in the right direction. You can always get vaccinated later, but you can't un-expose yourself. The vaccine's value decays as your possible exposure grows. So waiting only costs you it never gains you anything except the shots you didn't take.
Life doesn't stay put. Marriage ends, spouses die, plans change. You're deciding now for a person you'll be in twenty years.
Against that: the cost is a couple of shots, a sore arm, and possibly some money if insurance doesn't cover it at your age. That's the actual tradeoff a small, certain, minor cost against a small probability of a cancer that's hard to detect early.
The honest version of the skeptical case is "the absolute risk reduction for a low-risk person is modest, and I'd rather not bother." That's a defensible position. It's just a different argument than the moral one, and it holds up less well once you notice how cheap the insurance is.
I appreciate you're too dumb to think for yourself, and need this sort of ChatGPT response, but the problem, is you're still basing your entire argument on population-level risk rather than an individual's actual circumstances.
Saying 80% of sexually active people acquire HPV doesn't mean every 9-12 year old needs the vaccine today. Indeed, that is completely asinine. It simply means some people may be exposed at some point in the future.
The real question is whether a child who is not sexually active faces a present need for the vaccine. Your answer is essentially, "They might someday." That's a prediction about the future, not evidence of a current necessity.
The bottom line is there is no reason to give a 9-year-old this vaccine, nor is there a need to give it to a non-sexually promiscuous teen.
But I realize you don't care if our kids are pin cushions.
You'd think as an attorney you'd have a better handle on logic, apparently I was wrong in the assumption.
1. The central move is a category error. The argument demands "current necessity" as the standard for a preventive intervention. But prophylaxis is by definition anticipatory. Applied consistently, this reasoning also rules out tetanus boosters before you step on a nail, seatbelts before a crash, and fire insurance before a fire. If a principle invalidates all preventive medicine, the principle is the problem.
2. It ignores the mechanism, which is the whole reason for the timing. The HPV vaccine works by generating immunity before exposure. It does not clear an existing infection. So the moment when "need" becomes visible under this argument's own criterion is precisely the moment the intervention stops being effective. The timing isn't arbitrary or a bureaucratic default; the recommended age exists because immunogenicity is highest in the 914 range (which is also why that age group needs two doses rather than three) and because it guarantees pre-exposure administration. The argument never engages this, which means the "bottom line" conclusion is asserted rather than earned.
3. It's self-refuting on predictions. It dismisses the other side for reasoning from "they might someday," then rests its own conclusion on a competing prediction: that this particular child won't be exposed. Both positions forecast the future. One is anchored to a high base rate; the other is anchored to a parent's confidence about a child's entire adult sexual life, including their future partners' histories, which no parent can know. Rejecting the other side's forecast while relying on a weaker one of your own is inconsistent.
4. The population-vs-individual critique backfires. Base rates are the correct tool precisely when individual-level information is unavailable. There is no test that tells you a 9-year-old's lifetime exposure risk. Refusing to use the only relevant information because it's statistical doesn't yield individualized reasoning; it yields no reasoning.
5. "Non-sexually promiscuous" smuggles in a false premise. HPV transmission doesn't require multiple partners. One partner with a prior history is sufficient, and it doesn't account for sexual assault. The moral framing does work the evidence doesn't support.
6. Straw man. No one claims a 9-year-old faces a present threat from HPV. The claim is that vaccinating before exposure is the only way to get the benefit. The argument refutes a position nobody holds.
Again, I appreciate you're too dumb to think for yourself, and let ChatGPT do the thinking for you, but I think you might try to use the pea brain God gave you because ChatGPT is only as good as the data you give it.
You're arguing that because a vaccine may provide a future benefit, every child necessarily needs it now. That's the ridiculous leap in logic I reject - and frankly, any reasonable, thinking person should reject. Nobody disputes that preventive medicine exists. The question is whether a future possibility automatically creates a present necessity.
You accuse me of making predictions, but I'm not the one asserting future exposure. You're recommending vaccination today based on what you think may happen years from now.
And citing population statistics doesn't solve that problem. Base rates describe groups, not individuals. They may justify a public-health recommendation, but they do not prove that every individual child has a present medical need for the vaccine.
Tempus Edax Rerum said:Mothra said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:Mothra said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:Mothra said:
My point remains simple: a child who is not sexually active has no present risk of acquiring HPV through sexual activity. So the argument for vaccinating that child is necessarily based on assumptions about future conduct. I
I'd rather focus on raising my children to make good decisions than treat future promiscuity as a foregone conclusion. If as adults they believe a vaccine with only 10-15 years of long term tests is worth the risk, so be it. But the idea that 9 year old need the vaccine is just ridiculous.
But the vaccine advocates have always been a one-size fits all crowd.
You could raise your children just great but you left out half the equation. Keep sticking your head in the sand, it suits you.
One partner is enough. HPV isn't a promiscuity disease. You inherit your partner's entire exposure history, and theirs. Plenty of people acquire HPV from the only person they've ever been with. The relevant number isn't your partner count, it's whether any partner you ever have carries it and roughly 80% of sexually active people acquire HPV at some point.
You usually can't know. HPV is typically asymptomatic and clears on its own. There's no routine screening test for men at all. A partner who has never had a symptom, and honestly believes they're clear, may still be carrying it. So "I'll be careful and choose well" doesn't actually get you the information you'd need.
The decision isn't reversible in the right direction. You can always get vaccinated later, but you can't un-expose yourself. The vaccine's value decays as your possible exposure grows. So waiting only costs you it never gains you anything except the shots you didn't take.
Life doesn't stay put. Marriage ends, spouses die, plans change. You're deciding now for a person you'll be in twenty years.
Against that: the cost is a couple of shots, a sore arm, and possibly some money if insurance doesn't cover it at your age. That's the actual tradeoff a small, certain, minor cost against a small probability of a cancer that's hard to detect early.
The honest version of the skeptical case is "the absolute risk reduction for a low-risk person is modest, and I'd rather not bother." That's a defensible position. It's just a different argument than the moral one, and it holds up less well once you notice how cheap the insurance is.
I appreciate you're too dumb to think for yourself, and need this sort of ChatGPT response, but the problem, is you're still basing your entire argument on population-level risk rather than an individual's actual circumstances.
Saying 80% of sexually active people acquire HPV doesn't mean every 9-12 year old needs the vaccine today. Indeed, that is completely asinine. It simply means some people may be exposed at some point in the future.
The real question is whether a child who is not sexually active faces a present need for the vaccine. Your answer is essentially, "They might someday." That's a prediction about the future, not evidence of a current necessity.
The bottom line is there is no reason to give a 9-year-old this vaccine, nor is there a need to give it to a non-sexually promiscuous teen.
But I realize you don't care if our kids are pin cushions.
You'd think as an attorney you'd have a better handle on logic, apparently I was wrong in the assumption.
1. The central move is a category error. The argument demands "current necessity" as the standard for a preventive intervention. But prophylaxis is by definition anticipatory. Applied consistently, this reasoning also rules out tetanus boosters before you step on a nail, seatbelts before a crash, and fire insurance before a fire. If a principle invalidates all preventive medicine, the principle is the problem.
2. It ignores the mechanism, which is the whole reason for the timing. The HPV vaccine works by generating immunity before exposure. It does not clear an existing infection. So the moment when "need" becomes visible under this argument's own criterion is precisely the moment the intervention stops being effective. The timing isn't arbitrary or a bureaucratic default; the recommended age exists because immunogenicity is highest in the 914 range (which is also why that age group needs two doses rather than three) and because it guarantees pre-exposure administration. The argument never engages this, which means the "bottom line" conclusion is asserted rather than earned.
3. It's self-refuting on predictions. It dismisses the other side for reasoning from "they might someday," then rests its own conclusion on a competing prediction: that this particular child won't be exposed. Both positions forecast the future. One is anchored to a high base rate; the other is anchored to a parent's confidence about a child's entire adult sexual life, including their future partners' histories, which no parent can know. Rejecting the other side's forecast while relying on a weaker one of your own is inconsistent.
4. The population-vs-individual critique backfires. Base rates are the correct tool precisely when individual-level information is unavailable. There is no test that tells you a 9-year-old's lifetime exposure risk. Refusing to use the only relevant information because it's statistical doesn't yield individualized reasoning; it yields no reasoning.
5. "Non-sexually promiscuous" smuggles in a false premise. HPV transmission doesn't require multiple partners. One partner with a prior history is sufficient, and it doesn't account for sexual assault. The moral framing does work the evidence doesn't support.
6. Straw man. No one claims a 9-year-old faces a present threat from HPV. The claim is that vaccinating before exposure is the only way to get the benefit. The argument refutes a position nobody holds.
Again, I appreciate you're too dumb to think for yourself, and let ChatGPT do the thinking for you, but I think you might try to use the pea brain God gave you because ChatGPT is only as good as the data you give it.
You're arguing that because a vaccine may provide a future benefit, every child necessarily needs it now. That's the ridiculous leap in logic I reject - and frankly, any reasonable, thinking person should reject. Nobody disputes that preventive medicine exists. The question is whether a future possibility automatically creates a present necessity.
You accuse me of making predictions, but I'm not the one asserting future exposure. You're recommending vaccination today based on what you think may happen years from now.
And citing population statistics doesn't solve that problem. Base rates describe groups, not individuals. They may justify a public-health recommendation, but they do not prove that every individual child has a present medical need for the vaccine.
Apparently you can't think very logically yourself.
The "present necessity" standard is still being asserted, not defended. You now stated the question twice as "does a future possibility create a present necessity?" and never explained why necessity should be the bar. Almost nothing in medicine meets a strict necessity standard. Statins aren't necessary, blood pressure treatment isn't necessary, no vaccine is necessary for an unexposed person. You picked a threshold that automatically produces your conclusion and then presented reaching that conclusion as a finding. If the standard were sound, it would rule out the entire category of preventive care you say you don't dispute.
Your claim that you aren't predicting anything is the weakest part. There's no neutral option here. A parent either vaccinates or doesn't, and the child grows up either way. "Don't vaccinate" is only the right call if exposure doesn't happen, or if it does and the consequences turn out tolerable. That's a forecast. You're treating inaction as though it costs nothing and therefore needs no justification, but in a forced choice both branches are bets on the same unknown future. You made a bet and declined to price it.
You haven't touched the timing argument, which is where the whole thing turns. Immune response is strongest in the 914 window, which is why that age group needs two doses instead of three. And the vaccine only works before exposure. So "wait until there's a present need" isn't a cautious position, it's a proposal to act only at the point where acting no longer helps. Deferring degrades the option rather than preserving it. Until you answer that, you're arguing against a timing recommendation without engaging the reason for it.
On base rates, your half right and draw the wrong conclusion. Yes, base rates describe groups. But when no individual-level information exists, the reference class is the best estimate available, not a worse one. There's no test that reveals a 9-year-old's lifetime exposure risk, so rejecting the base rate doesn't yield a more individualized answer. It yields no answer. And you are relying on a base rate yourself: "my child probably won't be exposed" is a frequency claim about some reference class, just one you haven't specified or defended.
You are arguing against a claim nobody made. "Every child necessarily needs it now" isn't the position. The position is that a low-cost intervention with a closing window and a meaningful probability of preventing cancer is worth doing. That's an expected-value claim, not a necessity claim. You keep defeating the stronger version because the actual one is harder to beat.
The cost side is missing entirely. Your argument only works if the vaccine carries real downside. You never says what it is. Meanwhile the outcome data has moved past projections: population studies in Sweden and the UK have found large reductions in cervical cancer among women vaccinated in early adolescence, with the biggest effect in those vaccinated youngest. That last detail is inconvenient for your position, since it's evidence that the timing you call asinine is what produces the benefit.
Mothra said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:Mothra said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:Mothra said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:Mothra said:
My point remains simple: a child who is not sexually active has no present risk of acquiring HPV through sexual activity. So the argument for vaccinating that child is necessarily based on assumptions about future conduct. I
I'd rather focus on raising my children to make good decisions than treat future promiscuity as a foregone conclusion. If as adults they believe a vaccine with only 10-15 years of long term tests is worth the risk, so be it. But the idea that 9 year old need the vaccine is just ridiculous.
But the vaccine advocates have always been a one-size fits all crowd.
You could raise your children just great but you left out half the equation. Keep sticking your head in the sand, it suits you.
One partner is enough. HPV isn't a promiscuity disease. You inherit your partner's entire exposure history, and theirs. Plenty of people acquire HPV from the only person they've ever been with. The relevant number isn't your partner count, it's whether any partner you ever have carries it and roughly 80% of sexually active people acquire HPV at some point.
You usually can't know. HPV is typically asymptomatic and clears on its own. There's no routine screening test for men at all. A partner who has never had a symptom, and honestly believes they're clear, may still be carrying it. So "I'll be careful and choose well" doesn't actually get you the information you'd need.
The decision isn't reversible in the right direction. You can always get vaccinated later, but you can't un-expose yourself. The vaccine's value decays as your possible exposure grows. So waiting only costs you it never gains you anything except the shots you didn't take.
Life doesn't stay put. Marriage ends, spouses die, plans change. You're deciding now for a person you'll be in twenty years.
Against that: the cost is a couple of shots, a sore arm, and possibly some money if insurance doesn't cover it at your age. That's the actual tradeoff a small, certain, minor cost against a small probability of a cancer that's hard to detect early.
The honest version of the skeptical case is "the absolute risk reduction for a low-risk person is modest, and I'd rather not bother." That's a defensible position. It's just a different argument than the moral one, and it holds up less well once you notice how cheap the insurance is.
I appreciate you're too dumb to think for yourself, and need this sort of ChatGPT response, but the problem, is you're still basing your entire argument on population-level risk rather than an individual's actual circumstances.
Saying 80% of sexually active people acquire HPV doesn't mean every 9-12 year old needs the vaccine today. Indeed, that is completely asinine. It simply means some people may be exposed at some point in the future.
The real question is whether a child who is not sexually active faces a present need for the vaccine. Your answer is essentially, "They might someday." That's a prediction about the future, not evidence of a current necessity.
The bottom line is there is no reason to give a 9-year-old this vaccine, nor is there a need to give it to a non-sexually promiscuous teen.
But I realize you don't care if our kids are pin cushions.
You'd think as an attorney you'd have a better handle on logic, apparently I was wrong in the assumption.
1. The central move is a category error. The argument demands "current necessity" as the standard for a preventive intervention. But prophylaxis is by definition anticipatory. Applied consistently, this reasoning also rules out tetanus boosters before you step on a nail, seatbelts before a crash, and fire insurance before a fire. If a principle invalidates all preventive medicine, the principle is the problem.
2. It ignores the mechanism, which is the whole reason for the timing. The HPV vaccine works by generating immunity before exposure. It does not clear an existing infection. So the moment when "need" becomes visible under this argument's own criterion is precisely the moment the intervention stops being effective. The timing isn't arbitrary or a bureaucratic default; the recommended age exists because immunogenicity is highest in the 914 range (which is also why that age group needs two doses rather than three) and because it guarantees pre-exposure administration. The argument never engages this, which means the "bottom line" conclusion is asserted rather than earned.
3. It's self-refuting on predictions. It dismisses the other side for reasoning from "they might someday," then rests its own conclusion on a competing prediction: that this particular child won't be exposed. Both positions forecast the future. One is anchored to a high base rate; the other is anchored to a parent's confidence about a child's entire adult sexual life, including their future partners' histories, which no parent can know. Rejecting the other side's forecast while relying on a weaker one of your own is inconsistent.
4. The population-vs-individual critique backfires. Base rates are the correct tool precisely when individual-level information is unavailable. There is no test that tells you a 9-year-old's lifetime exposure risk. Refusing to use the only relevant information because it's statistical doesn't yield individualized reasoning; it yields no reasoning.
5. "Non-sexually promiscuous" smuggles in a false premise. HPV transmission doesn't require multiple partners. One partner with a prior history is sufficient, and it doesn't account for sexual assault. The moral framing does work the evidence doesn't support.
6. Straw man. No one claims a 9-year-old faces a present threat from HPV. The claim is that vaccinating before exposure is the only way to get the benefit. The argument refutes a position nobody holds.
Again, I appreciate you're too dumb to think for yourself, and let ChatGPT do the thinking for you, but I think you might try to use the pea brain God gave you because ChatGPT is only as good as the data you give it.
You're arguing that because a vaccine may provide a future benefit, every child necessarily needs it now. That's the ridiculous leap in logic I reject - and frankly, any reasonable, thinking person should reject. Nobody disputes that preventive medicine exists. The question is whether a future possibility automatically creates a present necessity.
You accuse me of making predictions, but I'm not the one asserting future exposure. You're recommending vaccination today based on what you think may happen years from now.
And citing population statistics doesn't solve that problem. Base rates describe groups, not individuals. They may justify a public-health recommendation, but they do not prove that every individual child has a present medical need for the vaccine.
Apparently you can't think very logically yourself.
The "present necessity" standard is still being asserted, not defended. You now stated the question twice as "does a future possibility create a present necessity?" and never explained why necessity should be the bar. Almost nothing in medicine meets a strict necessity standard. Statins aren't necessary, blood pressure treatment isn't necessary, no vaccine is necessary for an unexposed person. You picked a threshold that automatically produces your conclusion and then presented reaching that conclusion as a finding. If the standard were sound, it would rule out the entire category of preventive care you say you don't dispute.
Your claim that you aren't predicting anything is the weakest part. There's no neutral option here. A parent either vaccinates or doesn't, and the child grows up either way. "Don't vaccinate" is only the right call if exposure doesn't happen, or if it does and the consequences turn out tolerable. That's a forecast. You're treating inaction as though it costs nothing and therefore needs no justification, but in a forced choice both branches are bets on the same unknown future. You made a bet and declined to price it.
You haven't touched the timing argument, which is where the whole thing turns. Immune response is strongest in the 914 window, which is why that age group needs two doses instead of three. And the vaccine only works before exposure. So "wait until there's a present need" isn't a cautious position, it's a proposal to act only at the point where acting no longer helps. Deferring degrades the option rather than preserving it. Until you answer that, you're arguing against a timing recommendation without engaging the reason for it.
On base rates, your half right and draw the wrong conclusion. Yes, base rates describe groups. But when no individual-level information exists, the reference class is the best estimate available, not a worse one. There's no test that reveals a 9-year-old's lifetime exposure risk, so rejecting the base rate doesn't yield a more individualized answer. It yields no answer. And you are relying on a base rate yourself: "my child probably won't be exposed" is a frequency claim about some reference class, just one you haven't specified or defended.
You are arguing against a claim nobody made. "Every child necessarily needs it now" isn't the position. The position is that a low-cost intervention with a closing window and a meaningful probability of preventing cancer is worth doing. That's an expected-value claim, not a necessity claim. You keep defeating the stronger version because the actual one is harder to beat.
The cost side is missing entirely. Your argument only works if the vaccine carries real downside. You never says what it is. Meanwhile the outcome data has moved past projections: population studies in Sweden and the UK have found large reductions in cervical cancer among women vaccinated in early adolescence, with the biggest effect in those vaccinated youngest. That last detail is inconvenient for your position, since it's evidence that the timing you call asinine is what produces the benefit.
Unfortunately, ChatGPT is still treating population-level probabilities as though they create an individual medical necessity. They don't.
I never argued against preventive care as a category. Preventive care can be reasonable. The question is whether a parent should conclude that a specific child needs a specific intervention today based primarily on statistical possibilities decades into the future. Being the good little non-thinking vaccine propagandist drone that you are, I realize you don't have the mental capacity to understand that distinction.
You accuse me of making a prediction, but every recommendation here rests on a prediction. The difference is that you're asking parents to act now based on a forecast of future exposure, while I'm questioning whether that forecast alone justifies the intervention.
On base rates, you're proving my point. A base rate is useful when individualized information is unavailable, but it remains a population statistic. It tells us what is common in a group, not what will happen to any particular child. Calling that the "best estimate available" does not transform it into evidence of individual need.
You also keep shifting from "need" to "expected value." Those are different arguments. If your position is simply that the expected benefits outweigh the expected costs at a population level, then say that. But that's a very different claim from suggesting a child has a present medical need because something might happen years or decades from now.
As for timing, the recommendation itself assumes future exposure will occur. That's the entire rationale. My point has been that such an assumption may be reasonable at the population level, but it remains an assumption when applied to a particular child.
Ultimately, your argument boils down to this: because many people are exposed to HPV, we should treat all children as though future exposure is sufficiently likely to warrant intervention now. I understand the argument. I simply don't believe a population-level probability automatically creates an individual medical necessity. That's the point you've asserted throughout this discussion, but never actually proved.
Tempus Edax Rerum said:
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/human-papillomavirus-hpv/studies-provide-more-evidence-hpv-vaccines-benefit-men
Vaccinate your children, they will thank you.
NeuroticBear said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/human-papillomavirus-hpv/studies-provide-more-evidence-hpv-vaccines-benefit-men
Vaccinate your children, they will thank you.
Were you born worshipping the government, or did the WIC money your crack ***** mother scammed make you a true believer?
Tempus Edax Rerum said:NeuroticBear said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/human-papillomavirus-hpv/studies-provide-more-evidence-hpv-vaccines-benefit-men
Vaccinate your children, they will thank you.
Were you born worshipping the government, or did the WIC money your crack ***** mother scammed make you a true believer?
No, the evidence did.
