Decius wrote:

They already require a litany of vaccines to attend public schools in most jurisdictions.

I did not say I am against all vaccination.

As for STDs in general, I don't see why vaccines for STDs are any different than vaccines for other diseases. People's emotional hangups about sex shouldn't get in the way of solving real public health problems.

See my response to Jello. I don't consider it an "emotional hangup" to see the clear difference between a communicable disease and sexually transmitted disease.

As for whether this specific medication should be required, you have to ask one question. Will the overall cost of distributing this vaccine be lower than the overall cost of the infections which would occur without this vaccine but will not occur with it, factoring all of the other costs and risks associated with having people take it. If the answer is yes, its probably a decent idea.

And you think it is a good idea for insurance companies to make the call on this? That just means WE will be subsidizing it through higher insurance premiums! And as a child vaccine, thanks to the NCVIA, guess who shoulders the liability down the road? As taxpayers, WE do!

Think about the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Because of federal laws, employer provided health insurance MUST cover expenses for pregnancies. You think the insurance company just eats that cost? No, of course not. They spread it across all premiums, including those of people who choose NOT to become pregnant.

But I guess that's what I am supposed to do, because well, pregnancy is just something people do, and once I get over my emotional hangup about pregnancy, I should feel really warm and fuzzy about subsidizing the treatment for something that is an effect of A PERSONAL CHOICE.

Considering that most HPV infections clear up on their own, and only a low percentage of long-term infections (which would have been detected by pap smear) turn into cervical cancer, I would say no, the vaccinations are probably not necessary. But that's where the line blurs on this issue. Is this a CANCER vaccine or an HPV vaccine? It is an HPV vaccine, thus a vaccine for an STD. But it is being marketed and sold to the public as a CANCER vaccine. Who would be against fighting cervical cancer? Nevermind that HPV is not the only cause of cervical cancer.

This is all just my opinion though based on what I can find via Google's search results, Wikipedia, etc. I do not claim to be an expert on HPV/cervical cancer, nor do I claim any expertise as an actuary. I do not know any actuaries personally that I can pose the financial questions to. This is a new issue that is hot and heavy in at least three states I know of right now, Michigan, Texas, and Colorado, so I imagine it is rapidly gaining attention in the insurance circles. Hoping more information comes out to answer your question, which is an important factor to consider. Also important to consider who is scratching who's back behind the scenes.

The people I'd look to for answers to that question aren't some blogger who is seriously misinterpreting several factors and doesn't understand the clinical trial process.

This just in: Bloggers' Opinions Do Not Matter. :) Sorry, I couldn't resist. That blog did not attempt to answer the actuary question, nor was the issue even posed that I could tell. I disagree with your statement that "the one question" to ask about whether this vaccine should be required is purely a financial one.

What do you disagree with in that blogger's post? I found the blog in question quite informative, with footnotes sourced from WebMD, the FDA, the CDC, and the Merck study itself. I don't see a lot of room for misinterpretation, the facts pretty much speak for themselves. I think points 1 through 7 are solid. Points 8 and 9 are not really germane to the issue.

Point 10 is excellent all the way around. She sums things up quite well with:

Don't get this vaccine just because your doctor/mom/sister/friend/a perky TV commercial told you to. But don’t not get it just because some chicks with a blog say that they aren’t going to. It’s your health, your decision.

In other words, "Here are some facts I found, you decide."

If [insurance companies] support this given that they'd be picking up the tab for it, I don't see why anyone else would oppose it.

And really, I'm not completely sold that "insurance companies" will pick up the tab for this. I've never researched it, but now I am wondering, if this becomes a public health matter and is issued at schools like MMR was when I was in high school, who pays for the vaccines at that point? Is it the local government? I admit I'm ignorant about the answer. I do suspect that once again, the taxpaper foots the bill.

You got a specific example of someone how wasn't sick who was quaranteened because of their lawful use of an exemption process to a public health law?

I remembered reading it a long time ago, but I cannot find a specific example now, probably lost in the Googlesphere so I will concede that I do not have any hard info now. I did find anecdotal evidence here:

Medical Myths Die Hard

Scroll down to the heading "Compulsory Vaccination Negates the Spirit of Informed Consent."

I will diligently try to dig up what I read before because it needs to be brought to light.

RE: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls