Vaccination against cervical cancer/HPV

You jumped from the potential of risk to asking if the majority of children were at risk at 11. That was the illogical step.
Hopefully that has been answered to your satisfaction.

I would also assume it's the age whereby it's considered safe to have the vaccine and maintain efficacy through the high risk years ? Otherwise it'd be bundled into childhood vaccines presumably?

There is a perception of risk, of course there is. But not necessarily through consensual sex amongst other kids at that age, which you don't seem to have considered. And in your clarification post you said
"So the age of 11 has been perceived to be the age when children might start to be sexually active, in the majority, is that right?"
No that's wrong. NOT the majority, and not most, which you used afterwards. Your logic is flawed.

What a strange thread.
OP when your baby had the tetanus jab, did you ask if under ones were at risk from gardening related injuries? Or did they just have the jab because it would protect them from potential dirty and deep penetrating wounds when they were older?

remember the virus can also be in people's mouths and its can lead to mouth cancers.

The HPV vaccine is one of the greatest public health breakthroughs of the last hundred years. It is wiping out almost all cases of cervical pre-cancer in young women. It is extraordinary.

What exactly is the purpose of splitting hairs over the age of routine administration?

I wish I could answer this but sadly I haven't the first clue of what you're on about.

Australia has transitioned to a 5 year smear test cycle in 2017 (previously every 2 years) and is on track to eradicate cervical cancer by 2035.

It is now considered a rare cancer in Australia.

So yes, it has led to reduced need for smear tests.

At 11 years parents must give consent, at year 11 child can give consent.

Yes, there's a perceived risk (hopefully only a very miniscule one) of sexual activity at that age. I don't want to even think about those who are sexually abused from a younger age, they would still be at risk. But the general idea is to get the vaccination early before any sexual activity occurs, not because it's a given it will do at that age.

And @nooshoo you didn't ask if early vaccination encouraged earlier sexual activity you asked So the age of 11 has been perceived to be the age when children might start to be sexually active, in the majority, is that right?

No but it’s to protect babies who are sexually transmitted

OP, which do you think is more efficient and effective

A) vaccinate early to catch 95%+ of children before sexual activity
B) tell them to go to a secual health clinic if they are considering having sex, or are being groomed, ot their stepfather is giving them "special cuddles", or there's a man down the street giving them wierd vibes...

It is a sexually transmitted virus. So yes, it is a logical connection/assumption.

No, it's not logical. The vaccine needs to be given before children start becoming sexually active. It is given to children at age 11 or so. You are jumping to the conclusion that therefore MOST children start becoming sexually active at 12. That is what is not logical and what everyone is trying to explain to you.

What?
Are you ok?

You are jumping to bizaare conclusions, its not really to do with when most suddenly become sexually active its about when almost all AREN'T sexually active.

Some kids are abused, some become sexually active around 13/14, some people wait until adulthood but non of that matters for the vaccine.

While I know there are always a tonne of response on forums like this of 'I started my period at 8' in real life that does not match anything I have encountered. Most are 12 or over at the onset of menstruation and that introduces huge hormonal changes and possible urges and as the parents of teens know often 'stubbornness and refusal' too.

Why wait later until that riskier point for no reason?

But to answer your question NO its not because 11 year olds are shagging like rabbits, sexual activity at 11 is fairly rare but increases sharply for each year after that point.

No, I'm not responsible for your decision not to research yourself.

Almost a quarter of children are sexually active by 14. Girls turn 14 in year 9 at school, meaning to co-ordinate a massive vaccination schedule early in year 9 is untenable, so instead it happens in year 8 when girls are 12 and turning 13.

Have I banged my head and slipped into a coma?

I’ve not asked any questions.

The fact that it's a sexually transmitted virus does not equate to an expectation that most children will sexually active from this point on!
That's what is illogical. It's administered at a point well before the majority are sexually active in order to have maximum impact given there will be a very minority at risk from an earlier age than the majority.

There is no risk to the majority in having the vaccination well before they are sexually active. But fir the minority who are at risk, it could be a life saver.

Nope it’s something widely talked about as a
perk of the jab.

personally I’m not 100% comfortable with that as there are other causes of cervical cancer. I’m no doctor though, so what do I know.