Vaccination against cervical cancer/HPV

[nooshoo]

This vaccination protects against a sexually transmitted virus which can lead to cancer and other problems. Does anyone know why is it recommended as standard for children from 11 years, is it because there is perceived realistic risk of sexual contact occuring from this age?

I don't think it is about wiping out the virus. More about giving protection.

You asked whether the age at which the vaccination is set implies that “the majority” will become sexually active shortly after being 11.

Everyone else is saying no, that is not what is implied, and to infer that it does is illogical.

Well good for them
they will still be covered by having it early

so will the ones that have sex earlier

Please Google “herd immunity” and also “smallpox”.

At age 11 it assumed that the vast majority of children are not sexually active therefore the greatest chance of getting the vast majority of children vaccinated before they are at risk. For the vast majority of children that will be a number of years after 11. But for a small but vulnerable minority it will be closer to 11.
Setting the age at 11 does not mean that this is the age at which most children become sexually active.
It is your interpretation that the age of vaccination relates to an expectation of sexual activity for most that is really surprising posters. It's not a logical assumption to make.

No but the initiatives are not happening.

it is

its the cause and indicated in so many cancers

It's a similar principle to when Rubella vaccines were given to 11 year old girls prior to MMR being rolled out - they're not going to be having babies at that age, but vaccinating at that time means that when they become sexually active at some point in the future, they are already protected against it.

@SnakesAndArrows Sadly I don't think they have access to google or they wouldn't be posting such nonsense questions here...

The thing is, they want to vaccinate everybody at the same age because that is administratively much easier. They don’t want to miss anyone who might be sexually active at the age of 12 or 13. Why not just get it done at 11? It’s not going to encourage them to start having sex. They all just have the vaccine and then hopefully none of them will get cervical cancer in later life. If you don’t want your child to be vaccinated at that age, you can arrange for it to happen just before they start to be sexually active. But that is not going be easy to predict.

Completely unrelated to the HPV vaccine being given.

maybe take that up with the school? I’ve got involved with dcs school as there’s a massive lack of provision in supporting the young people to be safe.

OP- Do you ask WHY other vaccines are given at specific ages, or just the HPV one?

It is a sexually transmitted virus. So yes, it is a logical connection/assumption. Most sites which give information about the vaccine make the point that the vaccination does not increase risk of increasing sexual activity in tweens/young teens because that has been the concern raised - based on previous similar initiatives from around 1995 inwards eg the VD scare actually increased levels of VD.

OP the vaccine is a public health initiative, not a behaviour modification tool. If you want to discourage teenagers from having sex, you could always wave a bible at them or something.

The reduced need for smear tests as well. What a glorious time to be alive for them.

that said I’m aware they need to tweak smear tests timings as they are missing cancers not caused by HPV

All of them, but in relation to all the others offered to DC it all made perfect sense.

As does this one.

There is no reduced need for smear tests. Women need to continue having smear tests. I am just pointing this out because I don't want people to not have smear tests because of misinformation. Have smear tests!

Pointless question on your part then?

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.

really interesting that the dark posters come out in force for this subject on every thread. Is this part of your mission, as instructed by Blofeld?

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.

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.

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.