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?

Do you think the vaccine should be given later and if so why?

This isn't correct though. My year 8 daughter was able to consent to be vaccinated at school if I had refused consent, so long as the HCP on the day deemed her to be competent to do so.
Parents were clearly informed of this in the information sent from school.

Thank god that children can protect themselves if they have ignorant parents

It wasn't the illogical step. It is being shouted down by a bunch of posters but that doesn't mean my thinking was illogical. It means that this issue is of significance to those posters, for not very clear reasons, as if they were really concerned about public health they wouldn't be posting as they do.

Sadly, some kids are sexually active as young as 12. So yeah the earlier they gave it the greater chance they have of protecting that generation.

I imagine OP feels that they are jUsT AsKiNG QuESTioNs...

Agreed very strange - it's just an antivax stirrer.

The HPV vaccine is safe, effective and has saved thousands of lives, and thousands more from being impacted by long-term illnesses and disability. It is an enormously important public health break through.

To query "why 11?" is nonsense

Especially when the vaccine is actually given in year 8 - when children are age 12 and 13 - and nearly a quarter of teens are likely to become sexually active within a year of that.

What other vaccines do you have a problem with @nooshoo

Okay so I have to love you and leave you now. The posters making various bonkers claims have not been able to link any sources and are unlikely to so I will hide the thread.

Thanks to the tiny minority who posted helpful things.

Good luck to you all!

Your child can over rule you

Yes, in a word.

HPV is not passed on solely by intercourse, it can be passed on by intimate touching and oral sex etc.

You can in theory be a virgin and get HPV from a boy/man who has the virus (which is invisible and symptom-free.)

Around 80% of the population will have it at some point in their lives.
Most people's immune systems clear it (within 2 years) but some don't.

While rubbing their thighs in glee

No it’s not OP. They are not trying to get the vaccine to kids at an age just before most of them will become sexually active. They are trying to get the vaccine into kids well before the overwhelming majority of them will become sexually active, so the overwhelming majority will benefit from the protection the vaccine provides. If 20% are sexually active at 14, then saying 15 or 16 is a good age because it’s just before the majority of kids start to become sexually active would mean it was too late for a substantial proportion of kids!
It also used to be a 3 part vaccine spaced apart by 6 months, so they would have wanted to start a year earlier than whatever age was determined to be ideal.
This is such a good vaccine OP. I’m mid-thirties and was lucky enough to have my parents pay for this vaccine in my mid teens when it was not yet on the routine vaccine schedule. Every time I have a smear test or have my medical history taken as part of pregnancy care or have any kind of gynecological check up, the dr or midwife always asks about this vaccine and they always look pleased when I say I’ve had it. Half the time they mention how much it has reduced cancer in my age group. It’s had a huge positive impact on cancer stats for women my age and younger (and now probably young men too). Enough that people working in the field have noticed the change as obvious, even before you get into the stats and systematic analysis.

Everything you need to know is here. No one here can state why the age of 11 (I am guessing it is the year your DC turns 12) has been selected beyond the data publicly available. Just be grateful that it is offered.

My aunt died from CC at 51; my mother had a full hysterectomy at 46 as a result of CC and my sisters BOTH had CIN2 changes detected on a smear at 19 and 20, after just ONE BF. I was planning to pay privately for my kids to have the vax as a result and my gynae/obstetrician also said the year they turn 12 is optimal. Am going to infer it is because stats indicate a higher percentage of YPs are secularly active by the time they are 13 than we like to imagine.

https://www.nhs.uk/vaccinations/hpv-vaccine/

🤡

No. It's perceived that most children aren't sexually active at 11, but will become sexually active at some point after that. The average age for people to start having sex in the UK is 17, if that's what you're trying to find out. Obviously an average is just that - an average. Some will be much earlier and some will be much later.

You're being really, really weird about this.

One now, lifelong cover

The HPV vaccine only protects against 9 strains of HPV which are the ones that are most linked to cancers. HPV isn’t just spread through sexual contact, close skin to skin contact in general can cause it. But the reason you are looking for as to why aged 11, there’s multiple factors not just sexual activity, from an NHS point it will probably be due to the financial aspect?! They need 2 doses of aged between 9-14. Aged 15+ you need 3 doses and this was proven with research as from 15 the immune response was not as strong for the vaccine so an extra dose is needed for full protection (because they have likely been exposed exposed to HPV already). Extra vaccine = more expensive for the NHS and potentially less effective for the individual receiving the vaccine, so it’s more likely to be this than capturing a group of humans before sexual contact. You can have the vaccine if you are 50-60-70 if you want, it just generally isn’t recommended as you are highly likely to have already been exposed to HPV by this age. It isn’t one of those STIs that are just super unlucky to have caught through unprotected sex. 80% of us will have had strains of HPV throughout our lives and not even know it, and it is even picked up through kissing/skin to skin contact not just sex. There’s over 200 strains of HPV. Also it is about how and when they can roll out the 2 jabs and the logistics around that, the studies have shown the younger they’re done the better the immune response which will be down to them being significantly less likely to have already been exposed to HPV at a younger age, any exposure to it can lessen the immune response to the vaccine. This includes kissing. This is why I don’t have any of the older generation kiss my child lol nearly all the oldies in my family have HSV and no doubt HPV too! Is it just me who asks these things before letting a nurse route up my coochie to do a smear?

Wow, this is a weird thread.

It's almost as if someone was hoping for anecdotes about 11 year olds having sex.

I think OP’s angle is that giving this vaccine at age 11 is somehow encouraging or sanctioning kids have sex at age 12-17, when it would be better for them to wait till they were more mature - like university age. But that’s just not how effective public health measures work. They don’t tie protective preventative health care to ideal moral/emotional behavior. It’s the same logic for teaching kids at age 11-13 about sex, contraception and healthy sexual relationships. The idea is for them to have the knowledge or protection before they need it. Keeping sex ed until teens are, say, 16 or 17 years old would result in more transmission of a STIs and more unwanted/unplanned teen pregnancies. Waiting until a similar age for the HPV vaccine would be like punishing kids who are sexually active younger than is ideal with a greater risk of cancer. It also just lets the viruses continue to circulate in the general population where they may have been eradicated in a generation or two with higher and more effective vaccine coverage.

Oh also the studies proved that the later the vaccines were started the more incomplete full doses were done, so they actually say the most successful full doses were done aged 9-10 whereas 11 onwards there are a greater number of incomplete vaccinations where they haven’t gone for their second doses making them ineffective, so that’s another factor why aged 11 is considered best as it is proven to be much more likely the 2 doses are completed.

No. It's perceived that most children 'won't' be sexually active by then so that's the best time to do it. As many people have said?

That's another hell of an illogical leap! People pointing out your mistakes are not really concerned about public health? FFS!

It's meant to be around puberty so that sounds about right. Not so much now, but before the vaccine existed the virus was extremely common. So apparently most people who had sexual contact with more than one person would come into contact with it at some point in their life. It's great they are giving the vaccine to both sexes now as well.

I had to ask one of the family planning staff to move her car once and in the waiting area was kids in school uniforms not looking in any way old enough for sex but there for contraception.

It was an eye opener.

Looking back all the girls in my year at school having D&C didn’t have heavy periods they were having surgical abortions because the abortion tablet hadn’t been released yet.

The 20% research shows are sexually active at 14 deserve protection too, the age of consent was only bought in to put a stop to child prostitution not consensual relationships with peers. 16 is an arbitrary number it was lower at first.

This is the source that proves everyone (except OP) is correct. See Chapter 28 for Rubella. Plenty of evidence out there if OP had actually wanted to find it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/649032b6b32b9e000ca969a7/HPV-green-book-chapter-18a-June-2023.pdf

In my work I've seen 8/9 year olds who are engaging in sexual activity. Not right and they were being heavily supported but denying that it happens isn't helping anyone either. As pp have said age 12 is a good age as it will catch the vast majority before they become sexually active. You're giving them a quick injection to protect them against a virus that can cause a devastating type of cancer. You're hardly giving them a copy of the karma sutra or endorsing sexual activity in any way. I don't think we should overthink it. Just be happy that our girls can now be protected against this horrible disease.