Some argue that vaccinating girls for HPV would give them a false sense of security, and will thus lead to young teens' having more sex. I'm pretty skeptical about that.
Those girls who think about the risks of sex (and who knew in the first instance that sex can cause cervical cancer) will still realize that sex can spread AIDS — which kills roughly 2300-2500 American women per year, which causes over 5000 more per year to fall ill, and which strikes me as a much more publicly focused on risk than is HPV. They'll also recognize that sex can cause pregnancy; and those who blithely have sex without paying much attention to these remaining risks likely would have blithely ignored the risk of cervical cancer, too. "I wasn't going to have sex, because I was afraid of getting cervical cancer or AIDS, but now that I know that I'll only be at risk of AIDS, I'll go ahead and do it" strikes me as an implausible reaction.
In principle, I'm open to arguments that legal requirements that seem to increase safety will lead to riskier behavior that will eliminate much of the safety benefit. That's certainly a danger that sound policy analysis should take into account. But in this particular situation, it just doesn't seem very plausible.
Related Posts (on one page):
It does give us reason to make sure we pass out information with each vaccination telling them that they may still get AIDS or other STDs from sex.
Maybe for some number of girls, but I doubt it is a large number.
Yes, they are (and we were to) that stupid.
To the extent that teenage girls are Homo economicus (Peura economica?), yes, lessened risk will lead to more sex.
That's a feature, not a bug. A seatbelt or airbag can let you drive faster at the same level of risk. Lite beers are so you can drink more beer and maintain a reasonable BAC, not so you get less drunk.
Yes, I know, some stick-in-the-muds think that safety devices are supposed to reduce the total injuries from an activity, not increase the level of activity, but the rest of us, who enjoy driving, drinking, and sex (not necessarily all at once) do not agree.
There is a valid concern that some people might overestimate the amount of safety conveyed, driving too fast because of airbags, drinking too much because of lite beer, screwing too much because HPV shots ("too much" meaning more than is justified by the actual reduction in risk). The world is full of stupid people. My usual policy is "Darwin always wins", but in this case -- where the failure mode is additional offspring -- I may need to reconsider.
So we should vaccinate all young women against HPV because it might make some act more freely with their sexual favors? Cuz that's where I got following that nonsense logic!
Perhaps more importantly, several studies (eg Holmes 2004) show that condoms are less effective at reducing the transmission of HPV than they are at other STIs. Therefore, as a highly risk-informed young teen girl, I may feel significant disincentive to have sex with a condom due to HPV, which is eliminated by the vaccine.
Respondant: According to the Wikipedia article on HPV, 75% of women will get some variety of sexually transmitted HPV at some point in their lives. This suggests to me that the risk of infection is higher than that of AIDS. The risk of harm, however, may be significantly lower, (again from the wikipedia article) as most infections clear without symptoms, only a few varieties cause cancer, and regular pap smears (or being male, we lucky bastards) reduces the potential harm from cancer.
Thanks for the chuckle. I mean, for everyone other than the parents of teenage girls, it may well be a feature. However, one error that I felt I must correct: light beer has the same amount of alcohol as regular beer - it just has fewer calories. So, 2 light beers /hr will still get you a dui just like 2 regular beers/hr. Be careful.
R/
Pol
But it is erroneous to assume that the amount of compensation will always exactly equal the reduction in risk. Depending on the situation, the level of compensation may be larger or smaller than the actual level of risk reduction. If the compensation is larger, then the subject would have a false sense of security - for instance a "magic talisman" provides no measurable benefit, but may induce more risky behavior.
In broad terms, the amount of risk compensation is lowest when the safety feature is least perceptible. For instance, a vaccination that you got ten years ago and have long since forgotten.
So, I agree with Wintermute here, even if his reasoning is somewhat "sketchy".
As to the idea that somehow HPV vaccination will increase the likelihood of teenage sex, I don't think people who believe that have really considered how the teenage mind works. If fear of pregnancy, starting, say, tonight and carrying through until September is not enough to deter risky behavior, then why would a teenager be deterred by the slight (but real) possibility of cancer ten or 20 years in the future? Similarly, AIDS is a much more immediate threat than HPV -- and it has been around for quite a while. Likewise the standard STD's. Teenagers, at least in Northern Virginia, get very comprehensive sex education in the schools. They are aware of all the risks. The potential elimination of one risk that is quite low on the list in terms of immediacy will have no effect at all, in my opinion. The argument is silly (another way of saying what Wintermute said).
Yes, but it takes twice as much lite beer to make you fat!
Maybe the poster was thinking of 3.2 beer. This is a horrible product found in certain benighted states [1] with about half the alcoholic content. This means it takes twice as much beer and twice as many trips to the bathroom to get drunk. It also shows risk homeostasis in another way - regulations concerning this watered-down beer may be even more relaxed than alcohol regulations are in states that are otherwise far more tolerant of alcohol. When I attended Oklahoma State in the early 80's, a sort of relaxed nominal Prohibition was still in effect in OK. (I have no idea if this is still true.) Hard liquor by the bottle was available only in state liquor stores. Alcoholic beverages by the drink, including real beer, were available only in "private clubs" - but it took $1 and two minutes to become a member. IIRC, the minimum age for either was 21, which was also the drinking age in most of the country by then. However (and this I remember very clearly), according to the law, 3.2 beer was *not* an "alcoholic beverage". IIRC, no one blinked an eye at 18 year old college students eating lunch at a hamburger joint across the street from their classroom and ordering a 3.2 beer with it. (I was way over 21, and a teetotalling recovered alcoholic so I may have some of this wrong. OTOH, I certainly looked younger than 21, and I only got carded once - when I had to "join" a "private club" merely to meet someone there.)
[1] I don't really mean it about "benighted". OK politics is (or was) totally insane in a few specific areas - alcoholic beverages and road construction - but they're normal otherwise. (Aside from letting Oral Roberts speak in public, that is, and as undesirable as that is, I still support even his right to free speech.)
Not sure if you knew this or not, but Oklahoma's near beer rules were the subject of an important Equal Protection case: Craig v. Boren. The 18 year-olds at the hamburger joint owe Bill Brennan a debt of gratitude.