Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday March 06 2018, @06:58PM   Printer-friendly
from the still-have-a-long-way-to-go dept.

Naaman Zhou at The Guardian writes that Australia's free human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programme in schools has been highly successful. The International Papillomavirus Society calculates that within 40 years, the number of new cases of cervical cancer will become nearly negligible.

HPV (human papillomavirus) is a sexually transmitted infection that causes 99.9% of cervical cancers. In 2007, the federal government began providing the vaccine for free to girls aged 12-13 years, and in 2013, it extended the program to boys.

Girls and boys outside those ages but under 19 can also access two doses of the vaccine for free. In 2016, 78.6% of 15-year old girls and 72.9% of 15-year old boys had been vaccinated.

As a result, the HPV rate among women aged 18 to 24 dropped from 22.7% to 1.1% between 2005 and 2015.

Eradication is still a few decades out but within reach. The vaccinations are backed up by more advanced cervical screening tests, which are themselves highly successful in detecting high-risk HPV infections before they turn really bad.

Source : Australia could become first country to eradicate cervical cancer. The Guardian


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @10:56PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @10:56PM (#648758)

    Don't bother with VLM, he is either a circle jerking jackass who refuses to acknowledge info that doesn't confirm his bias

    OR

    he is a professional troll account used to sow discord and make conservatives look exactly like their more negative caricatures

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday March 06 2018, @11:46PM (3 children)

    by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 06 2018, @11:46PM (#648785) Journal

    The problem is, *some* conservatives, just like *some* liberals, are exactly like their more negative caricatures. I've met a few of both.

    --
    Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ilPapa on Wednesday March 07 2018, @03:10AM (2 children)

      by ilPapa (2366) on Wednesday March 07 2018, @03:10AM (#648846) Journal

      he problem is, *some* conservatives, just like *some* liberals, are exactly like their more negative caricatures.

      Except all conservatives are now VLM. They have to be or they're expelled as "RINOs" and "cucks". There is no longer any moral equivalent.

      --
      You are still welcome on my lawn.
      • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday March 07 2018, @06:59AM

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 07 2018, @06:59AM (#648910) Journal

        I'm sorry, but "VLM"?? What does that mean? I also don't recognize either "RINOs" or "cucks".

        FWIW, I don't consider the US right wing to be conservative. They aren't even reactionary. "Jingoist" could be defensible.

        A conservative is one who wishes to conserve whatever they thing is good about the current situation, so those defending their right to purchase guns could fairly be called conservative *on that issue*. They're trying to conserve what they consider good about the current situation. But on most other issues the term conservative is wildly inappropriate.

        Now to go back to what I said, some conservative are like their caricatures. I'm not talking about the general run of right wing spokesmen, who seem to either be unable to express whatever their actual goals are coherently, or to actually have an incoherent set of goals. (I'm talking about individuals. For a category of people to have incoherent goals is only to be expected.) This is sort of the way the spokesmen of the left were like back when they were pushing "coalition politics" without bothering to get an agreement about just what they intended to include. So the spokesmen would just say any garbage that they thought sounded like it might be attractive to *some* potential supporters. Bob Wilson satirized this in Schroedinger's Cat as the Necrophile Liberation Front and the Foot Fetishist Liberation Front. But the current crop of right wing politicians are a bit difficult to satirize.

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Wednesday March 07 2018, @12:27PM

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday March 07 2018, @12:27PM (#648962) Homepage Journal

        Except all conservatives are now VLM. They have to be or they're expelled as "RINOs" and "cucks". There is no longer any moral equivalent.

        No. VLM is a radical reactionary. He's authoritarian, intolerant and is unable to understand or empathize with others.

        I am a conservative, because I want to maintain the ideals of liberty, freedom of expression and making the ideals of equality of opportunity and equality under the law as expressed by our forbears apply to everyone, regardless of their melanin content, ethnic/religious background or philosophical bent. All of which makes me center-left. That's conservatism -- striving to maintain the ideals of our society.

        Sadly, the radical reactionaries have appropriated that term for themselves, even though it's doesn't represent their beliefs and goals.

        What VLM advocates is exclusionary, authoritarian, repressive and hateful. Which makes him a bigoted, far right, nativist [wikipedia.org]. That's not conservative. Rather it's destructive and advocates moving away from our ideals, not preserving them.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr