Reducing deaths is great, but shouldn’t they also mention the reduction in treatment (which is usually surgical or chemo, both of which are massively expensive, traumatic, and life altering in negative ways).
Reducing deaths is great, but shouldn’t they also mention the reduction in treatment (which is usually surgical or chemo, both of which are massively expensive, traumatic, and life altering in negative ways).
The people that died there's the numbers for that, but the people that didn't need treatment in the first place.
Not just a reduction in trauma but freeing up Drs to treat other cancers too.
They could do that, but given how low the base rate is, the reduction in number of procedures (and the resulting negative impacts on the women) would be incredibly low. It seems the base rate for cervical cancer deaths under 30 was already near zero.
I don’t think that’s right. I know 2 women well enough that they shared with me having been diagnosed with cervical dysplasia, diagnosed via Pap smear, in their late 20s. Both had a procedure to freeze off the affected cells and were later declared cured.
My understanding of it is that this is extremely freaking common as far as medical issues go, because women, much more so than men, are more likely to go in for routine screening when they’re suppose to, and these these get frequently found before they become major issues.
One could reasonably argue that nearly every ablation treatment for cervical dysplasia is a cancer treatment, just a very early one that isn’t drastically life-affecting. And if so, the number of cervical cancer incidents would be ginormous higher than deaths from it.
And ask any woman who’d gone through and paid for cervical ablation, and I bet 99 of 100 would choose to have gotten a preventative shot, except for the 1 idiot in every group.
Those are precancerous lesions, it's not the same as being diagnosed with cervical cancer. In young people these are not that uncommon, yet the majority do not progress onto cancer. This is part of the reason there's been a major shift in recommended testing timelines for cervical cancer for younger people. The treatment may be unnecessary and can cause both physical and emotional trauma.
The base rate of deaths is different from the base rate of diagnosed illness. Dying before 30 is obviously less common than being diagnosed before 30.
> given how low the base rate is, the reduction in number of procedures (and the resulting negative impacts on the women) would be incredibly low
Correct. These data are more a preview of what we can expect to see as the vaccinated cohort (in countries that aren’t pro-disease) advances in age.
Indeed, Australia will be one of the first countries to eliminate cervical cancer (by 2035) due to their HPV vaccine vaccination uptake rates.
Two decades to get here, one to go.
https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-hon-rebecca-white-mp...
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13036706/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009829972...
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd6w15vgp7lo
>the base rate for cervical cancer deaths under 30 was already near zero.
It has never been zero between 1970 and 2019. It has been completely 0 between 2020 and 2024.
Not according to the age-bucked histogram in the data you linked to below.