| ▲ | xkbarkar 4 days ago |
| In Denmark its not recommended for women over a certain age. So please don’t get it regardless of age. Its not really considered effective for women who have been sexually active for some time. Which is why its only recommended for girls, not women. https://www.ssi.dk/vaccinationer/boernevaccination/vaccinati.... Tldr; Dont rush to get a vaccine that is probably not effective for you.
Make an appointment with your doctor and discuss it with her first. |
|
| ▲ | tordrt 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| There is many different strains of HPV, the likelihood of already have contracted them all is small. It will still protect you against strains you don't have. It also protects against genital warts. The vaccionation program targets young girls because thats the most efficient time to take it and has highest benefit/cost. You will still reap benefits of taking it later. I dont see any reason not to take if you get it for free and you are planning to be sexually active with multiple different partners. |
| |
| ▲ | tecleandor 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | This. Protects against strains you don't have, reduces the spreading. We (male that have sex with females, and haven't been vaccinated) are a huge infection vector. My doctors have generally refused vaccinating me for years (Male/43yo), but finally a new (female) doctor told me it's a good idea. I'm not in a risk group, so I have to pay for the vaccine: Gardasil 9, 3 doses, 3 months away of each other, ~€200 each, although studies say that 2 doses might be enough. In reality, you can pay to a private doctor so they write you a prescription, but I feel more validated if my doctor says it's OK :) | |
| ▲ | mailund 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | just keep in mind that not all kinds of HPV vaccines protect against all the strains causing warts! Some do, but not all, check the specific brand you're getting! Obviously cancer is worse, but the extra protection is nice to have. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | cassepipe 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Even if there's a small chance that it would make a difference, wouldn't it be worth it if you have the money and you feel like it's your duty to protect others ? At worst, it's useless and you have contributed to make a vaccine more profitable (which, IIUC is a problem for vaccines ?) |
| |
| ▲ | NiloCK 4 days ago | parent [-] | | At worst, it's harmful! From top of my layperson head: bruised insertion sites, tainted needles, tainted vaccine supply, customer capacity crowding for the pharmacy, squeezing supply capacity for actual target demographics, etc etc etc. Things have tradeoffs, even if they are subtle. Relentless follow-through on marginal protocols should generally be treated with suspicion. Stranger danger advocates brush off the criticism that most abductions occur among family with the "if there's a small chance it would make a difference" argument, but this ignores the real harms of teaching children to fear everyone by default. | | |
|
