17 October 2009

since I'm on here, more, and more

I am sort of at the same opinion with the HPV vaccine that is reached relating to circumcision. I don't see a problem with recommendation. It's not clear that with women and girls getting this vaccine already at a requirement like level there's enough of a social benefit (in the US) for this to be a requirement imposed on men simply because there is probably a very small, at best, externality or social benefit (as added protection for women) and probably no benefit relative to the opportunity costs for men at all. It's possible for example that there are greater benefits (both for society at large and for women) simply parking more resources in cervical cancer treatments and detection, combined with (improving) vaccinations for women.

The aside point brought up if this were a reversed position relating to testicular cancer is a good one though. That is worth considering what, if any, impact it would have. And whether the altruism involved in the societal benefits of mass scale vaccination campaigns of infectious diseases (many of which DO have very large externality benefits because the diseases themselves are fatal or debilitating and were far more infectious and common) has some value of its own.

Also, as my own aside, all of my postings tonight were done during the Yankees-Angels game. This one right as the Angels took the lead in the 11th inning. It looks like they are playing in a snowstorm in some of the close up shots. It's that cold and rainy.
Post a Comment