4 ms·

The estimated number of deaths from cervical cancer in the US in 2026 is 4,200. The death rate is 2.2 per 100,000 people down from 3.1 per 100,000 in 1992. If

by pfdietz 4mo ago

The estimated number of deaths from cervical cancer in the US in 2026 is 4,200. The death rate is 2.2 per 100,000 people down from 3.1 per 100,000 in 1992. If we multiply 3.1e-5 by 50 years that's about a 0.15% chance of dying of this cancer. The HPV shots cost $500-1000 for the three shots, so the cost per life saved is about $650K. With the statistical value of a human life being about $12M this is quite cost effective. I'm assuming the reduction in death continues to later in life after 30, but that's a reasonable assumption, IMO.

Gigachad 4mo ago
Even if you just consider all of those 4000 + survivors would have got treatment for the cancer after getting it which costs far more than a vaccine.
- cma 4mo ago
  Yep and significantly more than the death count would have needed expensive treatment and be out of the workforce for a time or permanently. Also the charged price isn't real cost to the economy. If they have a big margin on it after fixed research/approval expenses lots of it feeds back into the economy through taxes and dividends/reinvestment in other drug development. Beyond death, it can also cause sterility and people may end up with extremely expensive IVF surrogacy pregnancies etc.
TZubiri 4mo ago
Good calc, here's some other benefits. herd immunity: Vaccines benefit even those that don't take the vaccine now. eradication effects: vaccines benefit those that don't take the vaccine in the future. fertility increase: non lethal cervical cancer can cause inability to get pregnant or carry a pregnancy to term. I don't know if it can cause birth defects. Life Years: Early deaths save more Life Years than diseases that protect against later disease. Quality Adjusted Life Years: Very nuanced, and I don't know how HPV cancers compare against the baseline of QALY. But being a vaccine that prevents, the Quality of life gained should be 100%, which would compare positively to treatments that do not cure completely
somenameforme 4mo ago
It's not reasonable to use the rates from 30+ years ago because survival rates for all cancers have been sharply increasing for decades. You also need to consider years of life lost if you're going to look at things economically, because you're formulating things as if somebody who died of cervical cancer never existed. Cervical cancer disproportionately affects older women, even moreso than other cancers. The average age of diagnosis is 50 [1] and so the years of lost life due to cervical cancer is both going to be extremely low and going to disproportionately be very late life years lost. Rates in U30 are already near zero with an extremely high survival rate for those that do get it. [1] - https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/cervical-cancer/about/key-statistics.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/cervical-cancer/about/ke...
- pfdietz 4mo ago
  So use the current rate, which is 2.2 per 100,000. The argument is basically the same. The cost/benefit ratio is so good that your quibbles don't change the conclusion.
  - somenameforme 4mo ago
    Do you understand the problem I'm describing? You are saying that women who got cervical cancer essentially died at birth. You need to look at years of life lost. Cervical cancer has a low frequency, high survivability, and disproportionately effects women in later age. You also need to factor in the efficacy of the vaccines, which will not be 100%. The years of life lost/saved will end up most likely being in the days or weeks at most, and so the $12 million figure you pulled out of thin air, for a full lifetime, is highly inappropriate. This also generalizes to many medical issues. For instance, contrary to what most people think, early cancer screening achieves very little in terms of life extension. Prostate cancer screening, for example, adds about 37 days to one's life expectancy. [1] [1] - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2808648 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...
    - pfdietz 4mo ago
      Let me shoot right back and ask if you understand what I was saying. Yes, I understood what you are saying. I was making a crude argument, but the crude argument showed benefit something like 18-36x the cost. The points you are making would reduce the benefit, but not by a factor anywhere close to 18.
aaron695 4mo ago
[dead]

by pfdietz 4mo ago

Gigachad 4mo ago

Even if you just consider all of those 4000 + survivors would have got treatment for the cancer after getting it which costs far more than a vaccine.

cma 4mo ago
Yep and significantly more than the death count would have needed expensive treatment and be out of the workforce for a time or permanently. Also the charged price isn't real cost to the economy. If they have a big margin on it after fixed research/approval expenses lots of it feeds back into the economy through taxes and dividends/reinvestment in other drug development. Beyond death, it can also cause sterility and people may end up with extremely expensive IVF surrogacy pregnancies etc.

TZubiri 4mo ago

Good calc, here's some other benefits. herd immunity: Vaccines benefit even those that don't take the vaccine now. eradication effects: vaccines benefit those that don't take the vaccine in the future. fertility increase: non lethal cervical cancer can cause inability to get pregnant or carry a pregnancy to term. I don't know if it can cause birth defects. Life Years: Early deaths save more Life Years than diseases that protect against later disease. Quality Adjusted Life Years: Very nuanced, and I don't know how HPV cancers compare against the baseline of QALY. But being a vaccine that prevents, the Quality of life gained should be 100%, which would compare positively to treatments that do not cure completely

somenameforme 4mo ago

It's not reasonable to use the rates from 30+ years ago because survival rates for all cancers have been sharply increasing for decades. You also need to consider years of life lost if you're going to look at things economically, because you're formulating things as if somebody who died of cervical cancer never existed. Cervical cancer disproportionately affects older women, even moreso than other cancers. The average age of diagnosis is 50 [1] and so the years of lost life due to cervical cancer is both going to be extremely low and going to disproportionately be very late life years lost. Rates in U30 are already near zero with an extremely high survival rate for those that do get it. [1] - https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/cervical-cancer/about/key-statistics.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/cervical-cancer/about/ke...

pfdietz 4mo ago
So use the current rate, which is 2.2 per 100,000. The argument is basically the same. The cost/benefit ratio is so good that your quibbles don't change the conclusion.
- somenameforme 4mo ago
  Do you understand the problem I'm describing? You are saying that women who got cervical cancer essentially died at birth. You need to look at years of life lost. Cervical cancer has a low frequency, high survivability, and disproportionately effects women in later age. You also need to factor in the efficacy of the vaccines, which will not be 100%. The years of life lost/saved will end up most likely being in the days or weeks at most, and so the $12 million figure you pulled out of thin air, for a full lifetime, is highly inappropriate. This also generalizes to many medical issues. For instance, contrary to what most people think, early cancer screening achieves very little in terms of life extension. Prostate cancer screening, for example, adds about 37 days to one's life expectancy. [1] [1] - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2808648 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...
  - pfdietz 4mo ago
    Let me shoot right back and ask if you understand what I was saying. Yes, I understood what you are saying. I was making a crude argument, but the crude argument showed benefit something like 18-36x the cost. The points you are making would reduce the benefit, but not by a factor anywhere close to 18.

aaron695 4mo ago

[dead]