378
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2026
378 points (100.0% liked)
Uplifting News
19653 readers
39 users here now
Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews (rules), a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity and rage (e.g. schadenfreude) often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news—in text form or otherwise—that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good, from a quality outlet that does not publish bad copies of copies of copies.
Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
It's absolutely awesome, I do wonder how we eventually deal with the flood of very sensible vaccines though. Like, of course we can poke children a lot in the first 12 years of their life and probably also combine a few of them like we did before, though there also are a metric fuckton of things mRNA vaccines are possible against. Poking children once every week sounds, uh… complicated.
(Don't get me wrong, I want a world where THAT is our problem)
Many of the new mRNA vaccines, especially those against cancer, aren't usable that way anyways, e.g. from the article:
So you get those, when you already have the disease, the reason it's called a vaccine is because it's making your immune system fight it instead of directly acting on the cause
Oh, weird. I thought those ran under the name immunotherapy.
That may well be the more correct term, I'm not in a medical profession, just read some articles about it (and news are usually not great about terminology). But as someone in another thread wrote, they're calling this one a "neoantigen therapy" to avoid triggering RFK 🙄
A lot of vaccines are combined. MMR and DTaP, for example, were probably two you got as a child.
At least for respiratory vaccines, nasal inhalation might be a future way of reducing pokes. I think I saw early research saying its more effective as its where the problem is, but that getting both might be better than one or the other still.
HPV vaccines (stops cervical cancer) are a thing here for girls and they don't get them until they're 12. They just go around the schools. This seems like it could be done later too, maybe at the same time.
The vaccine schedule for kids is already pretty hefty. I can't remember how many times we had to get them to the doctor but it felt like a lot when you're already frazzled.
Boys should really get it too, they can transmit the virus causing the cancer… I think in Germany they just did a marketing campaign about this recently to push vaccination rates among men.
True the schedule was already quite a thing, though it probably felt like more than it was. Perhaps they find a way to administer the mRNA vaccines orally like with the old polio one (but this time safely!), that way you could perhaps "sneak" it into a piece of candy or sth.
Yeah I'm not sure what the reasoning is behind not giving it to boys but it's not part of the national vaccine schedule.
Cost-benefit is the likely reason.
For comparison: the UK initially concluded the cost-benefit ratio was in favour of girls-only HPV vaccination, but IIUC updated this assessment and offered it to boys too after a public campaign by Jaime Winstone.
Every time such a calculation is made they should be forced by law to publicize the calculated worth of a humans life and/or health.
In the UK at least, decisions and rationale about which vaccinations and treatments should be publicly-funded via the NHS are published quite transparently. For example: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/story/preventing-cancer-extending-vaccination-boys
Vaccinating everyone in the UK against everything for which vaccines are available (even against diseases with very low risk in the UK) would cost so much that the NHS would have to cut treatments with very high benefit-to-cost ratio.
Therefore, below a certain benefit-to-cost threshold, the UK has no reasonable choice except to withhold public funding. The HPV vaccine for boys was right on that threshold. IMO, the UK did the right thing by funding the clear benefit (HPV vaccine for girls, whose risk was significantly higher per existing evidence) and extending it to boys when additional evidence showed it was worth doing so.
I have to wonder if vaccinating just some part of the boys' population would have a higher benefit/cost ratio. Or vaccinating only in bigger cities.
Many of the cancers it prevents can be gotten regardless of sex. Among the cancers are throat and colorectal.
Also prevents genital warts, which aren't dangerous (HPV either will cause warts or cancer depending on the strain), but like, you can ensure you don't get genital warts