STD vaccines and social implications

Post Reply New Topic

I'm curious as to why STD vaccines are not mandatory or more importantly, why aren't there more of them seeing how swine flu already has a vaccine.

If there were vaccines for common STD's, do you think that it could change sexual behavior and social mores regarding sex in our culture?

I understand that condoms are around for good reason, but they do somehow detract from the experience. One could argue that people should walk around with gloves on in order to prevent illnesses just as well. But, walking around with gloves also detracts from the human experience in intuitive ways that can only understood through illogical reasoning. I mean, we should by all standards of health reassurance be walking around with gloves since our hands are the main source of germ infestation. A toilet handle is typically more sanitary than a random person's hands afterall.

So, why aren't STD vaccinations more prevalent?

Many STDs are rather difficult to develop effective treatments or vaccinations for, unfortunately. There are people working feverishly on an HIV vaccine, but they have yet to see any real progress. Swine flu already has a vaccine because it is still influenza and behaves in much the same manner as the countless other strains of flu that we've produced vaccines for. Researchers have had a lot of practice in quickly producing highly effective flu vaccines.

As for your comments on condoms: a condom has other purposes than limiting the spread of disease, namely, preventing pregnancy. If people believe that they are safe from STDs because they got a vaccine, they may be less likely to use a condom and we would see an increase in unwanted pregnancies.

They are not compulsory for the following reasons:

1) They are for infections which are not transmitted by casual contact
2) Making them mandatory would be a violation of human rights (parental rights in the case of a minor)

Question is moot. There are no vaccines for STDs, except the HPV vaccine for women. There are cures for one or two STDs, and only treatments of various effect for the others. There is nothing that can prevent them other than safe sex.

Why is the question moot? Don't you find it curious that there are no vaccines for STDs?
Sexual diseases have been around for a long, long time.

They're just trickier little buggers than most of the other diseases we deal with. I wouldn't say the question is moot, as there are active attempts to develop STD vaccines. They just haven't gotten very far yet. Wait around a few years, maybe the situation will change.

What doesn't kill us makes us stranger.

Seriously though, I wouldn't take something of the sort for a malady that can easily be prevented through safe sex.

There is no correlation between the length of time a disease has been around and how possible it is to make a vaccine for it. A vaccine for HIV would be more helpful for the world at large than a vaccine for all the other STDs combined. And researchers around the world have been trying to do this since shortly after the virus was isolated. Why haven't they done it yet? Because they don't know how. There is no simple plug-in recipe that guarentees a safe, effective vaccine. Some viruses are easier to vaccinate against than others. As far as STDs go, they have succeeeded in making safe, effective vaccines for Hepatitis B and for HPV. If the others can't be vaccinated for it is not for lack of trying. But just because researchers try and try and try does not guarentee they will succeed.