Because 90% gives sex a substantial risk, probably worse than distributing condoms to people with AIDS. Abstinance, much derided by some, is 100% effective. Treatment for the cancer, although painful and possible deleterious is basically 100% at the early stages. The cancer is caused by other agents. The virus won't spread at 100% regardless of vaccine (I have no clue about the numbers other than it isn't 100%). The vaccine is not very justifiable except on a voluntary basis even at 100%, certainly not at 90.
Because 90% gives sex a substantial risk, probably worse than distributing condoms to people with AIDS. Abstinance, much derided by some, is 100% effective.
You seem to be assuming several things I haven't said. Abstinence is a great solution, but many people won't stick to it. Those who aren't abstinent may then go on to infect their spouse. I'm not willing to write all those people off.
Treatment for the cancer, although painful and possible deleterious is basically 100% at the early stages.
Yes, but the key is getting women checked for it in the early stages. Many women don't know they're infected, and may not go in for check-ups. Again, I'm not willing to write those women off, either. Additionally, prevention is better than having to have a procedure done, and some procedures can damage fertility.
The cancer is caused by other agents. The virus won't spread at 100% regardless of vaccine (I have no clue about the numbers other than it isn't 100%). The vaccine is not very justifiable except on a voluntary basis even at 100%, certainly not at 90.
I haven't even mentioned voluntary vs. involuntary, I was taking issue with your statement that the program ought to be cancelled entirely.