In our opinion: Step up and stop preventable disease from spreading through Utah

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Owl Salt Lake City, UT
    April 19, 2019 9:20 a.m.

    Claiming a religious exemption for vaccination is in reality a personal choice that is often used as an excuse for vax denying. Who could be against religious freedom? However, it has little to do with theology. Most religions, including the Catholic church, LDS church and many Protestant denominations have made strong statements supporting immunization. Other than for clear medical contraindications, objection to vaccinations does not have an actionable moral or scientific basis. Society has the right in fact obligation to implement immunization programs.

  • liberal larry Salt Lake City, UT
    April 19, 2019 6:34 a.m.

    Allow lawsuits against parents whose unvaccinated children infect others!

  • ArizonaMormon ,
    April 18, 2019 7:54 p.m.

    @nonamesaccepted,

    This idea that healthy unvaccinated people pose no more risk than healthy vaccinated people is false. Unvaccinated people are more likely to become infected and spread the disease, which they can do before they become symptomatic.

    The number of people whom they endanger by not getting vaccinated is not small. It includes most infants under 12-15 months of age. I have a 9 month old, so I take this very seriously.

    The risk of adverse effects from vaccines are so small, they are many orders of magnitude smaller than the risks not vaccinating.

    Also, there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support a modified vaccine schedule done at a slower pace. It's nothing more than a whim.

    Tens of thousands of innocent children die worldwide every year from diseases that could be prevented and in some cases eradicated by vaccines.

    Religious and personal belief exceptions should be eliminated. Medical exemptions should be granted in narrow circumstances for specific medical indications. Otherwise, vaccines should be required for every child in order to attend public schools.

  • aghast Syracuse, UT
    April 18, 2019 12:17 p.m.

    I fully support your right not to immunize your children, but if you do not have a valid, medical reason substantiated and verified by a medical doctor (not religious reason) I believe it is the right of schools, parents and others not to have your children go to school with mine, or associate with me in my workplace. Why do I have to substantiate your beliefs with my sacrifice of being safe from disease? It is a blessing and sound scientific fact to have vaccinations!

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    April 18, 2019 11:42 a.m.

    An unvaccinated but healthy person poses no more risk to me than a healthy, vaccinated person. Whether the person was or was not vaccinated doesn't matter once he has a disease. He now poses some risk. But since I've received my vaccinations or aquirred immunity by having the disease, even a person with measles, mumps, chicken pox, etc poses no risk to me.

    So let's stop the scare tactics of claiming an unvaccinated person poses some risk to others. He poses a risk only to himself and, if he gets ill, to a very small number of persons who choose or are unable to get vaccinated.

    Why is it we are more willing to quarantine or punish someone for not getting a measles vaccine than we are someone who actually has HIV/AIDS or Hep-C? These latter diseases will kill most everyone who contracts them. Measles is far less dangerous. Politics and PC over facts and data, I guess.

    I believe we could dramatically reduce opposition to vaccines by being 100% honest about known risks. I choose vaccines in most cases. But I chose a different schedule that spread vaccines out. Kids still had them all before starting school. Let's deal with real numbers rather than vague claims of safety.

  • stevo123 Driggs, ID
    April 18, 2019 10:28 a.m.

    @Strider, My thought on your post is, Your right to not immunize ends at the possibility of sickening some one else.

  • Strider303 American Fork, UT
    April 18, 2019 9:46 a.m.

    Interesting question. Should the government force people to be treated by current medical standards for a condition or illness? It was acceptable for the "government" to sterilize citizens with Downs Syndrome or severe mental challenges not that many decades ago. Lobotomies were also accepted medical practice for the mentally ill. These citizens were also institutionalized for life.

    I am not saying requiring vaccinations to be the same as the above, but the idea that government knows best is not always true. Governments are political institutions that function according to support (insert money here) and strong personalities that can sway the voting public to their view of how things should be run.

    We tout freedom of choice yet sometimes cringe when people exercise that franchise in what appears to be negatively oriented outcomes.

    That being said, vaccinations appear to save lives, and suffering, and the public treasury. There's a case for them to be made.

    Abstinence from tobacco, alcohol, recreational drugs and over indulging in sugars appear to be in the public good but we tolerate, even encourage their use, and profit by their use through taxes.

    Hypocrisy here?

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    April 18, 2019 6:31 a.m.

    Great piece. I went to school with a kid who had Polio. His life was dramatically changed by the disease. Today I read about a flight attendent in a coma, from Measles. We can now effectively vaccinate against cervical cancer, but people are even fighting that.

    People will invent or be swayed by any spurious information or unfounded claim in order to feel they weren't wrong... in the process harming their own kids, and putting people with compromised immune systems at risk of life or death.

    While healthcare researchers make progress on fighting disease, somebody needs to figure out how to convince anti-Vaxers they were right all along, while getting them to come onboard with vaccinating their kids.