To take 2 infectious-poxy children out in public...

(347 Posts)
morecakerequired Wed 16-Jan-13 12:44:35

My DTs have the pox. (spots still appearing so definitely still infectious) Last week my DD1 had it and we spent the whole week indoors as a result. (DS went to and from school by himself) This week I am having to do the school run as DD1 is too young to go with just DS for supervision due to the 2 busy roads to cross. I am taking DTs up to the school in their buggy with the rain cover over them - standing away from other people and leaving as soon as kids are in/out. (we live a 2 min walk from the school)

SO - WIBU to carry on after the school run and take the DTs out for a walk and maybe even go into the small local supermarket to pick up some essentials? WIABU to perhaps take the rain cover off if there were no other people around on the street at that time?

I am so fed up of being stuck in the house and DTs are too - 2 weeks is just too long - and I really think we would all benefit from some fresh air. I can't let them go out into the garden just now as it is under a foot of snow and I don't think getting cold and wet playing in the snow would really help them.

I don't think I'm being unreasonable, but a few of the mums at school have made pointed remarks about how I had better hope there are no pregnant mums/people with low immune systems in the playground so just wondering if taking them for a walk will be bad too? AIBU to think that in a buggy with a rain cover over them and not actually coming into direct contact with anyone they aren't going to infect anyone?

(perfectly happy to accept if IABU - genuinely curious)

Sleepysand Wed 16-Jan-13 12:47:23

It can get passed on by coughs, sneezes and cross contamination, but none of those are really likely in the circumstances you describe. I don't think you should expect to be under quarantine to the extent that you cannot leave the house.

Yes, YABU.

This thread will not end well. <hands OP hard hat>

SallyCinnamonandNutmeg Wed 16-Jan-13 12:48:31

As far as I'm aware (I may be wrong) you have to come into fairly close contact with someone to catch chicken pox from them - certainly not from just walking or standing near children in a pram with a rain cover in a supermarket or playground!

Definitely go out and get some fresh air!

StuntGirl Wed 16-Jan-13 12:48:38

YWBU, for the reasons the other parents at school have pointed out.

lljkk Wed 16-Jan-13 12:48:39

You are going to get flamed, OP. I would ask MNHQ to delete the thread now.

AltinkumATEalltheTurkey Wed 16-Jan-13 12:48:47

If you need essentials you need essentials, just try and minimise you're contact with people.

My son has low immunity and tbh, people walk around 10 days prior to the spots becoming visable, so to me it makes no differance, as he could or may have been exposed prior to the public knowing, clearly knowing, I have minimum contact with the family.

goldenlula Wed 16-Jan-13 12:48:50

If you have no other way of getting your child to school then YANBU to do the school runs taking the precautions you are as your child has to go to school, but going to shops ect is avoidable (especially if you have family or dp) or get you older dc to wait outside with the twins after school while you go in or send him in.

TeeBee Wed 16-Jan-13 12:50:14

Totally get where you are coming from. The isolation is the worst bit of chicken pox. The virus is spread by direct contact and by air-bourne respiratory secretions, so if the your child is covered with a rain hood and you standing away from other people, I think you are taking the necessary precautions. I think taking them for a walk where there is no risk of infecting anyone else is also a sensible precaution. Taking them round the supermarket may not be so sensible, can you get a delivery? It will be over soon!! Good luck. Order yourself some wine with that supermarket delivery!

5madthings Wed 16-Jan-13 12:51:10

Yabvu and you will rightly get flamed!

Doing the school run with them in the buggy under the rain cover is one thing, taking them into a shop etc just because you don't want to stay indoors is another!

AltinkumATEalltheTurkey Wed 16-Jan-13 12:52:45

However I should state, I minimise purely for psychological purposes, any contact to the contamination beforehand is out of my control, but I would and have been for a walk while both ds were ill with CP, just through a local park but in school times so contact is miminual

MonaLotte Wed 16-Jan-13 12:52:54

It's a rain cover not a hazmat suit. YABU. it is one thing to have them out and about before when you didn't know they were contagious, but I think you are being quite selfish to knowingly expose them to others.
My DCs had it for the almost the entire summer holidays. One got it, then the other. We stayed in or played in our own back garden.

Sugarice Wed 16-Jan-13 12:54:27

You have no choice in taking your children to school and standing away from others with the rain cover covering the twins isn't going to infect anyone with the virus!

Going out for a walk is fine but I wouldn't go into any shops and take off the rain cover off the buggy, keep the cover over them if you have to buy essentials.

MrsMelons Wed 16-Jan-13 12:56:59

YABVVU, and given a current thread on chat you will be flamed on here!

You are being selfish, its a couple of weeks of being indoors FFS. Your friends are right, in rare cases CP can be fatal or extremely damaging and you are putting people at risk without their knowledge!

WileyRoadRunner Wed 16-Jan-13 12:57:12

YANBU to take them out in the pushchair with the raincover on.

In fact, I disagree with many posters and think YANBU to take them into the supermarket with the raincover on if you need to get something. I would have no choice but to do this as I have no one to do babysitting/ shopping for me.

And no YANBU to take the raincover off if you are walking down an empty street FFS!

However, as annoying as it is you are going to be housebound for another few days.

LiegeAndLief Wed 16-Jan-13 12:58:35

I took ds to school with dd under the raincover when she had cp. it's fairly common practice at ds's school. I had no other way of getting him to school and I definitely wasn't going to keep him off for a week.

There are some very heated opinions about this on mn though...

nethunsreject Wed 16-Jan-13 12:58:59

school fine. shops not .

morecakerequired Wed 16-Jan-13 12:59:18

Sorry - the comment about removing the rain cover was not related to the shop - obviously I would keep it on the in shop and would only nip in very quickly to get bread, milk and fruit - not hanging around browsing. The question about taking the rain cover off was if I was on a quiet street and there were clearly no other people around. Obviously if I saw/heard anyone coming along the street I would put the rain cover straight back on again.

Am I really knowingly exposing them to others? Seriously? Trust me I totally get the seriousness of infecting people but I guess my question is is that actually likely to happen if I take all the precautions I have said?

libelulle Wed 16-Jan-13 13:00:15

I think the chance of infecting anyone under a buggy rain-cover or in an empty street is close to zero. I can never understand the hysteria on MN about it. Chicken pox is not ebola! The OP is taking sensible precautions, not merrily sending her children to cough in the face of pregnant women.

Of course some people have terrible reactions to it. My own son was very ill with it and it was terrifying, but since 90% of children will catch it anyway at some point in childhood (mostly from someone infectious BEFORE the spots appear), it was almost certain to happen at some point. It is dangerous in immunocompromised individuals, but then so is the common cold.

WileyRoadRunner Wed 16-Jan-13 13:01:17

No morecake it will not happen if you take all the precautions you have stated.

libelulle Wed 16-Jan-13 13:02:27

But really the fundamental point is that it doesn't matter how dangerous or otherwise CP is - you are NOT endangering anyone if your kids are in a pushchair under a raincover! The bugs do not have legs.

Sugarice Wed 16-Jan-13 13:02:37

I think you should have a clear conscience nomore if you do it as you say.

Sleepysand Wed 16-Jan-13 13:03:32

When my sis was 2 she was confined to the house (for other reasons) for 3 weeks and came out terrified of strangers. As others have pointed out, lots of people wander round in the infectious state without knowing it; how far do those who are pregnant/have low immune states have the right to demand that other people curtail their lives when they have no choice but to take that risk on board?

I think, with a rain cover, YANBU. School run is just a no-brainer. Shops - well, i think I would ensure they weren't sneezing and touching things and if I couldn't I wouldn't.

I would also point out that a few years ago, it was the fashion to have pox parties. I never indulged, because I saw shingles once and didn't want my children to run that risk if I could help it. They all got it anyway. DC2 had it with one spot in his scalp and a general grumpiness, having been a baby when DC1 had it - and I was pregnant when DC2 had it. DC3 & 4 had it together. They all caught it at nursery.

The NHS says that risks to pregnant mothers are "low" and says only that, if you haven't had chicken pox (which is rare) and you have significant contact with someone with it, you should consult your midwife. It defines significant contact as "being in the same room as someone with the symptoms of chickenpox for 15 minutes or more, or face-to-face contact".

redspottydress Wed 16-Jan-13 13:04:14

I see nothing wrong with taking the raincover off in an empty street!

TallyGrenshall Wed 16-Jan-13 13:06:25

YANBU for doing the school run as you have been doing but YWBU to take them into a supermarket for all the reasons given above.

They could go in the garden to play depending on how they are feeling. DS felt fine, just spotty and I presume if they feel well enough for a walk then they aren't too bad either. Just wrap them up warm and let them go out in the back garden!

ChippingInNeedsSleepAndCoffee Wed 16-Jan-13 13:07:07

School run, under the rain cover, minimising time standing around - acceptable.

Walk along a country lane/fairly deserted area under the rain cover - acceptable.

Shops/playgrounds/anywhere else - not acceptable.

CP is not just a 'mild childhood thing' it is also a killer. Don't put anyone else at risk.

TidyDancer Wed 16-Jan-13 13:09:00

Why would you take the chance?! Of course you could infect someone.

School run fine, needs must and all that, and a longer walk home maybe, but don't go to the supermarket.

morecakerequired Wed 16-Jan-13 13:10:18

Fair enough - guess we'll have to wait til tomorrow for the essentials when an online shop can be delivered. (DH is away on business and have no family here who could do shop for me) Might venture out for a walk tomorrow after school to an area close to our house which I know will be deserted - will keep the rain cover on I guess. Thank you for all your comments.

WileyRoadRunner Wed 16-Jan-13 13:10:26

Oh please chipping! You are more likely to catch norovirus in the supermarket than chickenpox from children strapped into prams under a raincover.

If OP needs bread and milk to eat?

Such an overreaction.

For people with compromised immune systems colds could be a killer but no one expects everyone who has a cold to stay indoors for weeks on end!

MrsMelons Wed 16-Jan-13 13:10:38

Maybe MN hysteria is due many posters being on to a very upsetting thread at the moment die to CP.

You are probably right that if you take the precautions it will be fine, but I personally would only go out if absolutely necessary and no one else can get your shoppig.

My colleague died at 38 weeks pregnant giving birth due to her contracting chicken pox. She was not aware that she came into contact with anyone who had it.

MrsMelons Wed 16-Jan-13 13:11:11

due not die

BarbarianMum Wed 16-Jan-13 13:11:24

I don't see why the OP should be flamed.

School run - fine, park fine (if you can keep away from others). Quick pop into shop for essentials fine. 2 hours in soft play - not fine, but nobody is suggesting that.

Almost anything can, in certain tragic cases, end badly. Even the common cold.

OpheliasWeepingWillow Wed 16-Jan-13 13:11:54


Did you not see the sleepy baby thread?

WileyRoadRunner Wed 16-Jan-13 13:12:59

And that is the problem MrsMelons most infections etc are infectious before they present symptoms.

It is tragic and of course precautions should be taken but the OP has made very sensible suggestions.

morecakerequired Wed 16-Jan-13 13:15:57

Sorry haven't seen any other thread about CP. Don't want to upset anyone. Asking a genuine question with explanation of genuine precautions.

Sleepysand Wed 16-Jan-13 13:17:27

Why don't we all just live in plastic bubbles and communicate via the internet...

Maybe pregnant women should avoid shopping as they never know what risks they might be running? MrsM, I am deeply sorry for your friend, but the odds are she contracted it from someone who was not aware and was not taking any precautions. Tragic things happen a lot. WIBU to say that pregnant women ought to go out as little as possible to avoid risking their baby's health? Yes, I thought so.

Sleepysand Wed 16-Jan-13 13:18:24

oops their/baby's health, I meant.

snowybrrr Wed 16-Jan-13 13:20:33

YANBU They were going round merrily infecting everyone last week, when it was nearly a sure thing they were infected (Quite rightly I may add- we are not advised to quarantine siblings) so what is the difference?

morecakerequired Wed 16-Jan-13 13:23:25

(actually they weren't going around infecting anyone last week - DD1 had it and was off school so we stayed in the whole week until DD's spots had all scabbed over. I then also kept them in over the weekend even though DD1 was no longer infectious as I knew they could be. Spots appeared on Monday for 1 and Tuesday for the other)

MrsMelons Wed 16-Jan-13 13:23:44

fair point wiley but she could have come into contact with children that were taking out knowing they would be infectious.

TBH the OP sounds pretty sensible but I just think its this attitude of 'being' stuck in' that irritates me. Thats life someones and surely you should be able to occupy your DCs indoors. I can't really see what the problem of playing in the snow is if they are wrapped up. Them being stuck in a buggy is not really them getting much fresh air especially if they have the raincover on most of the time.

hazeyjane Wed 16-Jan-13 13:24:57

Sorry, but the difference is that it is wrong if you know your dc has chiken pox, it just is. Of course if they are out and about before the spots come out they will be infectious, then they might infect someone, and you can't prevent that, but when you know they have chicken pox, you keep them away from the public, that is why the advice is there. It is just doing the right thing.

MrsMelons Wed 16-Jan-13 13:26:33

Sleepy you are right in a way as stuff happens regardless of the precautions we take but it is a very sensitive subject for some and the reason for the OP going out is just because she's had enough of being at home and that just sounds a bit selfish.

And why am I getting a flaming when most of the first page of this thread people said the same hmm

CaptChaos Wed 16-Jan-13 13:28:46

With the precautions you are taking YANBU to whip in and out of a supermarket to get essentials, on the assumption that no one is going to get under the raincover and give them big kisses.

Sleepysand Wed 16-Jan-13 13:29:17

that is why the advice is there - what advice? The NHS says "avoid contact with (vulnerable groups)" and "don't go to hospital" and "you won't be allowed to fly" not "don't go to Sainsbury's" and "avoid being in sight of anyone". The OP INBU.

specialsubject Wed 16-Jan-13 13:29:34

take them outside, just keep your distance from people and explain why if you meet someone you know. Those who say 'do not leave the house' must think that the entire planet needs to be sterilised.

supermarkets and indoors probably a bad idea due to stuffy badly ventilated buildings.

meditrina Wed 16-Jan-13 13:31:06

If you do not know you are infectious, then there is nothing you can do.

That is not carte Blanche to then go into confined public spaces during the (much longer) period when you know you are infectious.

Essential trips out must be done, taking a longer route back and avoiding other people: both fine. Going into a shop for essentials - has to be done.

Going into a shop when not essential (and OP said in a later post she can do her shop online): irresponsible.

5madthings Wed 16-Jan-13 13:32:10

Yes you spread it before you know they have it but to continue to spread it knowingly is wrong!

Yes for many people chickenpox is no big deal but it can kill. Seriously if you knowingly took your child out when infectious and bumped into a family with a baby or immuno suppressed child and they then caught it and died would you not feel a bit crap that your need to not stay in has led to the death of someone else's child?!

It may be a small risk but its not one to take, you are choosing to put someone's life at risk.

Sleepysand Wed 16-Jan-13 13:32:55

MrsM I appreciate it is a very sensitive subject - but what people are saying is that in view of a very, very low risk of a very serious result, the OP should avoid going to the shop or for a walk, when her DTs have already been confined to the house for a long time. That in itself presents a risk - they start getting scared of going out or meeting people - and the OP is, therefore, I think entitled to go out using precautions. Not sure if/why you are particularly being flamed - didn't mean you only!

noblegiraffe Wed 16-Jan-13 13:33:00

I would be exceptionally annoyed if I was queueing in the supermarket and I saw your poxy child in the queue behind me. The NHS website says it can be caught from 15 minutes in the same room as someone infectious.

The reason I would be annoyed is because I'm 38 weeks pregnant and would have my little boy with me. I've had it, but he hasn't, and if he caught it (which is a possibility) then he would come down with it just as I am giving birth. What am I supposed to do them? Separate my toddler and newborn? Tell him that he can't go near her for the first week of her life? Spend the first weeks of my baby's life worrying that she'll catch it and be really ill?

I don't need that kind of worry just so that you can get to the shops.

ruledbyheart Wed 16-Jan-13 13:34:10

YABVU I am 8 weeks pregnant and never had chicken pox myself if caught when pregnant it can cause serious pregnancy complications, I understand you have school runs etc and some things are unavoidable but to take a pox infected child put because your sick of being in the house is an irresponsible action of an adult!

Indith Wed 16-Jan-13 13:38:47

Sometimes you HAVE to go out. In your case the school run has to be done and you are doing the right thing by keeping them covered, with the rain cover on there is very little chance of anyone getting infected. I think you would be fine getting some groceries too if you need them so long as you keep the cover on. I don't think it owuld be right to extend your time out though and go for a walk or take the cover off, sorry. I know it is miserable.

MrsMelons Wed 16-Jan-13 13:39:12

BTW the official NHS advice on their website is to stay off work and at home until you are no longer infectious.

Sleepysand Wed 16-Jan-13 13:39:58

ruledbyheart you could, of course, stay at home yourself. I know that sounds nasty, but it is what you are asking others to do. Or you could have been vaccinated prior to getting pregnant, rather than taking the risk of catching it while pregnant. I am playing devil's advocate here, but actually I think it could be argued that YABVU to insist that huge numbers of other people should change their behaviours so that you can avoid a risk you could have avoided yourself.

Noble - you could be in a queue with an infectious person any time you go in the supermarket. Chicken pox is endemic in Britain at this time of year.

Op - I have no problem with your plans.

As a general point for all btw I think it's really unfair to berate a poster because they haven't seen another (upsetting) thread. I happen to know the thread that's being referred to here but the OP was not required to search exhaustively before posting. Nor should she be made to feel dreadful because of a completely different situation.

MrsMelons Wed 16-Jan-13 13:41:21

sleepy but they are the ones with an infectious condition and NHS advice is for THEM to stay at home thus avoiding infecting people.

zumbaholic Wed 16-Jan-13 13:41:46

YANBU for the fact that it is contagious before the spots even appear. Its not like you took them to a childs party or a toddler group is it, also very unlikely someone will catch it whilst theyre in the buggy with the raincover on. Although chick pox can cause serious complications for some, I dont really understand the hysteria about it tbh.

morecakerequired Wed 16-Jan-13 13:42:09

Online order done so people can stop panicking that I might infect someone in the shop - most expensive bread, fruit & milk I have ever bought - £25 minimum spend - who knew?! Never mind, lots of things to fill the cupboards that I don't really need - hey ho! wink

Ruled - I would STRONGLY suggets you get vaccinated after you have given birth. Otherwise you will end up ctaching it from your dc at some point. It's horrible for adults and your own child could give it to you when pregnant the next time.

Sugarice Wed 16-Jan-13 13:44:46

morecake you can now take your dt's out for a lovely walk [rain cover included] and relax safe in the knowledge that your ears aren't burning from an MN flaming grin

meditrina Wed 16-Jan-13 13:46:31

morecake perhaps you could have made up the minimum spend with (medicinal) brandy!

And the NHS line is indeed that those who know they are infectious are the ones who go into (temporary) isolation.

noblegiraffe Wed 16-Jan-13 13:48:51

Yes Northern I know that people are infectious before the spots come out, but that's something that can't be helped. Someone deliberately going out when they know they're infectious despite the risk to other people, and despite the official medical advice because they want to go shopping is just being selfish.

Sleepysand Wed 16-Jan-13 13:49:35

MrsM, but for everyone who has the spots there are probably about 1.5 in the silent stage, taking no precautions at all. Clearly, the NHS does not intend you stay home entirely, because it gives advice about who not to visit, rather than saying quarantine yourself. As others have said, CP is endemic at this time of year, and anyone going out and about is quite likely to be exposed to it.

ruledbyheart Wed 16-Jan-13 13:49:48

Sleepysand yes thats reasonable because all pregnant people should stay home incase people are silly enough to take out infectious children, shall we suggest all elderly and people with lower immune systems/ cancer patients do the same so some selfish people can go shopping hmm

morecakerequired Wed 16-Jan-13 13:50:06

No alcohol at all! It's being delivered between 8am-9pm tomorrow morning in the hope I get it before the older two go to school so they can have milk on their cereal or toast if they want and you can't get alcohol delivered before 10am due to licensing laws apparently. I am learning lots today!

morecakerequired Wed 16-Jan-13 13:51:03

oops - 8am-9AM obviously!

DIYapprentice Wed 16-Jan-13 13:51:45

Completely agree with sleepysand - I was immunised against chicken pox when pregnancy planning. I wasn't even AWARE that I hadn't had chicken pox, but had a blood test to make sure that I was covered for any diseases that I could be immunised against. (Was actually more concerned about German Measles but I had already had it).

frasersmummy Wed 16-Jan-13 13:52:19

oh my goodness... why should you have to get your shopping online because your child has cp.. what did mothers do before online shopping.

A week is a long time if you dont have the essentials in the house...

When ds had them I took him into the chemist to get calamine lotion.. the chemist didnt bat an eye lid or tell me we shouldnt be out ..

ruledbyheart Wed 16-Jan-13 13:54:54

Sorry Sleepysand where do you get off ontelling me I should have been vaccinated before planning a pregnancy, if people weren't selfish enough to take sick kids out and about then why would I need injecting with a virus?

Sleepysand Wed 16-Jan-13 13:57:18

all pregnant people should stay home incase people are silly enough to take out infectious children bearing in mind that at least as many people again are anyway, and have no idea, shall we suggest all elderly and people with lower immune systems/ cancer patients do the same so some selfish other people can go shopping buy daily essentials and have some exercise...

Put that way, I say yes. If I thought it was a risk to my unborn child, definitely, I would avoid contact with others at this time of year.

Sleepysand Wed 16-Jan-13 13:58:07

ruled, because it is endemic at this time of year and there are lots of people with no spots wandering about infecting others. That's why.

ruledbyheart Wed 16-Jan-13 13:59:03

DIYapprentice Im sure of course your also one of these people that thinks everyis planned and therefore everyone has a chance to cover these things prior to it.

Some people are a joke saying op is not unreasonable for wanting to take her sick child out as she doesn't want to be cooped up anymore, well thats tough love kids get sick you should stay home and look after them not be planning on dragging them out and about because your bored.

Ruled - the streets, shops, trains etc are full of children infectious from CP who are not yet showing symptoms. That's what i mean by it's endemic. Quarantine will not work and that's why when you can get immunised you should. Nothing to do with other parents being at fault hmm

Are you sure you are not immune though? You may haver had a case so light you didn't notice or don't remember.

pumpkinsweetieMasPudding Wed 16-Jan-13 14:00:36

Supermarket, yanbu, as long as it just for essentials.
The school run ydnbu as your children must attend school.
Try to minimise how long you are outside for and keep your distance from others in case there are pregnant or immunosuppressed persons in the vicinity.

libelulle Wed 16-Jan-13 14:03:40

ruledbyheart well actually, yes. If you are immunocompromised you have to stay away from crowded places! My mum is being treated for leukaemia right now and of course she doesn't go to the supermarket. The common cold could kill her and I'm imagining that you don't confine yourself to the house every time you have a cold?

ruledbyheart Wed 16-Jan-13 14:05:40

Obviously some people are sick and don't know they are infectious and thats not anyone's fault is it and thats a day to day risk everyone takes, BUT the OP has asked if she should take her two DC out KNOWING they are infectious which is just fucking selfish.
There is a big difference between someone who knows someone is sick to someone who doesn't.

libelulle Wed 16-Jan-13 14:11:17

But she is keeping them under the raincover! By what earthly mechanism could they infect someone?! Seriously - viruses are virulent but they can't find their way through a thick sheet of plastic.

Sugarice Wed 16-Jan-13 14:12:21

ruled A walk in the fresh air with a rain cover over the pushchair isn't going to infect anyone with a virus of any sort, that is plain common sense.

ruledbyheart Wed 16-Jan-13 14:14:18

Of course viruses cant guess they aren't breathable well if air can get in it can get out again or do all babies with rain covers just breath in carbon dioxide due to no ventilation?

Hobbitation Wed 16-Jan-13 14:14:22

DH took DD2 to the clinic with suspected chicken pox and had to wait outside until the appointment time.

I think the school run bit is fine really though.

Brandnewbrighttomorrow Wed 16-Jan-13 14:15:36

There were two children with active chicken pox on the school run this morning at our school. I had offered to collect one of the children's sibling so that the contagious child would not need to be taken out of the house and was turned down confused I think too many people view it as a trivial illness which it is not - two of mine have had it and were both very unwell, my DS ended up in hospital with complications after he had it. I know I'm probably over-sensitive about it but why take the risk?

Sleepysand Wed 16-Jan-13 14:16:00

Like libelulle, I have a relative who is having chemo. Slight infections could kill him. He is aware and he takes precautions. Maybe non-immune pregnant women should, too, and should avoid going to places where children might be.

Or maybe all children should be kept at home at this time of year, in case they have the virus, or wrapped in bubbles? It is all over the place - loads of my friends' children have it, and the rest are probably hatching it now while running round supermarkets picking up fruit and veg. Let's lock 'em all up. The OP is taking sensible precautions considering the relatively larger risk that most other kids in the vicinity probably pose.

ruled are you sure you are not angry because you are feeling guilty that you are taking a risk with your baby?

Brandnewbrighttomorrow Wed 16-Jan-13 14:18:50

Btw neither child i mentioned was in a pushchair, one of the mothers even let her dd run into the classroom! I think the precautions you are taking are reasonable for the school run but if it's at all possible I think they should be kept indoors.

ChiefOwl Wed 16-Jan-13 14:19:45

Ruled - out of interest why did you not get vaccinated as an adult if you had not had cp (knowing that there was a possibility you might have dc one day?)

My dc are 7 and 5 and have not had it, I have decided if they get to secondary school age and still not had it, I will get them vaccinated.

ruledbyheart Wed 16-Jan-13 14:30:31

Btw its not just people with immune system issues that are in danger because of it, my nephew (probably going to out myself) caught it not long ago and was in hospital because it caused swelling on the brain, thankfully he is ok now but it could have gone the other way.

Yes children will catch it, some people don't know they have it etc but if you do know why the hell would you put other people at risk?! Idiocy at it's best.

ruledbyheart Wed 16-Jan-13 14:32:56

Chicken pox vaccinations are not available on the NHS and not a routine vaccination, why should I be stuck by a needle just because other people are too selfish to follow medical advice which is to stay away from the public where possible whilst infectious.

frasersmummy Wed 16-Jan-13 14:33:21

ruledbyheart I think your comment re the air getting out from under the rain cover smacks a bit of hysteria...

sometimes you just have to say well its the best that can be done and what will be will be

Doesnt mean we should be cavalier in our attitude to cp.. it can be very dangerous but we need to apply common sense

Sleepysand Wed 16-Jan-13 14:34:20

Coming into contact with CP is sadly just about unavoidable. Some of the consequences are nasty. But most infection is spread by those who have no idea they are infected. The small additional risk at this time of year arising from a quick trip to the supermarket behind a plastic rain cover and a walk in the fresh air is unimportant compared to the unavoidable risk of contact with a symptom-free infected child. That is why the OP INBU and frankly those who say she should behave differently, are.

DontmindifIdo Wed 16-Jan-13 14:35:41

DS came out with spots last night, he was at nursery all day so has potentially infected all those DCs. I'm currently 18 weeks pregnant, but my mum has confirmed I had it as a small child, so i should be ok. However, I've texted all my friends I am supposed to be going out with tonight to check that just in case I'm carrying it they are happy for me to still come out (they are, they've all had it, including my other pregnant friend)

i'm going to have a childcare mare next week, but I'm not taking any silly risks. That said, I've had to do the supermarket run already this morning to get some calamine lotion for DS (the GP did say it was fine in my defense, plus the supermarket was empty). I've got a play date booked with someone who wants her DS to catch it for Friday morning (I'll drive even though it's close to avoid the infecting people in the street fears) - but other than that, it's going to be a very long 10 days... (Might take him to run round in the woods near us, it'll be dead while it's this cold and I think I'll go crazy without some outdoor time)

OP - do you have any friends with similar aged DCs who you know have already had it? You could ask them over for a coffee so at least you'll have some adult company (this is assuming your DTs aren't too sick to cope with company). Think I'm going to go through all my friends I know with DCs who've had it and invite them next week to at least break it up a bit.

splashymcsplash Wed 16-Jan-13 14:37:40

Yabvu for all the reasons already pointed out. Get an online shop.

Sugarice Wed 16-Jan-13 14:39:35

splashy OP has done an online shop, read the thread or at least her responses!

splashymcsplash Wed 16-Jan-13 14:39:52

To the people who think that a rain cover prevents infection you are really rather naive!

DontmindifIdo Wed 16-Jan-13 14:40:35

oh and ruled, DS probably infected his whole nursery class/workers/their parents yesterday, he walked to and from nursery. in himself, he was fine, not ill at all - a little sleepy, but nothing to suggest he was sickening for something. He did the same on Monday. Sunday we went to a birthday party and the supermarket. It was only in the bath last night we noticed the spots. Before that he's been infectious for days and we weren't being reckless.

You have seen first hand the effects of it, I don't understand why you wouldn't have the jab under those circumstances... (And would highly recommend you have it after having this baby, once you have a toddler you are going to at some point be exposed to it unless you make your DC have a dull life and never play with other DCs on the off chance, it's not that expensive and would be worth it so ifyou ended up like me, pregnant with DC2 while DC1 has it, you wouldn't have to worry)

Seabird72 Wed 16-Jan-13 14:41:01

You can't stay stuck in the house - Chickpox is contagious before the spots appear isn't it? So people came into contact before you knew. Yes keep away from anyone pregant etc but where I lived people would happily take their kids to your house if your child had chicken pox because the belief was the sooner they get it the better - I used to get very fed up with my dad ranting on about not wanting to be near the kids before they'd all had the pox because if they had it and we didn't know about it - he could then catch shingles but I have since found out that although you can get chicken pox from shingles you cannot get shingles from chicken pox - it's just once you've had chicken pox you can then get shingles.

DontmindifIdo Wed 16-Jan-13 14:42:40

realistically, the OP has to do the school run if there's noone else to do it for her, so she's going to have to take them out, standing away from the others, keeping the rain cover on etc isn't going to remove all risk of infecting others, but it is going to reduce it and is the best under the circumstances ofher having to do the school run.

Unless OP, do you have access to a car? could you drive for the school run? could your DS walk your DD to the car if you parked relatively close and keep the DTs in the car.

Sleepysand Wed 16-Jan-13 14:47:02

splashy since it is spread by droplets and physical contact, putting your DC behind a plastic shield is very likely going to stop the spread of the virus - it is a physical barrier that stops the sneezy bits flying over your Granny Smiths. What next, they wear ventilators and get positive air pressure devices fitted to their front doors in case the air gets out of the OP's window and infects a passing person? confused

If it comes to that, OP should also disinfect all her clothes, as should all parents of children who haven't yet had the disease, in case they spread it too.

I don't think CP is trivial, but I do think that common sense and a balance of risk and benefit all round needs to be done.

Sleepysand Wed 16-Jan-13 14:48:42

DS and DD's clothes need disinfecting too...

tiggytape Wed 16-Jan-13 14:50:44

You can't stay stuck in the house

Yes you can. And you should. The school run thing is sometimes unavoidable but with a raincover, staying outside and not letting him get near anyone, it is as good as it gets in terms of minimising the risk to others at times when a trip is absolutely essential. If you have someone else to do the school run for you, you should do that.
Trips to the shops aren't essential. Nor is getting fresh air because you're a bit bored at home.

And it isn't enough to keep away from anyone who's obviously pregnant. How do you know? Can you tell that someone is 11 weeks pregant just by looking? And that's not to mention people undergoing chemo or who have lifelong illnesses that make them vulnerable. Again, there is no way of knowing.

It is not possible for vulnerable people in society to never go out due to the risk of a thoughtless person infecting them. The onus is on anyone with a child known to be infectious to keep them away from others even if it is a bit dull and inconvenient. It is only 2 weeks not a whole lifetime of living like that.

In the 2 days before the spots appear, the child is infectious but of course that can't be helped. They continue to be infectious as new spots appear and at that point you absolutely should stay away from others.

TheCatInTheHairnet Wed 16-Jan-13 14:52:20

Btw, the chicken pox jab may not be freely available on the NHS, but its very easy to organise. Both my youngest children have had it. It's not for life though, you have to get boosters but I would think that was a small price to pay compared to getting it as an adult.

Op, I think you're being perfectly sensible. The school run is fine. Why people think immunosuppressed people are gathering in the whirlpool of bacteria that is a school, I don't know!

frasersmummy Wed 16-Jan-13 15:01:49

right see all this what about people going through chemo or who have a suppressed immune system...???

surely these people are not to be found in a school playground/ supermarket??

I mean they are just not going to risk that kind of exposure are they..

battyralphie Wed 16-Jan-13 15:08:23

but surely they are not contagious any more anyway? 5 days after the first spot or until the last ones have crusted over you are contagious, right? After that not, or are they crusting slowly?

hazeyjane Wed 16-Jan-13 15:08:47

I was on chemo for a year and vulnerable to chicken pox, really wouldn't have been great to have to stay home for a year. Ds has scarring on his lungs and would suffer badly if he contracted chicken pox, he has now been vaccinated, but before he was, I remember being stood next to someone in the chemist buying piriton for their chicken poxy toddler, in pushchair next to ds, i was bloody furious.

I'm sorry, but the advice is to stay home, and stay away from the public, it is selfish to go out and risk infecting people when you have a highly infectious (usually) once only disease, for which the advice is to stay at home until the scabs have crusted over.

It is only a week (maybe a couple if you have other children), yes it is a PITA, but it is not the end of the world, it is boring and awkward, but it is the right thing to do.

5madthings Wed 16-Jan-13 15:17:40

batty in the op it says 'spots still appearing' so yes infectious.

I am amazed by these replies. Oh chickenpox is everywhere blah bkah.

There is a difference in taking the chance of going out and knowing you may be exposed by someone who doesnt know but for people to knowingky go out when they are infectious is just selfish.

Bit like parents that send their kids back to school after a sickness bug without waiting for 48hrs after last symptoms.

Kids get sick, germs and viruses are everywhere that doesnt give ys cart blanche to knowingky increase the risk of infecting others!

AllYoursBabooshka Wed 16-Jan-13 15:27:30

The NHS website recommends you keep your children away from public areas, would you be happy to ignore any other advice regarding your children or just that which makes your life a little bit harder?

It's such a shame when people disregard this type of information because it inconveniences them. You do understand that vulnerable people are really counting on you to be sensible? But it's OK because it's not your child who could die.

Oh and people should really stop banging on about it being infectious before the spots come, it bears no meaning in this argument. The question is should you knowingly bring your infectious children to a supermarket and the answer is no.

Oh and DontmindifIdo, please tell the ridiculous woman who wants a play date so her son can catch chicken pox that she needs to get a grip Does she know that there can be some nasty complications with CP and her child could be very unwell as a result of her silly little plan?

Grapesoda Wed 16-Jan-13 15:35:42

Of course YABU.

We got dd vaccinated last week as she somehow got to teen years without having it (that we know of). Was rather ouch for the pocket but very easy to organise. She was a bit poorly the next day, but way less poorly than cpox would have made her. She needs a booster in 4 weeks. Def something I'd recommend others considering if theyve got to adulthood without having had it and are able to.

hazeyjane Wed 16-Jan-13 15:43:25

Also if you have a child with an underlying condition, who would be more vulnerable to complications of cp, then they should be eligible for the vaccine on the nhs.

Sleepysand Wed 16-Jan-13 15:46:21

I think they should probably offer it to all girls (at least) alongside the Cervical one and Rubella.

MrsDeVere Wed 16-Jan-13 15:48:42

It is simple.
If you take you infectious children out in public you are risking the lives of others.
People can justify it and minimise it until they go green.

The facts are clear.

When you decide to have children looking after them when they are sick and adjusting your life accordingly is part of the deal.
As a human being you have a moral responsibility not to contribute to Rhein death or suffering of another human being.

If you and others think that they are above this basic social contract, I would be quite interested to hear what else you would be prepared to do when you get a bit bored or run out of milk.

Btw op, really glad your children are doing ok whilst infected.
It is not the case for everyone.
A fair few on MN have been catastrophically affected by this 'mild, common, childhood illness'

MrsMelons Wed 16-Jan-13 16:24:46

I am astonished at how posters saying that the OP IBU are being accused of BU themselves. At the end of the day the NHS guidelines say to stay at home so I can only assume these posters know better than the medical professionals and that in fact those guidelines are wrong?

Sleepysand Wed 16-Jan-13 16:28:37

The NHS guidelines are sloppily worded - if they meant stay at home, why would they tell you to avoid pregnant people and phone hospitals, etc? Don't go to work, don't go to school, don't go into confined spaces - yes. The OP was taking a huge number of precautions for a pretty tiny trip out. Sending the kids to school WBU, going to a supermarket and letting them run around too. But a quick trip with kids in a buggy under a plastic cover INBU.

And actually, not taking precautions when you are unusually vulnerable IBU.

MrsDeVere Wed 16-Jan-13 16:35:14

what sort of precautions can vulnerable people take Sleepy?

What do you mean by unusual?

tiggytape Wed 16-Jan-13 16:41:05

Exactly MrsDeVere - people are keen to point out the huge inconvenience of staying at home for 2 weeks but what is an immunosupressed cancer patient or non-immune pregnant woman to do? Stay at home for 9 months? Never go shopping? Never go anywhere with crowds? Vulnerable people have to be able to rely on the fact that most people do the right thing else they'd be confined at home forever.

The reason that the onus is placed on infectious people to stay away from others is that it is only a couple of weeks. Their lives aren't defined or inconvenienced (in the scheme of things) by being isolated. If the onus was placed on vulnerable people to stay away from infectious people, cancer patients and pregnant women would be under virtual house arrest.

Sleepysand Wed 16-Jan-13 16:45:39

If you haven't had CP and you plan a pregnancy, you could be vaccinated - it is a v sensible precaution as you are almost sure to be exposed once you have children - and you might be pregnant again. If you are immune suppressed you take masses of precautions anyway, especially around avoiding hand-to-hand contact and close contact with strangers anyway, as I know from my relative's experience when on chemo for NHL. CP is only one of a huge range of things that could adversely impact you, including the common cold and norovirus. All 3 are endemic at this time of year. A couple of obviously spotty kids are the least of your worries.

tiggytape Wed 16-Jan-13 16:45:42

Also agree define unusually vulnerable. In theory all pregnant women are vulnerable to CP because it is documented that it is possible to catch CP more than once over a lifetime. Some pregnant women are more vulnerable of course because they know they have no immunity.

People with immune disorders do take precautions. A pregnant teacher would be signed off sick if there were cases of slapped cheek at work and she did not know her immune status. Immune supressed people stay away from work if there is a norovirus outbreak and get signed off.
But vulnerable people have to be able to go to the shops / park / library with a reasonable degree of certainty that nobody with an infectious illness will defy advice and be present at such places when really there's no need for them to be.

MrsDeVere Wed 16-Jan-13 16:50:18

Yeah. Its not enough that you have to deal with cancer or hiv or aids or having one of the thousands of chromosomal disorders, disabilities and conditions that make you vulnerable,

you have to be isolate yourself totally to avoid putting someone out who doesn't fancy putting up with bored kids for a week.

How unreasonable of all those pregnant, elderly, immonosuppressed, disabled, ill, very young people to be so selfish.

God! Its not as if they are important or have lives to lead is it? Not compared to a mother and her otherwise healthy children. They truly are at the very top of the entitlement pyramid.

Everyone knows that surely hmm

AllYoursBabooshka Wed 16-Jan-13 16:50:27

But a quick trip with kids in a buggy under a plastic cover INBU.

How can you say that with such certainty?

If we all chose to be extremely stupid and bring all of our infectious children out the only precaution a vulnerable person could take is to confine themselves to the house and never see anyone.

Why should they do that for the sake of parents who cannot deal with being at home with their bored, sick children?

It's very easy to be so blasé with these decisions when it's not your child in danger.

MrsDeVere Wed 16-Jan-13 16:51:14

You are woefully underinformed.

Please accept that.

AllYoursBabooshka Wed 16-Jan-13 16:52:51

x post with MrsD.

Honestly, it's not much to ask.

CP doesn't last very long, suck it up, be sensible and keep your children at home.

AllYoursBabooshka Wed 16-Jan-13 16:57:19

A couple of obviously spotty kids are the least of your worries.

Your right, they're not.

It's the thick parents who choose to ignore perfectly simple instructions that are the real danger.

All the information is there.

jellybeans Wed 16-Jan-13 17:02:54

YANVVU if you do it. Selfish!

FanFuckingTastic Wed 16-Jan-13 17:03:37

I'm vulnerable to infections, specifically chicken pox because of drugs I take to help with arthritis. Just saying.

manicbmc Wed 16-Jan-13 17:05:25

Put up with it OP - it's hardly the end of the world.

hopeful92 Wed 16-Jan-13 17:06:02

My mum got chickenpox as an adult and was very very ill from it. She got infected from a child in the playground when picking my brother up.

I got infected with shingles from a child with chickenpox when I was 14. I was hospitilized because it was so bad. I got this from someone bringing a small child with chickenpox to a parents evening at my secondary school.

So yes, YABU taking them out unneccessarily. I understand if you have to take them to school, this is acceptable but you should definatlely stand as far away from others as possible and leave the rain cover on. It's only a couple of weeks of isolation it won't kill you and dcs.

Sleepysand Wed 16-Jan-13 17:06:36

No, Mrs D, I am not woefully uniformed, any more than you are being hysterical. We just see things differently. I am advocating a risk-benefit analysis. Not discounting others' risks, but trying to calculate them, and putting the OP's benefits into the equation.

The OP was proposing taking a quick trip with two small children in a pushchair who have CP, covered with a rain cover, one outdoors to do the school run and one into a supermarket to get bread and milk. The NHS advises very vulnerable people who have been in close proximity for 15 minutes or more to contact their GP. None of that is going to happen. As already mentioned, if CP is doing the rounds, the odds are that vulnerable people will be exposed anyway. The additional risk is tiny, though the consequences are huge.

Against that, the OP's DTs are confined for another week when they have already been confined for 2 - with the risk that they will suffer anxiety, agoraphobia, and desocialisation. I put to one side the further risk that the online shopping driver might run someone over on the way to deliver the shopping, probably (depending on what sort of area the OP lives in) a greater risk to life than the one that you think the OP should avoid. I am sure there are other risks, too.

With all risks, you have to set the benefits against it. Otherwise, none of us should cross the road unless to save a life, or get in our cars to drive somewhere, or go outside our bubbles at all. This is what H&S cultures do - they assess the risks and forget the benefits, and often do not assess the risks of the opposite course of action at all. And consequently, sports days are cancelled, trips do not go ahead, and children sit inside terrified of a hostile world full of risks (and untold benefits).

Clearly some emotions run very high here, and as was said originally, there are very entrenched views. I am certainly never going to change mine on this issue, will maintain that those who have not had CP should be vaccinated if they plan pregnancy, and that a quick trip to a well ventilated supermarket with DTs confined to a buggy with a rain cover over the top is not an unreasonable thing for any mother of four to do.

manicbmc Wed 16-Jan-13 17:09:12

Sleepy, risk benefit analysis is something for when you go paragliding, not just popping to the shops.

You have no idea who out there in the general public has a suppressed immune system or who is at risk, which is why the advice is to stay at home.

FanFuckingTastic Wed 16-Jan-13 17:10:34

Also, as single parent to two children have managed outbreaks of chicken pox, norovirus and swine flu on my own without being rude and infectious all over the place.

Chemists do delivery, so do shops, and back gardens are great outdoor spaces.

I cope every single day with not being able to go outside as I please, and I think managing for a week to take into consideration other people is not much to ask.

FanFuckingTastic Wed 16-Jan-13 17:11:22

Hey manic * waves *

manicbmc Wed 16-Jan-13 17:13:47

Hey Fan grin

Sleepysand Wed 16-Jan-13 17:14:52

risk-benefit analysis is something that we actually all do every day - we don't usually even think about it. Why let your kids go to a shop, or to a friend's house? Why allow them to go to school? Why pull out on that roundabout or at that junction? Because you know there is a risk, and you weigh it up against the benefits.

I agree we have no idea who is at risk - but do you confine yourself to the house when you have a cold? And keep your kids at home too for a week in case they are infectious? Thought not.

Right, I am off to do a risk benefit analysis on whatever is in the fridge for dinner.

DumSpiroSpero Wed 16-Jan-13 17:14:55

I'm no medical expert, but would just say consider how you would feel if your were pregnant or had a child recovering from chemo for instance, and ended up in a supermarket queue next to someone with two clearly infectious chicken pox riddled children?

I don't think you are being 100% unreasonable, but I don't think anyone else is to go hmm either tbh.

Grapesoda Wed 16-Jan-13 17:16:06

Sleepy sand. I appreciate that you feel you are not misinformed but your posts indicate otherwise.
There is no programme of routine or targeted preconception v z vaccination so the fact that you think it would be a good idea is irrelevant. The logical (albeit extreme) extension of your argument would be to suggest that anyone who doesn't want to be hit by a drunk driver should stay at home as there will always be people who get behind the wheel of their car when pissed.

LOL that the idea of knowingly increasing the risk of exposure to chickenpox is hysterical, whereas three weeks indoors may lead to anxiety/agoraphobia/desocialisation is a real risk hmm

OP, YWBU, I hope that your shopping arrives on time tomorrow.

Grapesoda Wed 16-Jan-13 17:17:58

And a cold does not carry the same risk (for example to a pregnant woman and her unborn child) as chickenpox. Being able to conduct risk assessment requires at least a basic understanding of the risks involved.

MrsDeVere Wed 16-Jan-13 17:18:19

Immunosuppressed people can only take certain precautions. Washing hands and not kissing people cannot protect them from people knowingly taking infectious children out in public.

The ONLY way to do this is to stay in.

THIS is unreasonable. It IS unreasonable to go into a public place if you are infectious. It is also irresponsible.

There is no argument or negotiation.

It is a fact.

MrsDeVere Wed 16-Jan-13 17:20:04

Being Patronising.
The last resort of someone who is not quite as clever as they think they are.

Grapesoda Wed 16-Jan-13 17:20:37

Agree mrs d.
Anyway, I hope your little ones are all better soon op.

5madthings Wed 16-Jan-13 17:20:51

Ha ha we are hysterical for saying stay in and don't knowingly spread the virus but you are saying a toddler who has to stay in for a few weeks may lead to anxiety/agorophobia and desocialisation?!!

Sometimes there are no words..

Grapesoda Wed 16-Jan-13 17:21:23


hopeful92 Wed 16-Jan-13 17:25:32


Sorry had to laugh - as if you are trying to say that keeping a child in the house with his sibling and parent(s) is going to lead to agraphobia, anxiety and desocialisation?! HA it's two or three bloody weeks we're asking you to stay in, not 6 months!!

5madthings Wed 16-Jan-13 17:26:35

Was that to me grape sorry I was just pointing out that posters saying stay in with an infectious child are being told we are hysterical when its just bloody common sense IMO, and then those telling us we are being hysterical come out with crap like that about a toddler getting anxiety etc if they have to stay in for a few weeks! As I said sometimes there are no words to adequately express how fucking stupid some people can be

If your child is contagious bloody well stay at home!

MrsDeVere Wed 16-Jan-13 17:27:53


When your child is dx with something like Luekemia you are faced with at least TWO YEARS of treatment, THREE for boys.

Being stuck in because selfish fuckwits can't control themselves for a few days, now THAT can lead to problems.

And frequently does.

AmberLeaf Wed 16-Jan-13 17:29:32

right see all this what about people going through chemo or who have a suppressed immune system...???

surely these people are not to be found in a school playground/ supermarket??

I mean they are just not going to risk that kind of exposure are they

Is that tongue in cheek or are you for real?

My Mum is immuno suppressed due to chemo medication, do you think she and others like her should never leave her house ever so selfish arseholes can take their infectious children out just in case they get bored?

If you dont know your child is infectious - fair enough

If you know they are and you go out anyway - you are an inconsiderate arsehole.

AllYoursBabooshka Wed 16-Jan-13 17:32:27

You do understand that anxiety and agoraphobia are serious medical illnesses and cannot be caused by staying at home for a few weeks to get well?

No one is saying lock your child in a room for three weeks, keep them comfortable and entertained. Just stay away from public areas until you are 100% sure he/she is not infectious.

Is that really such a hardship? So much that you would risk making someone seriously ill or killing them? If so you would have to be a completely incompetent parent or selfish to the point of stupidity.

It's the equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and going "Lalalalala, I can't hear you because it would make my life harder"

WileyRoadRunner Wed 16-Jan-13 17:35:40

TBF the OP has ordered her shopping online .... think she said that a couple of pages ago.

Grapesoda Wed 16-Jan-13 17:36:57

Sorry 5madthings. Typo.

AmberLeaf Wed 16-Jan-13 17:37:30

True Wiley, but its all the others piling in saying it doesn't matter that Im talking to.

AllYoursBabooshka Wed 16-Jan-13 17:41:04


5madthings Wed 16-Jan-13 17:49:42

Oh I am aware the op is now staying in, but others are still posting to say it doesn't matter and to go out anyway. Irresponsible and selfish!

libelulle Wed 16-Jan-13 17:57:52

Aside from the poster who seems to believe in miasma theory and 'infected' air escaping from under a pushchair cover, I'd be interested to hear from those with more conventional understanding of disease transmission. Since CP is a droplet transmitted disease, how can somebody possibly be infected through a pushchair cover in a well-ventilated environment? I can't see any reasonable way that would happen.

The risk to the immunosuppressed is a point very very close to home right now for me. But quite honestly, given the number of kids with chicken pox at my DCs nursery and school right now, I reckon that in our area an immunosuppressed person is probably safer standing next to a covered pushchair containing an ill child than next to their supposedly healthy friend who is actually coughing and spluttering CP viruses everywhere. You do do risk analysis when you are having chemo, and given her very vulnerable state my mum has had to avoid public spaces for over a year now. If those parents with CP-infected children didn't go out in covered pushchairs, that would make zero difference to the risks she faces going out, because most (to her) deadly infections are invisible. At least you can see a child with spots!!!

But I can see that we're arguing across a great divide here and no-one likely to be convinced by the other side, so it's pretty pointless realy. Just don't say that those of us disagreeing with you are therefore selfish and ill-informed, because that isn't fair. I have just as great a vested interest as anyone in my mum staying healthy - I just have a different perspective on the various risks she faces. Actively spotty child sitting next to her on the bus (were she to ever go on a bus, which she doesn't!)? You've got to be joking. But spotty child 10 feet away under a cover in a supermarket? She sadly has worse to worry about.

Abra1d Wed 16-Jan-13 17:59:13

When I was in this situation with a toddler with CP and needed food urgently I just drove to a shop I don't often use, but at which you can park right outside the door and see your car constantly. Dashed in, bought milk and essential fruit and veg. Dashed out. Three minutes.

I expect someone here will tell me that was High Risk but it certainly didn't seem so. Sometimes a lesser risk is worth taking.

AnaisB Wed 16-Jan-13 18:00:16

Interesting responses - i was told by gp that current advice was not to stay in, but to go about as normal. I went to shops, but avoided places where dd would have close contact with people.

AnaisB Wed 16-Jan-13 18:01:54

I can see there's a strong argument to stay in, but wonder why medical advice contradicts this (or was it just my gp).

5madthings Wed 16-Jan-13 18:04:07

It was just your go, tho I had a HV tell me I should just go out as normal including to a toddler group with tiny babies and preganat mums! Thankfully I sought a second opinion!

The NHS advice is avoid public places.

AmberLeaf Wed 16-Jan-13 18:15:36

Anais, maybe your GP was one of those people that used to hold chicken pox parties?

hazeyjane Wed 16-Jan-13 18:26:56

Against that, the OP's DTs are confined for another week when they have already been confined for 2 - with the risk that they will suffer anxiety, agoraphobia, and desocialisation. I put to one side the further risk that the online shopping driver might run someone over on the way to deliver the shopping, probably (depending on what sort of area the OP lives in) a greater risk to life than the one that you think the OP should avoid. I am sure there are other risks, too.

This is one of the funniest things I've read for a long time.

Jemstone Wed 16-Jan-13 18:36:39

Haven't read all the replies and will be told no doubt that I am unreasonable but when mine had the pox I took then out to the local park. Chose a time it was likely to be quiet (and it was winter so at times very quiet) and kept kids away from the 1 our 2 other children who appeared. if they wanted to play near the other kids I asked their parents and no one said they had a problem with it.

I do think people get hysterical over chicken pox. Yes it can be very serious (as I have seen first hand) but that is rare. You can take the kids out, just keep a good distance from other people and don't spend time indoors. So to the OP I would say YANBU to do school run with a buggy, YABU to take kids into a shop and YABU to think you can't take them out at all, just stay outside!

Ambrosiacreamedrice Wed 16-Jan-13 18:44:34

Don't forget that you can get Chicken Pox twice. So don't think you are immune just because you've had it once. It was bloody awful the second time!

hazeyjane Wed 16-Jan-13 18:49:41

Jemstone, I am not hysterical about cp, I don't know if I have just been unfortunate, but I have seen some very bad cases of cp, 2 of my friends children were hospitalised (one with lung problems and one who had a heart condition, which made her very vulnerable when she caught cp), sadly one of my friends lost her little boy when he contracted a strepA infection as a complication of chicken pox. Yes chicken pox can be a mild disease, but it can also be devastating, which is why the official advice is to stay at home.

AmberLeaf Wed 16-Jan-13 18:55:45

People don't get hysterical.

The problem is too many people don't understand how serious it can be.

hopeful92 Wed 16-Jan-13 18:59:51

You can indeed get chickenpox twice, and you can also get shingles from the chickenpox virus. I have had shingles twice, both times been infected by a child with chickenpox, one of the times had to be hospitilized. Tell me that's fair - me ending up in hospital 'cause some idiot couldn't be bothered to contend with their child in the house for a couple of weeks...? There are plenty of ways you can entertain a child without leaving the house, and like I said before - if it was urgent for example you needed medication, formula for a baby or something along those lines, then no one is going to tell you that YABU if you took proper precautions to ensure no one was within close prozimity of your child. If however you just decide it sounds too much like hard work to keep the child in the house for a couple of weeks then you are an absolute idiot.

And for those saying that doctors told them to go about the business as normal, the NHS website says "If your child has chickenpox, try to keep them away from public areas to avoid contact with people who have not had it, especially people who are at risk of serious problems, such as newborn babies, pregnant women and anyone with a weakened immune system".

I am pregnant and if you brought a child with chickenpox near me I would be extremely pissed off.

MrsDeVere Wed 16-Jan-13 19:00:04


My DD had cancer, she got chickenpox from a fuckwit or a child with a fuckwit parent.

Its her 21st birthday on Sunday. We are having an memorial instead of a party.

noblegiraffe Wed 16-Jan-13 19:00:23

I bet all these people saying 'it's fine, go to the shops' would not be impressed if someone behind them in the supermarket was throwing up into a sick bag saying they had norovirus but had to come out because they'd run out of milk.

libelulle Wed 16-Jan-13 19:00:57

It can indeed be devastating. But on the other hand 90% of children will catch it anyway at some point, regardless of how careful they are. Any illness can have devastating consequences. In any other time but our own, both my two DC would be long gone from pneumonia by now - complications from the common cold can and and have landed them both in hospital several times.

tinierclanger Wed 16-Jan-13 19:06:05

Hopeful, you can't get shingles from chickenpox.

It is an activation of the virus that has been lying dormant in you since your original infection, not something that you catch from other people.

Sorry you've had such a hard time with it though.

tiggytape Wed 16-Jan-13 19:11:10

Agree with Amber. Far too many people think CP is a few spots and a bit of a pain being confined at home when the child feels absolutely fine and is going mad with boredom. They don't see the harm of popping out or any reason to stay stuck indoors for a 'mild' illness (comparing it to a cold etc).

For that reason, people get very heated sometimes explaining the flip side: that CP is very dangerous to certain groups of people and in rare cases is dangerous and even fatal to previously healthy individuals. It also causes secondary complications in 5-10% of all cases so not such a tiny number really.

For the sake of refusing to be a bit bored and fed up at home, some parents are potentially risking someone else's health or pregnancy which of course is never justified. The only grey area is people who have to go out for school runs perhaps and in those cases taking every precaution is the only option but only if it really cannot be avoided. Popping out just because you're bored is not O.K because the potential risks to many people massively outweigh the only benefit i.e. relieving boredom for an hour or two for 2 people.

hazeyjane Wed 16-Jan-13 19:11:40

Hopeful02, I thought that you couldn't catch shingles from chickenpox, but could catch chickenpox from someone with shingles

*You cannot catch shingles from someone else.
If you’re not immune to VZV, it’s possible to catch chickenpox from someone with shingles.* (from

Wrt people talking about colds and norovirus, well when people have norovirus the advice is to stay in for 48 hours after the last bout of diarrhoea/vomiting, in a similar way to the 5-7 day advice with chicken pox for the same reason. And with colds, the difference is that it would be very difficult to advise people not to leave the house every time they have a cold, because we have so many of the bloody things, but that is not the case with chicken pox, like measles and scarlet fever and other infectious diseases of that ilk, the advice is to stay indoors, and because you (usually)only get these diseases the once, that should not be too much of a hardship.

ArtfulAardvark Wed 16-Jan-13 19:16:34

hmm I havent read all of this but it WONT kill you to stay at home for another week whereas there IS the potential to kill or make someone very ill if you go out because you feel like it. Find something fun to do with your children indoors.

My husband caught it a few years ago from a client who didnt want to cancel having work done so didnt mention her son had it until I had to phone in sick for him. He was extremely ill as it attacked his pancreas and we ended up losing weeks of income as he was incapacitated.

libelulle Wed 16-Jan-13 19:27:56

It is difficult, hazey. A fuckwit with chickenpox infected MrsDeVere's daughter, who didn't make it sad A fuckwit with a cold landed my DM in intensive care for a fortnight. She was lucky that time, but leukaemia takes no prisoners.

Diseases are wiley buggers. Some of you think that taking a poxy child out for a school run under a covered pushchair is an unacceptable risk. I accept that, but I respectfully disagree. I reserve my ire for the fact that these bastard diseases use every trick in the book to infect the vulnerable, most notably being most infectious before anyone has a clue what is going on. Concerned parents like the OP who need to do the school run and while doing so take every precaution to keep their spotty children away from others are not the focus of my fears. I wish they were.

hazeyjane Wed 16-Jan-13 19:45:56

I know Libelulle, when ds gets a cold he very often ends up in hospital (3 chest infections and pneumonia this year), because of the scarring on his lung, but I know there are going to be children and adults around with colds, I can try and avoid them, but ds goes to nursery and his older dds go to school, and it is a fact of life that he will pick up colds, and will get very ill. But I realise it is unreasonable and ridiculous to expect everybody who has a cold to stay in.

But staying in for the 2-3 weeks that our dcs are affected by the (hopefully) one time they have chicken pox, doesn't seem ridiculous, as I said earlier it is a boring, pain in the arse, but it is utterly doable, and people following the advice must reduce the risk to vulnerable people a bit, or the advice wouldn't be there.

<I am sorry about your mum, Libelulle>

libelulle Wed 16-Jan-13 19:54:18

Thanks Hazey.

No-one is saying kids with CP should be out coughing over all and sundry, though clearly there are fuckwits who do that. But school runs are tricky - oftentimes there are few alternatives for people especially those without close social networks nearby. In that situation, pushchair and cover seems eminently fair enough to me.

Sandie79 Wed 16-Jan-13 19:56:06

YABU. I appreciate staying in isn't nice, but I had chicken pox for the first time in my twenties and missed six weeks of work. It can be a horrific, viral illness as an adult, and can do terrible things to pregnant women and people with auto-immune disease.

When I realised I had the chicken pox, my parents drove some distance to pick me up, take me to their house and care for me as I had no food in and knew I couldn't go to the shops while I was contagious. If your kids are bored enough, being wrapped up warm and building a snow man in the garden won't kill them. But I genuinely think you should re-think having them out.

EasilyBored Wed 16-Jan-13 19:58:51

I find this really odd, on the one hand I'm not advocating taking a poxy child to a playgroup or out for dinner, but people send their poxy children (with permission from the mgr and parents) to DS's nursery. I just figured it was part and parcel of childhood. I work for a really family friendly organisation, but DH and I would seriously struggle to take there weeks off between us. I guess if you don't have to go out, you shouldn't. But needs must sometimes.

Coconutty Wed 16-Jan-13 20:03:21

I would be fuming if someone had deliberately sent a child into nursery when my dc s were little. uabu

MrsMelons Wed 16-Jan-13 20:04:52

Easily where would you send them though if they had chicken pox? No nursery or school would take them, I doubt a CM would either unless they had no other children.

DoubleLifeIsALifeHalved Wed 16-Jan-13 20:11:28

I think there are alot of cultural myths about cp, & alot of conflicting advice. Fact remains, it can be very very dangerous for SOME, just cos it isn't/ hasn't been for your dc, doesn't mean the next child will be so lucky.

Read the other thread on this subject. Hear mrsdevere s tragic post earlier (I'm so so sorry btw, I knew your darling dd had died, but didn't know how)

I think it's clear that however inconvenient keeping infectious kids at home is, it's NOTHING compared to what could happen.

This isn't aimed at the op btw, but the debate in general. The stakes are too high to risk destroying someone else's family.

WafflesandWhippedCream Wed 16-Jan-13 20:12:15

Someone upthread said something about the children being at risk of desocialisation and anxiety if they don't get taken out confused.

They are being taken out - on the school run. I don't see how entering a supermarket will suddenly confer lots of benefits re socialisation that the school run wouldn't do.

EasilyBored Wed 16-Jan-13 20:16:40

No, the nursery allows it. As long as they are well enough then they can go with whatever bug. All the parents are told the policy before signing up. We lived the nursery and their relaxed attitude to illness is fine for us. The only thing they don't allow is children with D&V.

hazeyjane Wed 16-Jan-13 20:39:22

I took ds to a nursery for a trial morning, to see how he would get on in the environment, and was shocked that there was a child with chicken pox curled up in the reading corner. It was pre ds getting vaccinated and I said we would have to leave, and she said that most parent's were keen for their dcs to get cp so they didn't follow the keeping them off for 5-7 days policy. I know some kids are ok with cp but this little boy looked so ill and miserable.

I know people who have had their dcs vaccinated so they didn't have to take the time off work, so I guess that is a possibilty.

5madthings Wed 16-Jan-13 20:43:00

A nursery that allows children with chickenpox to attend is going against NHS advice.

All the ore schools/nurseries I know don't allow it.

Generally it is mild for many children but not all, there ius a mnetter who's little boy is currently in hospital with swelling of the brain because of chickenpox. A perfectly healthy 15mth old with no immune problems etc. Yes its rare but it can happen sad

EasilyBored Wed 16-Jan-13 20:48:14

Yes, buying people just can't take that much time off. If it's not something you are comfortable with, then there are other nurseries/cms etc.

5madthings Wed 16-Jan-13 20:49:42

BTW the only reason the op is having to stay in for three weeks is because she has three children who have got chickenpox one after the other, normally its a week that you would have to stay in.

5madthings Wed 16-Jan-13 20:52:21

You woukldnt have to take three weeks off, it would be 5-7 days for one child, some of that would be the weekend.

If you have multiple children then yes you can end up with a few weeks.

Ds1 got it when I was at uni, no nursery for a week so I had to muss classes and didn't get the time I had planned for my dissertation.

Its generally one week, not ideal but you are legally entitled to have the time off.

foreverondiet Wed 16-Jan-13 20:55:07

If you keep raincover on then risks v low - although I'd only do this if no other choice and even then would try to say goodbye at school gate or at corner etc (depending on age could your older ds walk her the last bit). Shopping can be done online.

However my paediatrician friend tells me that reasonable to take your proxy children out as everyone should catch it in childhood but way do I know.

MrsDeVere Wed 16-Jan-13 21:44:48

I doubt your paediatric friend is a paediatric oncologist or shares that stupid advice with her/his oncology colleagues hmm

ProudAS Wed 16-Jan-13 22:40:59

I don't condone spreading the virus deliberately or knowingly and whilst children have died from cp those of you whose dcs have it or have been exposed might like to look on bright side and be thankful they are getting it over with:

Cp is far worse in adults. DH and BIL had it in their twenties and whilst pox parties may not be recommended by medical profession DH wishes he had been taken to one as a youngster.

25% of cp deaths occur in children compared to over 90% of cases

Your dd getting it now may just prevent your gc getting it in the womb

The downside however is that very young children don't always develop lasting immunity.

Ambrosiacreamedrice Wed 16-Jan-13 22:51:45

I reiterate, do not think you are immune just because you've had Chicken Pox once. I wasn't and I think it is important that pregnant women don't act rashly with regards to exposing themselves to CP just because they've had it once.

I teach and when it was going round school my pregnant colleague was signed off for two weeks to prevent exposure, even though she had had CP as a child.

ProudAS Wed 16-Jan-13 23:01:33

I'm not saying its impossible to get cp twice but most people don't. I've been exposed several times since having it myself and touch wood not succumbed again.

Your colleague's dr was right to be cautious though ambrosia.

Ambrosiacreamedrice Wed 16-Jan-13 23:02:37

NHS figures say around 13 per cent who present with CP have had it previously.

TabithaMcKitten Wed 16-Jan-13 23:18:14

I can't read the whole thread as it terrifies me, but please, please do not take your known infectious children out.

My son is receiving treatment for leukaemia and the thought of him catching chicken pox again (he has already had it during treatment) fills me with horror. Both of my children had it in the pre-leukaemia days and were a bit poorly, but nothing major. When it happens now it is potentially fatal for him, as the lovely MrsDeVere has said. He had contact with his cousin before christmas who subsequently developed chickenpox - this meant my son had to take two weeks worth of toxic drugs in order to try and prevent it happening to him.

I'm sure your children will not suffer socially or developmentally because of a few days at home confused, but deciding to take them out in public could potentially kill another child.

Reaa Wed 16-Jan-13 23:18:47

Mrsdevere my heart goes out too you and family.

My DS had the pox twice once when he was baby which affected breathing problems he had on going and again when he was around 6yrs old and he was covered in spots.

Just another one to add to the list asking the OP to be mindful of adults with compromised immune systems. My lovely cousin is now having palliative chemo. Last time round while having chemo he caught CP, it turned to pneumonia, and he was in ICU and we nearly lost him.

It is a serious illness for those with weakened immune systems.

friendlyface12 Wed 16-Jan-13 23:30:12

I did not take ds out at all when he had it. I am a single mum so it was not easy - had to live on what was in freezer and mercy drops from friend! It is not fair to take anyone with cp which is highly infectious into a room where others may be who could have a risk of developing complications if they were to catch it.
If other parents want to deliberately infect their kids with it then that's another matter but as you have no way of knowing who may be more at risk of complications then you absolutely should not take them into that environment. I don't believe it's morally right- but do feel sorry for you trapped in house for so long. Hope they're better soon.

sashh Thu 17-Jan-13 03:53:45

but a few of the mums at school have made pointed remarks about how I had better hope there are no pregnant mums/people with low immune systems in the playground

Well if they were really bothered they would be walking your older two to school.

I think you are doing as much as you can but really you can't start shopping and walking.

If it is doing the rounds is there another mum with an infected child, or a child who has had it who could visit?

I remeber being sent to a neighbour's house to play with their poxy child because I had had it and none of her usual friends had.

I know it is hard, but it is for a reason.

how far do those who are pregnant/have low immune states have the right to demand that other people curtail their lives when they have no choice but to take that risk on board?

Er................. so for the 10 years I was on immunosupressives I should not have left the house.

I shouldn't have asked the person who sat next to me with a streaming cold to move.

CSIJanner Thu 17-Jan-13 08:07:24

You can clic and collect shopping from Tesco now if you don't mind horse eat burgers. You order then choose to collect instead of delivery, drive up to the delivery point, leave the children in the car next to you as you check and sign for your shopping. No contact, shopping done.

DontmindifIdo Thu 17-Jan-13 08:13:11

Sashh - I agree you make a good point, if the other mums don't want a mum with poxy DCs doing the school run, then they do need to offer alternatives. What's the alternative for the OP, not send her older DCs to school (when they have already missed school for their own illnesses) because her younger ones are ill? That would be unreasonable. Expect very young DCs to make their own way home? Again, not reasonable.

If other mums are aware that someone in their DCs class has a sibling with CP, they have to accept that poorly child will be out doing the school run or else offer to help out.

MrsDeVere Thu 17-Jan-13 09:54:12

If you have a child with cp and you have other children to take to school it is perfectly possible to call and arrange to take the siblings in late and pick them up early.

hazeyjane Thu 17-Jan-13 10:21:30

<applauds mrs Devere>

That is the first time I have seen that suggestion on one of these threads, what a sensible solution to the school run problem!

libelulle Thu 17-Jan-13 11:00:49

But the contagion chances within a single household is 90%. So should we isolate siblings who are 90% likely to be infectious within 2 weeks after their brother or sister falls ill? If not, why not?

libelulle Thu 17-Jan-13 11:09:00

Because I've never heard of anyone keeping their DC off school on the off-chance, nor would I imagine the school's response would be particularly pretty if you tried. Yet if we are talking relative risks, that would be a great deal more useful in not spreading CP than not going in to school briefly with your DC under a raincover.

VariousBartimaeus Thu 17-Jan-13 11:53:26

MrsDeVere - so sorry to hear about your DD.

Your story, and many others I have read on MN is why we're keeping DS in this week (he's not at nursery or school so it's not hard for us). He played with a friend last weekend and the next day we got an email to say their son has chickenpox. I think the incubation time is 10-14 days?

So we've decided to keep him in/or only go for walks in isolated areas until we know whether he got it or not. (I admit that the freezing temperatures outside have helped this decision!) We're definitely not going to baby/toddler groups until we know.

ProudAS Thu 17-Jan-13 12:16:39

But the contagion chances within a single household is 90%. So should we isolate siblings who are 90% likely to be infectious within 2 weeks after their brother or sister falls ill? If not, why not?

Tricky one - I'm all for keeping siblings away from people who are known to be immune suppressed etc but the risk of an asymptomatic sibling being infectious on a given day are lower than 90% and infection control measures should be proportional to the risk.

CP has an incubation period of between 10 and 20 days and is infectious from a day or so before symptoms appear and for 5-6 days afterwards. Hence a sibling could develop symptoms anywhere from 9-26 days later (becoming infectious at between 8 and 25 days) and keeping them at home all that time would be impractical.

The chances of a child being infectious on the 8th day are quite low as they would have had to have caught it at the earliest 'opportunity' and had the minimum incubation period. A higher number of siblings become infectious round about day 15 but the fact that a child does not have symptoms at this stage puts the odds of them having caught it at below 90%.

ProudAS Thu 17-Jan-13 12:18:14

Interesting article about getting cp more than once here:

I've heard that very young children don't always develop immunity and a condition called hand, foot and mouth may be mistaken for chicken pox.

5madthings Thu 17-Jan-13 12:22:23

My children never caught chickenpox off each ithet. They have bad it seperately but actually whikst they might hace been incubating it (even tho they werent) i was careful, avoided babies and pregnant ladies and warned people thet may be incubating it. Made sense to me. But no a school wont ket you keep them off so not much you csn do about that, i dud try and minimise risk when i could tho.

tiggytape Thu 17-Jan-13 12:24:42

Proud - that is exactly right and that's where the grey area and being sensible comes into it.
A child exposed to CP but showing no symptoms is not 90% likely to have it on any given day. They carry on as normal but at the first sign of a blister, you assume CP and keep them at home that day to see how it develops.
The only exception would be if that child had regular contact with a vulnerable person. In those cases, they may well stay away for the full 26 days eg you wouldn't take a recently exposed child who had no symptoms to see someone in hospital having cancer treatment.

A child who did not know they'd been exposed to CP might not stay at home at the first blister because it might not be spotted on the day it appears - the parents have no reason to be checking for spots. There's no way to avoid that. The child will be contagious for 2 or 3 days and infecting others but that cannot be helped. That is an acceptable risk because there's no solution to that.

Going out due to boredom with a child who is known to be infectious is not a grey area at all. It is wrong to do this as the risk to others massively outweights any tiny advantage to the child. Going out in an absolute emergency with a child with CP may be necessary but only as a last resort and only with all possible precautions (staying outdoors and well away from others).

goldenlula Thu 17-Jan-13 13:29:50

Proud, funnily enough ds2 developed spots around his ankles when we were on holiday, at first I thought flea bites, then considered chicken pox. It wasn't until I put the sore mouth he had been complaining of (thought he had ulcers) then blisters appearing on his hands that we realised it was hand foot and mouth, I cans ea how that could be mistaken for cp! We haven't had cp here yet, but I have isolated my children on more than one occasion due to a suspect spot!

MrsDeVere Thu 17-Jan-13 14:39:21

various what a lovely post. I hope that your DS doesn't get it and if he does it is quick and not to horrible.

People like you are the reason I can't keep away from these sodding threads, however upsetting and frustrating they get.

Because I think lots of people are generally just ignorant of the facts and NOT selfish and once they understand will take appropriate steps to protect others.

In the scheme of things it is a small thing although inconvenient.

I am not the only one to share my story and I know it takes an awful lot out of parents who do. If it wasn't so important to us we simply wouldn't bother.

So thanks and fingers crossed for you DS smile

floatyjosmum Fri 18-Jan-13 07:37:27

As someone who had a miscarriage after coming into contact with chicken pox and slapped cheek (big coincidence if this want the cause) no you shouldn't be going anywhere public and KNOWINGLY effecting people!

snowybrrr Fri 18-Jan-13 08:06:51

(big coincidence if this want the cause)

1 in 4 pregnancies end in m/c so why would it be a big coincidence?

grobagsforever Fri 18-Jan-13 08:39:19

YANBU. If you keep the raincover up and stay away from people. Don't go into shops though, shop online!

tjah04 Fri 18-Jan-13 09:05:19

My DN has an immnio-syndrome and at the present time she is living in a bubble at home and will do for some time.

It is highly unlikely that you will bump into anyone with such a condition in this weeks conditions.

In addition taking precautions and using rain covers etc are equally unlikely to pass it on.

ruledbyheart Fri 18-Jan-13 09:06:45

How fucking insensitive are you?
It is proven that chicken pox exposure can cause mc and if the poster was in contact with it then it isnt going to be thought of as a coincidence is it?!

tjah04 Fri 18-Jan-13 09:21:54

I do not think she was being insensitive ruledbyheart.

It is still extremley rare and the mother would have to catch it in order to pass it on to the unborn baby so it is highly likely you would know if the miscarriage was a result of this.

I caught 5th (slapped cheek) while pregnant with my DS. It is rare that MC happens from this even if you do catch it.

The swearing was a bit of an over-reaction.

tiggytape Fri 18-Jan-13 10:30:33

Actually no the mother wouldn't need to pass it directly to her unborn baby for there to be a risk. If a woman catches it early in her pregnancy and it causes a prolonged fever, it doesn’t have to pass the placenta to do harm.

And, yes it is quite rare to catch it in pregnancy but once a pregnant woman does catch it, the risks aren't small anymore. The risk of abnormality may only increase to 4% but the risk of serious illness is high (10% risk of acute pneumonia and 30% risk to newborn of neonatal varicella so severe that life is endangered as well as numerous other complications to do with secondary infections, brain and lung complications as well as affects on the baby).

And whilst many women contracted CP as a child, about 10% of all pregnant women are estimated not to have immunity (either because they've never had it or because they did not acquire mmunity to it). 10% of all pregnant women is quite a lot. It isn't some unlucky tiny, minority group.

So yes the risks are small if you are talking about pregnant women in general but only because most are unlikely to catch it. If you are talking about pregnant women who are (knowingly or unknowingly) not immune, the individual risks to them are not small at all. And of course the very people most at risk are the ones likely to be unable to avoid young children – women of child bearing age who have other children at school or who work with children.

tiggytape Fri 18-Jan-13 10:32:02

... and even if a woman doesn't m/c, the worry of having caught the illness and then having to wait for scans and examinations at birth to determine if any harm has been caused is obviously very upsetting and worrying.

hopeful92 Fri 18-Jan-13 14:20:53

To be perfectly honest, I don't know why you are all even still discussing it and trying to justify why she should take her infected child out in public. NHS advice is not to. End of. If you are not a medical professional, then who the hell are you to give advice about such sensetive issues such as auto-immune diseases and miscarriages when there are some people on this site who indeed have had miscarriages, who hav children or family members going through chemotherapy or with autoimmune diseases. So stop dishing out ill-advised advice.

OP, if you take your child out purely because you don't want to stay in the house for so long, then I'm sorry, no beating around the bush, you are a selfish prat Like I said before, I completely understand you taking them under the raincover to do school run, however like another poster said you can arrange to drop off late and pick up early.

MrsDeVere Fri 18-Jan-13 14:30:15

tjah04 you have NO idea how many immunosupressed and vulnerable people the OP could meet in a week.

Having a DN with one condition does not qualify to give out advice and tell the OP or anyone else that they are ok to take out their infectious children.

Your poor DN and parents, having to live in a 'bubble' sad

DontmindifIdo Fri 18-Jan-13 14:35:17

Hopeful - not trying to say it's wrong but: DS currently has chicken pox, when I asked our GP about keeping him away from others, she specifically said to keep him off nursery for 10 days, avoid toddler groups or other groups of children who'd not had chicken pox, but stressed I didn't have to keep him indoors away from anyone (she's not an old GP whos training might be rather out of touch, I'd say she was mid-late 30s). After reading this thread, i've asked around other friends who's DCs have had it, none have been told to stay in, just away from pregnant woman and groups of other DCs.

The NHS website might say stay in, but how many people would go and double check after hearing from a GP it's fine to go out and about, just avoid groups of children/pregnant woman?

Who would think to ask for late drop offs/early pick ups unless been told to do it? There's a lot of assumption that people understand how dangerous it can be to a very small minority and are being deliberately selfish, most really don't know.

tiggytape Fri 18-Jan-13 14:41:33

none have been told to stay in, just away from pregnant woman and groups of other DCs

But logically that does mean stay in.
How can you avoid pregnant women if you take him to the shops or to school or to the playground or anywhere else that is a public place? Pregnant women mostly don't look very pregnant especially under winter coats.
How can you avoid children who've not had chicken pox if you allow him to go anywhere except his own home and the homes of people who have had it and don't mind?
You cannot possibly tell which children have had it or which women are pregnant so if you go to any public place then you are risking him coming into contact with people who aren't immune and also people who are very vulnerable to illness.

hopeful92 Fri 18-Jan-13 15:11:45

none have been told to stay in, just away from pregnant woman and groups of other DCs

So this means you can take them to a school playground HOW exactly...? Surely that is the one place you would avoid?!?!?!

I am 5 months pregnant. If you brought a child with chickenpix near me I would probably [can't say what I would do for fear of getting removed] be very pissed off...

hopeful92 Fri 18-Jan-13 15:14:08

And how would you know if you were near a pregnant woman? The shopkeeper at the supermarket could be 8 weeks pregnant for all you know, they might just not have told anyone yet or want to before the 12 week mark. Or they could just not be showing very much - if I'm wearing my coat you can't tell I'm pregnant! We don't hide away for the whole 9 months you know....

ProudAS Fri 18-Jan-13 17:15:46

The doctor doesn't seem to have a problem with taking poxy child to an otherwise deserted area.

As for the pregnant woman thing there is a difference between walking past a pregnant woman with a poxy child in buggy under rain cover and taking the child to visit her.

hopeful92 Fri 18-Jan-13 18:19:32

ProudAs - Either way, to take a poxy child out in public merely because you don't want to stay in for that long is purely selfish. I have already said I have no problem with the under the raincover thing to pick DC up from school - that is unavoidable. However, a supermarker is not an "otherwise deserted area".

I asked DP's mother who is a nurse if you should keep poxy children at home and she said it is utterly ridiculous to do anything else as pox can be very dangerous for certain groups of people.

snowybrrr Sun 20-Jan-13 11:36:19

I would take the view that in that case the onus is on the vulnerable people to keep themselves out of circulation not least because at least 50% of people infected with CP won't have symptoms yet.

snowybrrr Sun 20-Jan-13 11:39:50

Also if you haven't had chicken pox and are considering having a baby, why not get the jab before you conceive, in the same way you are supposed to do with rUBELLA

Gigondas Sun 20-Jan-13 11:44:21

Good idea snowybrr- when I have chemo I will just stay out of circulation and not go to hospital for treatment so someone who is going a bit stir crazy can pop out.hmm

There is a world of difference between taking out kids you know are infectious and unwittingly passing stuff on when you didn't realise.

5madthings Sun 20-Jan-13 11:48:01

No snowy the onus is on those of us who are fortunate enough to be healthy not to go out when our children have chickenpox.

Have you read the thread?! Ars you seriously suggesting that someone within a compromised immune system never goes out?! Because that is the reality if what you are suggesting and its totally impractical and would actually cause suffering.

Whereas a family having to stay in for a week or two as onw if them have chickenpix is an inconvenience but not a big problem in the grand scheme of things.

Not everyone knows theu havent had chickenpox, nor do they know if they are immune. And not all pregnancies are planned.

MrsDeVere Sun 20-Jan-13 11:48:22

I take the view that those with infectious diseases know that they should stay at home but don't because they are selfish and really don't care about anybody but themselves.

Well, maybe 50% of them do. The others just don't know the implications.

Which one are you?

Velcropoodle Sun 20-Jan-13 11:50:05

As a general rule you should avoid direct contact with people but it is only infectious with quite close contact.
However since you live so close to the school, would it be possible for some kind parent to collect your two and walk them to school?
By all means take the DTs out in the buggy but don't go near anyone. They are infectious until the last spot has crusted over, or 7 days after the first spot appears. But they will have been infectious for up to 3 weeks before that.
At the doctor's surgery, if we know a child might have chickenpox we will tell them to come down but sit them in a side room. We don't clear the waiting room and get the face masks out.

IamtheZombie Sun 20-Jan-13 11:52:58

I was lucky that I was immunocompromised for only 4 and a bit months last year while I was having my chemotherapy. Being treated for cancer is bad enough without being told I should have to give up every other semblance of normality in my life for the duration.

< Links arms with Gigondas >

MrsDeVere Sun 20-Jan-13 12:12:04

If you put them in a side room you don't need to clear the waiting room confused
You are already treating the infection as a serious risk to your vulnerable patients by isolating them.

hopeful92 Sun 20-Jan-13 15:11:23

Basically, if you take your poxy child out in public, then you are a selfish prat.

snowybrrr Sun 20-Jan-13 15:12:47

'There is a world of difference between taking out kids you know are infectious and unwittingly passing stuff on when you didn't realise. '

not really, the result is the same.

If it is absolutely vital not to catch CP- then you deliberately putting yourself at risk to go somewhere where there are lots of people, because (as has been said a gazillion times) what about those that don't know they are infected?

hopeful92 Sun 20-Jan-13 15:23:51

Because you don't expect idiots to go out when infected snowybrr. And yes there is a moral difference between deliberately taking an infected person out and not knowing you are infected...

GrannyRatOnAScooter Sun 20-Jan-13 15:25:57

Just stumbled upon this thread. It is INCREDIBLY selfish and dangerous to take an infected child out.

I caught CP when I was pregnant with DD. I was hospitalised and so poorly. I was so frightened as to any problems my baby might have suffered as a result and she was ultimately born with CP.

It was when she was 12 months old that we were told CP had caused developmental (neurological) problems and my DD has VERY poor vision, will never be able to drive a car etc. Its hard not to feel aggrieved.

hopeful92 Sun 20-Jan-13 15:29:14

GrannyRat I am so sorry to hear about the problems your DD has due to the CP, this is why I am so annoyed that people are even suggesting that it is OK to take an infected child out in public!

IamtheZombie Sun 20-Jan-13 15:30:32


Gigondas Sun 20-Jan-13 15:37:28

Grannyrat I am so sorry about your dd

Snowybrr -thanks for that advice. If you have a time machine I will certainly go back and vaccinate myself before I got dx with cancer - am sure that zombie will do that too. Also if time machine is sealed I will use that for trips for chemo.

. The point about isolation is to prevent risk of cp spread- you can never eradicate that entirely but you can do a lot to reduce spread if people that are infected stay in isolation .

GrannyRatOnAScooter Sun 20-Jan-13 15:55:42

Thank you Hopeful and Gigondas my DD is gorgeous and perfect to us but its heartbreaking when she says so matter-of-factly that she won't be able to drive a car. Her Consultant told us this last year in her presence so she heard it being said. When we were at Legoland in the summer, we were queuing to get the DCs Lego Driving Licences and my DD asked DH is she shouldn't drive as the Dr said she shouldn't smile

I believed that I was immune as my DM said I'd had CP as a child with DBro and DSis but I obviously wasn't.

I remember it being really annoying when my DCs had CP that we were effectively under house arrest for a week or so but it's tough, I would never be so selfish to put others at risk for my own needs.

LittleMissFantabulous Sun 20-Jan-13 16:03:12

I had to take my one year old out with chicken pox for three out of the five days he was uncrusted. No choice. None. I took as many precautions as I could to minimise him infecting anybody, but when you're single with practically no support at all you do what you have to do. And no, I couldn't leave the school run to anyone else, and I had no ability to 'grab an online shop' as there simply weren't enough funds in my bank account to do so. So I got my older two to school late to avoid the playground rush, and did a dash in the shop at the quietest time to avoid most folk. Sometimes there aren't any other options, and no amount of me wishing it otherwise can change that.

libelulle Sun 20-Jan-13 16:05:44

I don't think you should take infected children out (save for the school run under a raincover).

But CP is so prevalent because it is most infectious before people know anything about it! It is just naive to believe that the prevalence of any illness so infectious that it infects 90% of children before they reach adulthood is going to be dramatically reduced by anything except mass vaccination.

Those with reduced immune systems can say 'so because of your selfishness I can't go out then?' but the reality is that you can't go out because of the basic epidemiological facts. You can make a moral argument about the case, but I don't think it will one jot change the likelihood of a chemo patient catching CP during an outbreak, because the people they most need to avoid don't carry a big sign saying 'chicken pox'. Even if every single person with visible CP stayed in, the risks of going out would still be enormous. That is the reality of the situation.

But I feel like I'm whistling in the wind here, so I will withdraw now.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sun 20-Jan-13 16:25:55

The OP asked a genuine question as to whether her planned precautions were sufficient and accepted the answers fairly early on and said she would not go to the shop after all. Please can people stop calling her names?

I am really sorry for all who have suffered because of chicken pox. I certainly didn't know of all the possible serious effects before MN and I'm glad that I am better informed now. Thank you.

snowybrrr Sun 20-Jan-13 16:45:16

GrannyRatOnAScooter I'm confused by your post.I though CP only caused nerve damage to the foetus, if the mum contracted CP during the first 20 weeks of PGcy, but you say your DD was actually born with CP? confused

tiggytape Sun 20-Jan-13 16:52:26

CP can cause problems throughout pregnancy unlike other childhood illnesses that cause damage only in the first 20 weeks.

If a mother contracts CP towards the end of her pregnancy, there is a high chance her baby will be born with CP or develop it shortly after birth. One in three of these babies will have such a severe case of neonatal CP that their lives will be in danger. In addition, any pregnant woman catching CP later in pregnancy has a very high chance of developing varicalla (CP) pneumonia which can be fatal and is always serious.

Between 13 and 20 weeks the risks of CVS are highest (congenital deformity caused by CP) but that doesn't mean it is safe to catch it before 13 weeks or between 20 and 30 weeks, it is just 20-30 weeks is the period when the risk to baby and mother are lowest.

The dangers of CP to pregnant women exist for the whole pregnancy and also exist for women who have had CP before because some who catch it in pregnancy are catching it for the second time

snowybrrr Sun 20-Jan-13 16:56:37

hmm but the type of damage she is talking about, if I recall correctly, is specifically caused by CP in early PG.

Thinkingof4 Sun 20-Jan-13 16:56:46

I agree with doctrine OP has now said she will do online shop and school run with suitable precautions so she has listened!!
A poster a couple of pages back (sorry cant remember name) has said she is isolating her ds because he was exposed to cp at a play date. Now this to me is a bit crazy, incubation can be as much as 3 weeks, and he might not even get it! My boys have each been exposed on several occasions but none have had it yet. If I did this I would never leave the house!
There are some very sad stories on here highlighting how serious cp can be, but there is a lot of wrath directed towards the "selfish fuckwits" etc who exposed them. There is no way of knowing exactly who exposed you unless they were the only person you had contact with for 3 weeks! Most infection is passed on before spots appear, so the parents can't possibly know their child is infectious. Bit unfair to call them all fuckwits isn't it.

snowybrrr Sun 20-Jan-13 16:59:45

oh and libellule post is spot on .She is saying what I was trying to put across, but much more eloquently.

tiggytape Sun 20-Jan-13 17:01:28

No - you don't recall correctly. Damage by CP can be caused up to 20 weeks
After 20 weeks, the risk of abnormalities falls to 1% but the risk of premature delivery rises
After 33 weeks the risk of neonatal chicken pox and pneumonia in the mother is highest and both of these are very serious. Neonatal chickenpox has about a 23% mortality rate and causes serious illness in many more babies who contract it.

The idea that CP is only dangerous in early pregnancy is entirely incorrect

Agree with Thinking though - all anyone can do is isolate children with known infections. And that is all vulnerable people expect. We cannot all hide indoors just in case exposure leads to us silently incubating something but we can all agree that once a child is known to be infectious, they should nolonger be taken out to public places.

BoffinMum Sun 20-Jan-13 17:03:45

I think a compromise is in order - fresh air is necessary for you all to avoid going bonkers but I would stick to places where you won't encounter too many people, or where you know people have had chicken pox, eg a visit to another family you know well.

I do think wrapping them up and making a big igloo in the garden or something might be a way of passing the time.

tiggytape Sun 20-Jan-13 17:06:40

Boffin - exactly. Playing in the garden or with friends who don't mind / have already had it is fine. Trips to the shops because you are bored are not fine. Trips to the school are understandable if you have exhausted all other alternatives (asking for a late start to avoid the crowds, asking friends to help, driving and keeping sick child in car) and only if you keep the infected child well away from anyone else and outside and warn others so they can stay well away too.

snowybrrr Sun 20-Jan-13 17:44:31

Tiggytape- you haven't read my post properly.
I have not said CP is not dangerous to neonates,But CP infection has a different effect on foetuses prior to 20 weeks ie causing problem with the development of the nervous system and typically eye problems.

hopeful92 Sun 20-Jan-13 17:52:12

Snowy Are you seriously suggesting that the lady who said her daughter now has problems due to CP in pregnancy is lying? Jesus... I didn't realise quite how bitchy this place was!

labtest Sun 20-Jan-13 19:06:47

My six year old daughter has leukaemia. Chicken pox could kill her. I am glad the parents at her school are not as inconsiderate as you are.

GrannyRatOnAScooter Sun 20-Jan-13 20:07:56

Typed a really long message and then lost the page

Snowy i caught CP when I was 29 wks pregnant and went into hospital for 2 weeks. I had quite a few tests and scans whilst I was in. Drs said my baby would probably be fine but would know more once she was born.

I was induced at 37 weeks and stay in hospital for 12 days in isolation. DD had about 20 spots but was otherwise perfect, feeding well etc.

My DD was seemingly a healthy baby until just after her first birthday that we noticed that one of her eyes was flicking in. GP referred us to hospital and she had MRI and EEG tests etc. The problems, it turned out, are neurological. Her eyes are healthy but the signals from the brain to the eyes do not work properly.

My DD is now 6. Both eyes turn right in, though this is somewhat corrected with her lenses which are 8.5 and 9.

She is my baby, so perfect but by God I wish she didn't has these problems.

Hope that has cleared up any confusion.

Labtest sending you and your little girl my very best wishes thanks

labtest Sun 20-Jan-13 20:43:21

Thank you granny. She is doing well so far. So sorry your daughter has these problems. Hope this will make people realise how dangerous chicken pox can be.

MrsDeVere Sun 20-Jan-13 20:54:12

Just a point of information for all the amateur medics dispensing advice.

There is no point in vaccinating incase you get cancer.
When on treatment your immune system is annihilated. Any previous immunity is destroyed.

My DD had already had CP prior to cancer. Didn't stop her getting it, it causing her terrible, utter agony and nerve damage which then masked the symptoms of a relapse.

It would have been her 21st birthday today.

There is ignorance and selfishness on this thread that I would not expect to see on a site for educated parents.

Gigondas Sun 20-Jan-13 21:25:03

It's fucking depressing isn't it mrsdv?

GrannyRatOnAScooter Sun 20-Jan-13 22:00:37

Mrs DV thanks

snowybrrr Sun 20-Jan-13 22:41:57

'Snowy Are you seriously suggesting that the lady who said her daughter now has problems due to CP in pregnancy is lying?'

eh? you are putting words in my mouth there!!!! big time!

IamtheZombie Sun 20-Jan-13 22:45:50

Is she? Really? Zombie interpreted your posts in the same way.

snowybrrr Sun 20-Jan-13 22:48:25

So labtest do you not think you are taking a huge risk sending her amongst 30 children in a classroom in the middle of winter? Genuine question.I am interested becayuse there is an 8 yo boy with leukaemia in one of my DCs class.He comes in only a couple of afternoons a week and only that when he is on the low dose part of the cycle.We have had a letter home to let the school know if anyone in our household becomes infected with CP so this child can be vaccinated (in case our DC are infected) But apparently it has to be within 3 days of contact.It seems like a huge risk for the child having chemo.

snowybrrr Sun 20-Jan-13 22:51:38

granny also I am curious how your DD had chicken pox all that time ie from 29 weeks to 37 weeks.I am doubting your story just I didn't know it was possible.

tiggytape Sun 20-Jan-13 23:01:22

Of course there is always a risk. This is about lessening that risk. Leukaemia treatment for some can last many years. Other people have lifelong conditions that lower immunity and from which they will never get better. There is no way they can just stay at home in a bubble forever - they have to take a risk and live life as and when they feel up to it. If they are children, this included playing with others and being at school.

The risk is always present but it is minimised if people in the community are considerate. Keeping a child with known CP away from others helps lessen risks to those who face them.

Answering for granny (I hope she doesn’t mind) - babies infected with CP in the womb can be born with skin legions and scarring many weeks after infection occurred. It may not present as head to toe spots - it can be just areas of legions or scars and additional complications may also be immediately present or detected later on as the child develops.

NotSoNervous Sun 20-Jan-13 23:03:29

YWBVU what about small babies that could catch it and be fatal..

redspottydress Sun 20-Jan-13 23:06:11

Given the serious nature for some who catch cp, why is it not on the vaccination schedule?

IamtheZombie Sun 20-Jan-13 23:06:14

snowybrrr Sun 20-Jan-13 22:51:38
Ignore | Favourite

granny also I am curious how your DD had chicken pox all that time ie from 29 weeks to 37 weeks.I am doubting your story just I didn't know it was possible.

"I am doubting your story..."

Enough said.


AlfalfaMum Sun 20-Jan-13 23:06:30

Do you know what would really'reduce the risks associated with chicken pox? CP vaccination for all children. They do it in other countries.

No matter how conscientious we are when we know our dc have CP, the fact remains they are contagious for days before we even know they have it, and that is when they are the biggest risk to pregnant women and other high risk groups.

Perhaps Mumsnet should start one of their campaigns?

AlfalfaMum Sun 20-Jan-13 23:07:46

IamtheZombie I think that was a typo and snowy meant there to be a 'not' in the sentence!

AlfalfaMum Sun 20-Jan-13 23:09:33

Cross-posted with you redspottydress smile wasn't trying to rob your idea and pass of as my own!

tiggytape Sun 20-Jan-13 23:14:25

There is some concern that the CP vaccine does not convey lifelong immunity so if it is given it in childhood, it risks a whole generation of people catching CP for the first time as young adults when their vaccines wear off and this is the worst time to catch it (adult cases are much more severe and result in many more complications).

For that reason the vaccine is normally reserved for those who do not have natural immunity as a child to spare them from catching it as an adult.

Also it is expensive when CP complications are reasonably rare - other countries that give it do so more for economic reasons (2 children per family = 2 cases of CP per family = 2 weeks off work = 2 weeks of lost revenue)

QOD Sun 20-Jan-13 23:15:07

<pulls story out of storage>

My dn was a perfect little girl at 2.2 when my 2 SILs thought it wouldn't be a problem mixing their 3 under 4's when other dn had the pox

Dn who had cp is a trainee nurse, engaged and with her own home
Dn who caught it is severely brain damaged and dependent on her mum

They are in their 20's

Velcropoodle Sun 20-Jan-13 23:19:46

The vaccine is available privately, and for other indications, but not as part of the routine childhood immunisations. That's based on an economic model of sickness and complication rate of native disease and may not take into account the wider economic implications. It remains a mild disease for the vast majority of children, though I appreciate that that is cold comfort for those affected by it.

AlfalfaMum Sun 20-Jan-13 23:26:33

Ah, thanks tiggytape. So, in the US for example, are there lots of cases of adult CP once the vaccine has worn off? And the vaccination programme there is more to keep the population in the workforce rather than for their long-term health?

Velcropoodle Sun 20-Jan-13 23:30:57

The vaccine hasn't been in use routinely long enough to evaluate unintended consequences. Apols to tiggytape for jumping in.

DianaTrent Mon 21-Jan-13 01:34:32

To the poster who was asking if it isn't too much of a risk to send a child on chemotherapy to school, do you realise that kids with cancer are often on chemo for several years? Our children undergo long periods of intensive chemotherapy on the ward in hospital. Possibly for many months at a time. They are isolated from their friends, frightened, feeling sick and in pain, with only their parents and the medical staff to talk to, except scant precious moments with play staff and the odd trip to a play room if they are lucky enough not to be in total isolation. They go through things no child ever should. Far more than their fair share. Upon emerging from this after a genuinely long period of lost socialisation and education (a year for my DD), they desperately need to get back to as much normality as they can, including school. They need to mix with other children, or after years of isolation they will find it incredibly difficult to do. My DD's beautiful friend who died last summer adored school, any time she could go it put a smile on her precious little face just to do the things a normal child can. Thanks to the other parents in the school minimising the risk to her by not breaking rules and exposing her to infectious diseases for any longer than was unavoidable, she had that chance to do what other kids take for granted and make school friends and laugh with them in the playground. She never got to celebrate her 8th birthday, but at least she had that. It is risky, but the paediatric oncologists weigh it up against the benefits and feel that it is worthwhile during lighter phases of treatment. If more people didn't stick to the rules, that equation would change. One in every 500 children is diagnosed with cancer (excluding teenagers 15+) so a lot more schools hold one of these children than you might think. They deserve a little consideration. Every day a pox infected child is at home is a day when they are less likely to pass it on to someone who has been through more than you can imagine already.

Mimishimi Mon 21-Jan-13 04:30:09

I have it right now. First noticed spots on Tuesday and haven't been out since. I am 36 and haven't really been exposed to it before as I can't think of a single child who had it in the mountainous area of Australia where I grew up. Yet they say that 9/10 people who have not been vaccinated have caught it by their early teens? Anyway, I caught it off my daughter who was vaccinated in the US as a baby but was apparently due for a booster shot. The doctor confirmed that the vaccine wears off. One of her classmates returned from England with it and half her class caught it. Unfortunately, it was not diagnosed until just after a flight we took on New Years although thankfully that was only two-thirds full. Since she was twelve, we thought she might have the beginnings of an acne breakout ( only few spots at that stage). I really hope she did not infect anyone who is immune compromised ( including my DH but he's fairly sure he had it as a child- still has a scar on his torso).

I don't think it's a good idea to take them out. Apart from infecting others, quite severe complications can occur if they are exposed to strep or staph, admittedly more so with adults though.

Mimishimi Mon 21-Jan-13 04:40:46

I do have a question though. All my spots stopped coming out on about Thursday. Now most are scabby but there are one or two that look a little bit 'pussy' ( not with the clear liquid that was originally in them). Are these counted as 'crusted over' or do I have to wait until they are scabs as well before going out? It's several very small ones on my torso and one on my forearm near my inner elbow.

GrannyRatOnAScooter Mon 21-Jan-13 07:45:06

Morning. I'm a bit disappointed that my experiences with CP are being questioned. I simply wanted to share my DD's story to, hopefully, make people aware of how serious passing on CP can be.

Snowy I have explained, albeit very briefly, what happened. I am no medic but I am also no liar. Tiggytape explained above (thank you!) some babies can be born with legions or scarring. I didn't even know this as my new born DD and I we kept separately from everyone else, but of course it makes sense. I would point out though that the hospital were treating it as CP and indeed when I took her to the GP OOT 2 days after being discharged from hospital.

I'll leave you to it smile

Gigondas Mon 21-Jan-13 07:45:23

Hmm I would wait- sounds like you are almost there so another day would do it.

labtest Mon 21-Jan-13 09:35:22

Snowy, we are encouraged by her consultant to send her to school. She will be on treatment for 27 months and is already nineteen months in. Why should she be kept isolated for two years from the age of 4. In the past 19 months she has come into contact with chicken pox twice, both times her school informed me immediately and she was taken straight to hospital to begin a course of acyclovir and luckily has not contracted cp. there are always risks and she could catch it from another child who didn't know they were contagious but these risks are minimised by parents informing the school when they know their child has been infected. Also there is no point in treatment where you are more prone to infection. My daughter is in maintenance and her immune system is still regularly depleted. You have no idea what you are talking about.

MrsDeVere Mon 21-Jan-13 09:49:59

I think you are all wasting your breath.
Snowy simply does not want to be put out by pesky children with cancer.

It doesn't take a genius to work out that children with cancer need to lead a normal life as possible. School is a big part of this.

Some children , like my DD, were simply never well enough to attend. Others have spells of wellness between chemo and infections. When their Neuts are high enough to let them go to school if other parents are not selfish cocks.

Other times their counts plummet and they can't go anywhere. This is the time when parents keep them off and out of supermarkets etc.

Its not like oncology parents are merrily exposing their children to infection. Not when you consider that neutropeanic sepsis can be fatal at worse and at best means a boring and painful 3 day + stay in yet another sodding hospital.

Just a reminder - girls with ALL = at least TWO YEARS treatment, Boys with ALL = THREE YEARS at least.

Then there are the children who have prolonged treatments for recurring cancers. My friend's girl is 11 now and has spent the last 5 years on treatment.

AND were are talking about ONE type of person who is at danger from CP. There are many other groups PLUS the parents who do not see CP as an inevitable and even desirable disease to 'get out the way'.

labtest Mon 21-Jan-13 09:58:57

MrsDeVere I think you are right. Snowy won't see sense and thinks she knows more than my daughters consultant. I give up.

labtest Mon 21-Jan-13 10:03:58

Just to add my daughter has attended school throughout treatment regardless of neutraphil count. Her consultant has encouraged this. I doubt very much that he would willingly jeopardise my daughters well being so will take his advice over someone whose experience of leukaemia is limited to a boy in her kids class. Now I really am done.

MrsDeVere Mon 21-Jan-13 10:09:09

Best wishes to your DD x

labtest Mon 21-Jan-13 10:12:31

Thank you. So sorry for your loss xx

brighthair Mon 21-Jan-13 10:14:17

I look healthy, I work, I go to the gym etc etc. but I've been offered a drug for a condition I have. However if I take the drug, and I then come into contact with someone with chicken pox I would have to go to the hospital/doctors
I would be raging if I was due to go into work, popped into a shop and came across a child with chicken pox, then had to ring work and say I couldn't go in and travel 40 miles to hospital
It's not like I could lock myself away, if I take this drug I will be on it for months if not years

libelulle Mon 21-Jan-13 10:20:48

I keep all of you who have lost children or are undergoing treatment for leukaemia in my thoughts. My mum has her bone marrow transplant starting in a few weeks' time but realistically given her age her chances are very slim indeed. But as she's said to me, she's 66 years old, a granny and this at least is in the natural order of things - though it doesn't stop my heart from breaking. For a child to go through the horror she's been through the past few years is just unimaginable.

MrsDeVere Mon 21-Jan-13 10:43:57

Fingers crossed for you Mum lib.
They wouldn't be putting her though it if there were no chance. So all best wishes for a good outcome.

libelulle Mon 21-Jan-13 11:04:31

Thanks MrsDeVere. Yes she's lucky at her age to be offered the transplant at all, and even more so to have found a match, so we're trying to focus on that. Leukaemia just seems to get its evil way too often in the end, as you know to your costsad

StoicButStressed Mon 21-Jan-13 11:15:09

WOAH Kinda stunned by some of posts here angry. Firstly, I don't think Morecakerequired was BU in her post BTW? She seemed genuinely to be asking for views and was clear she wouldn't be offended by replies. Kudos to OP for that. HOWEVER.... Genuinely fucking furious, enraged, in disbelief, livid shocked by at some of replies? CP (& any other, TEMPORARY, contagious illness) IS a pain, and yep, it's a pain needing to stay in. But THAT is NOTHING compared to the vile & lethal consequences if it is caught by a vulnerable person. And to anyone who has said or implied otherwise, or that the onus is on said vulnerable populations to isolate THEMSELVES for years, YABVFFFUangry - and thick as shit missing point with spurious points rebutting the obvious. Including the again thick as shit straw man argument of could be in contact with people prior to them knowing infected.

Bottom line is this. CP kills. I contracted it at 6months pregnant from a selfish cretin I would still like to rip to shreds for endangering my baby's life and mine Mother who had brought her infected kid to nursery when I picked my DS up. Most CP deaths are those of pregnant woman. I was very, very seriously ill; had to take Acyclovir and shedload of other drugs that could have damaged baby but were VITAL to protect same baby. This was 18 years ago but remember it like yesterday.. I rang my Doc to say I felt unwell, had outbreak of what looked like CP spots and he was (no exaggeration) at my house within 15 min checking my lungs. Whilst horrendous, me/DS were very lucky as whilst slow, made a full recovery and was able to deliver him safely (was strong chance of forced and prem C-section as vaggie obv infected and could have blinded him). SOOOOOO... against THAT lot, anyone who thinks IABU or others who have posted re it IS VFU where onus for isolation lies, I would just say you are either stupid OR maybe been lucky enough to have never had the serious side of CP.

And lastly, vis housebound - and OMG I understand MoreCake's desperation to get out of house - my Ma is dying right now, but I have had a bug for past week so have been unable to see her as IF I did go to hospice where she now is, I would certainly infect immuno-compromised patients and probably shorten their (already sadly very short) remaining time left. And that onus is on ME - not the poor f*ckers who did not ask to be immuno-compromised.

snowybrrr Mon 21-Jan-13 11:27:21

That's different.The hospice is not a public place.You would be going into a private establishment with your germs.
How do you know you didn't catch it from the nursery child before he had symptoms.You don't.It just makes you feel better to have someone to blame.That's natural though.

snowybrrr Mon 21-Jan-13 11:28:47

Also I think you were highly irresponsible to embark on a pregnancy unvaccinated , and knowing you hadn't had CP.

UrticaDioica Mon 21-Jan-13 11:37:05

The NHS is quite clear in this subject.

If your child is infectious you stay in doors and minimise the risks for others.

My child has ALL leukaemia. When his immunity is low I avoid school, play parks, shops and other places under cover. If he catches something really horrible we avoid others, school, shops etc. because it is the right thing to do and protects others. Anything else would be completely selfish.

Immunocompromised children don't just get CP on the outside, they get it on the inside as well and it can KILL! It's a really horrible way to go. Unless they are bald you can't tell these children have life limiting or life threatening illnesses. I wonder if there are many that could live with the death of a child?

Im not out to flame, just put a little thought into potentially selfish acts. And above all else think of others!

AmberLeaf Mon 21-Jan-13 11:37:14

snowybrrr you are unbelievable.

labtest Mon 21-Jan-13 11:45:18

I notice on another thread snowy that you are worried about your kids teachers spelling affecting his education. That should be the least of your concerns. Surely developing a selfish, self entitled know it all attitude like yours is far more worrying.

MrsDeVere Mon 21-Jan-13 11:48:15

Stop trying to justify yourself snowy. You are wrong but too pig headed to admit it.

People get CP and assume they are immune. They therefore wouldn't think of asking for a vaccination, which is not freely available, before getting pregnant.

CP is dangerous to pregnant women but they are not the only group. You keep dodging that with a 'well you would stay indoors wouldn't you?' rubbish.

You keep deliberately ignoring, in the most ridiculous way, that it is easier, more sensible and practical to keep a sick child at home for a while.

To suggest that all women get vaccinated in case they get pregnant and all immunosuppressed people isolate themselves at all times is a better solution is idiotic.

And makes me think you are one of the parents who take your infectious children out and are desperate to make yourself right.

tiggytape Mon 21-Jan-13 11:50:11

Also I think you were highly irresponsible to embark on a pregnancy unvaccinated , and knowing you hadn't had CP.

That is very, very unfair: The vaccine is relatively new and still uncommon / unknown by many in the UK. In addition, lacking immunity to CP is not something that many women know about either - like many posters here the terrible consequences of catching CP in pregnancy are only mentioned to them when they actually become pregnant and are tested – by then of course it is too late to be vaccinated.
Others aren't sure whether they even had CP (it was not often confirmed by a Dr and is frequently mixed up with other viral rashes or Hand, Foot and Mouth by mothers who may wrongly tell their daughters that they had it as a child when really it was something else).
And then there are the women who have had CP but contract it again in pregnancy. Pregnancy naturally lowers your immune response to all illnesses (so the body does not reject the baby) and it is possible even in healthy adults to contract CP for a second time despite having it as a child. ALL pregnant women therefore are vulnerable and need to know people with CP are staying away.

The onus is always on a person who is known to be infectious to stay away from all public areas (and of course places like schools, nurseries and hospices especially).
There's nothing that can be done about people in the 2 days that they are contagious but do not know. That is a risk immunocompromised people face but it is a small risk compared to what would happen if people took infectious child out for the full 7 days and knowingly expose everyone to CP for days at a time.

The reason the advice and the protocol favours isolation is that it is inconvenient (but only minimally) to be confined to the house for a week with a sick child whereas, if this wasn't advised, people with supressed immunity would be confined to their house the whole time which is unworkable and unfair. The onus is on a knowingly sick person to stay away.

GrannyRatOnAScooter Mon 21-Jan-13 11:53:42

I certainly didn't get pregnant knowingly unimmunised. My DM believed I had had it as a child at the same time as my DBro and DSis. I had already had one healthy pregnancy before DD and had no reason to believe I would get CP again.

UrticaDioica Mon 21-Jan-13 11:53:49

Looking at Snowybrrs replies there does appear to be some troll like behaviour going on. Most certainly some of the replies appear to be for effect.

MrsDeVere Mon 21-Jan-13 12:25:51

Yes. Its quite sad really.
Needed attention that badly sad

labtest Mon 21-Jan-13 12:26:11

I have not known anyone offered a cp vaccination routinely in pregnancy or otherwise

libelulle Mon 21-Jan-13 12:29:13

Snowy I don't think your abrasive style is helping your case.

I'm sorry for all you went through Stressed. I'm also sorry you think I'm thick as pigshit but unfortunately (and I wish it were) the fact that people are infectious before they show symptoms is not a straw man. It is the key reason people on this thread have had such awful experiences with CP, because if it were only infectious when the spots showed, it would not infect 90% of children and be so prevalent.

It's very possible you were infected by someone selfishly bringing their child to nursery while they were spotty, but just as likely sadly because the next child you passed down the corridor was feeling a bit ill and coughing (therefore VERY likely to infect someone) but had no spots yet, so no reason to stay isolated. If no-one ever took their poxy child out, non-immune pregnant women would still be taking big risks going into nurseries and schools during CP outbreaks, or indeed at any time. I was exposed to slapped cheek at 16 weeks pregnant via DD's nursery. I was lucky, but many are not, and not because anyone was selfish, but because bugs are like that.

Before I get jumped on, I'm not arguing anybody should bring their infectious child out for the heck of it. But I am saying that there is a perspective on risk in all this, and that is that a spotty child under a pushchair cover outside a nursery is probably less of a risk than their sibling who has been in nursery all day coughing over all the others and about to come out in spots next day.

Now I really will step away.

DianaTrent Mon 21-Jan-13 12:30:19

From the NHS site "Chickenpox is most infectious from one to two days before the rash starts, until all the blisters have crusted over (usually five to six days after the start of the rash)."

Therefore whilst children are indeed potentially passing on the virus in the two days before the spots come out, they are surely two or three times more likely to pass it on if exposing others during the six days they are infectious afterwards. So how about we leave the 'argument' that being out and about doesn't matter after the spots come out because they were infectious beforehand when you didn't know hmm.

DianaTrent Mon 21-Jan-13 12:35:56

(not directed at you libellule, I know that is not what you were saying there)

snowybrrr Mon 21-Jan-13 12:40:28

No all mine have had CP.One recently.
One of my kids went to a 3 hour gym session on a saturday morning.When she got changed into her leotard she was fine, but when I picked her up 3 hours later she was starting with spots on her front and back . The Pre-school class which overlaps with hers for just half an hour was decimated 2 saturdays later. So that is how infectious it is.Someone who was completely fine infected them all! You can't avoid it !

tiggytape Mon 21-Jan-13 12:57:16

snowybrrr - that is true. It is possible your DD infected a whole class without knowing she was contagious. For immunocompromised people that is the scary thing about such illnesses BUT (and it is a big but) the risks to vulnerable peope are lessened a lot by contagious people staying at home.

Your DD was 1 person who unknowingly gave it to say 10 others.
If those 10 others stay at home with once their spots appear, and if your DD stayed at home until her spots were dry, that is 77 days when vulnerable people aren't being exposed to the illness (and 22 days when they are potentially exposed).
So by staying at home when spots were visible, that group of girls have reduced the potential risk of infecting other people by about 70 - 80%

snowybrrr Mon 21-Jan-13 12:59:47

but Tiggytape.Say she had gone the following week when she was properly poxy (she didn't) it wouldn't have made any difference, because she would already have done the damage.

People who can't see the difference between a child being out when you don't know they're contagious and deliberately taking them out when you know they are contagious are a bit thick.

tiggytape Mon 21-Jan-13 13:03:16

You seem to be saying that just because we can't get the risk down to zero, we ought to not bother - that any precautions to lessen the risk aren't worth considering because some risk will always be present.
The truth though is that the reason for these precautions is to accept the risk we can do nothing about (the infectious child with no spots) and to minimise the risk we can act on i.e. the risk posed by children as soon as spots appear.

We all know that the risk can never be zero but if people are careful and considerate, the risk can be hugely reduced and that has a direct impcat on saving lives. Anything that reduced potential loss of life by a big % is worth doing even if it is a bot inconvenient.

I would hope in your example above that you did not feel bad after the gym class as of course you didn't know but that after gym, you took her home and kept her away from others until her spots were dry.

libelulle Mon 21-Jan-13 13:03:20

I take that point Tiggy. I guess the problem is that 90% of children are infected at some point. So the time when those 22 days when people are potentially exposed is quite enough for the CP to spread like wildfire.

I really do hope that you are right and that staying in makes a big difference. I didn't take my children out during CP, because I didn't have to (and because my son was so ill that there was no possibility of him being out and about in any case, even in a pushchair). But I am sadly skeptical as to how MUCH difference it makes. If there is CP going round, and you are immunosuppressed and going to school or nursery, then that is a very risky place to be during an outbreak whether spotty people are out and about or not.

libelulle Mon 21-Jan-13 13:06:53

NotADragon - can we stop with the insults please? I'm not thick, I'm putting across an alternative point of view, as considerately as possible given how emotive the subject is - and as you'll have seen it's one that affects me very personally.

If you can't see that, then that reflects rather more on you than on me.

No, I will express my opinion thanks. Its a general one not directed at a specific poster.

MrsDeVere Mon 21-Jan-13 13:09:01

You are assuming that your child infected those children
Cp tends to come in clusters for obvious reasons.
It is entirely possible that at least some of those children weepers infected elsewhere.
The whole ' there is no point keeping them in because they are most infectious during the entire incubation period is clearly rubbish.
They are as infectious for a couple of days before the spots appear.

So hardly the risk assessment people have been basing their arguments on.

MrsDeVere Mon 21-Jan-13 13:09:25

Were infected

UrticaDioica Mon 21-Jan-13 13:18:07

DianeTrent there is a big difference between knowingly and unknowingly spreading infection. It's basic common sense.

I would not knowing put my son at risk. If he comes into contact directly or indirectly with CP we have to visit the hospital for a zig injection. This doesn't provent infection, it reduces there severity hopefully.

I am lucky that my son lives in an area were people are respectful. Exposure to any unknowing illness is reported straight back to me. I am thankful to these considerate parents.

labtest Mon 21-Jan-13 13:23:39

Urtica;)ditto. I have never felt as appreciative of the parents at my daughters school than since reading this thread.

DianaTrent Mon 21-Jan-13 13:25:23

I wasn't arguing against that, Urtica, I was simply arguing from another angle. That is of course quite true, however as some seem to feel that only the outcome matters, not the intention, I thought it was a valid point for them.

libelulle Mon 21-Jan-13 13:32:56

Sure, Notadragon, say what you like. Only I reserve the right to believe that in that case, you obviously haven't understood a word I am saying, for reasons that I draw my own conclusions about. Telling your opponents they are thick is kind of equivalent to the Moore's law of debate.

MrsDeVere, I hope you are right. The internets seems divided though as to whether people are MOST infectious before the spots, or AS infectious for the entire time. My GP certainly thought the former, though who knows. I wouldn't have asked my mum's (rather eminent) oncologist, because he told her that my kids were only infectious when they had spots!! I'd have hoped that basic epidemiology was part of his remit, but apparently not...

UrticaDioica Mon 21-Jan-13 13:38:01

I'm very lucky Labtest.

Just to drive the nail home a little harder.

Childhood cancer IS NOT RARE!

Know the signs and symptoms.

My son is more likely to die from an infection as his odds of beating leukaemia is a fantastic 85 - 90%

libelulle Mon 21-Jan-13 13:45:04

Thank you Urtica, that is an amazing video.

UrticaDioica Mon 21-Jan-13 13:54:57

Thank you libelulle. Another brave little fighter. smile

DianaTrent, under signs and symptoms it also says CP starts off with flu-like symptoms. I wouldn't send any child to school with a temperature.

libelulle Mon 21-Jan-13 13:55:45

Incidentally, I found this article amongst others It states that 'There are no data to show that an exclusion policy that starts once chickenpox is diagnosed slows down the spread of chickenpox within a school or daycare centre' and also that 'Transmission was greatest in the prodrome period (ie, the day before onset of the rash). No transmissions were documented after the children returned to school, even though 15 returned after less than five days from onset of the rash.' A search on pubmed brings up various other articles in highly respected scientific journals giving similar results.

NotADragon I guess those scientists are all thick too?

libelulle Mon 21-Jan-13 13:56:44
tiggytape Mon 21-Jan-13 14:02:11

Children are as infectious 2 days before spots appear as they are when they are spotty.
Some children suffer flu-like symptoms in those 2 days so are kept off school anyway.
Some literally break out in spots with no obvious build up at all. That last category are the riskiest to others (but only for 2 days before they are isolated). The children who are very ill with no spots yet or actively spotty are all being kept at home and this minimises the risk as far as possible for vulnerable people.

Urtica - that video is amazing and produced by a GCSE student - very though provoking and very moving. When you see what those children go through to get better, how can anybody question the advice to stay away from others when contagious for just a few short days in a whole lifetime?

tiggytape Mon 21-Jan-13 14:12:04

libelulle - but the research is limited to spread within an enclosed community where everyone has been simultaneously exposed both prior to and after spotty period. They have all been exposed to the same infected people at roughly the same time so new cases in the later stages are less. That doesn't mean the people with spots aren't capable of passing on the disease. It means the people who were contagious but without spots beat them to it.
A school community is the same people exposed to the same people over and over everyday and getting infected from the earliest ones to be contagious. That doesn't mean those in the later stages of the illness aren't contagious.

We are talking about something different. Community exposure is in dribs and drabs. We don't see the same people daily. The woman on the bus who szeezes all over you may be slightly less contagious on day 5 when half of her spots are crusty but that doesn't mean she is safe to be out. And it is cold comfort to know she was more contagious on day 1 than she is now, because on day 1 she wasn't sneezing all over you on the bus!

libelulle Mon 21-Jan-13 14:19:09

Yes, those are good points Tiggy, but nevertheless it is interesting that they are suggesting that the 5-day exclusion period for spots suggested by the AAP may not actually make any difference to transmission rates. Schools and nurseries, and the presence or absence of poxy children within them, is a pretty big bone of contention on threads such as this.

ByTheWay1 Mon 21-Jan-13 14:22:06

It is spread by coughs and sneezes, so I think the OP is entirely reasonable taking them out with a raincover on - I had to take one of mine to the doctor's surgery and he recommended doing it this way - and when taking the little ones out of the pushchair, to make sure there was a scarf or muslin over their mouth/nose area...

goboboo Mon 21-Jan-13 14:24:26

I have never posted here before but felt I needed to on this thread. It is not aimed at those of you who are just trying to understand or learn, or at those who pop to the shop etc and leave the kids in the car. But to those who think that it is the immunosuppressed people who should be isolated to protect themselves. We will never completely stop the spread of Chickenpox but it is so important to limit it as best we can, and to understand the repercussions of this virus to certain people and act accordingly. My little boy was diagnosed with Leukeamia at the age of 21 months old. He has an older brother and a younger sister. Before the age of 2, my son had lost his hair, lost the ability to walk, lost the use of his eyelids which meant he couldn't open his eyes and gone through many rounds of Chemo both iv and into his spine. It was at this point that we were told to take him home and try and live as normal a life as possible. A few months later the treatment had caused his mouth to be so sore that he couldn't eat, he lost so much weight he had to have a tube put up his nose and into his stomache. He couldn't tolerate the feeds so was sick many times and had this tube re-inserted 4 times in as many days when it was decided to iv feed him instead. This in itself carries many risks. The treatment for a boy with this Leukeamia is over three years, and we are two years in. Now he has hair and plays and goes to Nursery and people wouldn't know to look at him that there is anything wrong, but there is. His immune system is virtually non existant. In the few months that he has been at nursery he has been exposed to CP 4 times, each time he has to have a very painful injection into the muscle in his leg. That is the good news. These are cases that could not be avoided, and the parents of these children have advised the school immediately so he could have this injection. I do not want to think about what could happen if people thought light of it and didn't advise me. Should I seriously encase my little boy in a bubble for over three years after what he has already been through. Should he know nothing but pain and treatment???????

twojumpingbeans Mon 21-Jan-13 14:29:27

YABVVU. I totally agree with the previous poster, my DD2 has a genetic condition where she could get incredibly poorly with chicken pox. The onus shouldn't be on me to keep her away from the world. I expect others to keep away from us when they are poorly. Two weeks at home is nothing to endure compared to those of us with life limited children. Stay indoors and keep your germs to yourself.

labtest Mon 21-Jan-13 14:36:18

Excellent post goboboo

StoicButStressed Mon 21-Jan-13 15:07:11

Also I think you were highly irresponsible to embark on a pregnancy unvaccinated , and knowing you hadn't had CP.

Dear Snowybrrr (feels like quite an apposite username if honest). TiggyTape is 100% correct in pointing out how deeply unfair/wrong that statement is. And it was clearly directed at me as was your 2nd immed reply to my post, ergo I will reply directly... FYI, I had HAD chickenpox when a child - but that did NOT stop me catching it again.

Secondly, I am not/was not looking for someone 'to blame' - the simple reality is I KNOW (& GP confirmed) how/when got it. I knew CP (& other bugs) around and delib was not going into nursery or anywhere confined etc. I waited across the street and Nursery Teacher would bring DS to me. On one, very clear occasion, whilst waiting safely away, said Mother stopped and parked buggy by me only to then go on a whine about the PITA of looking after her sick kid. Who by then I had - through NO fault of own - been next to for 5 minutes. GP confirmed via the very precise time-line/incubation period. So, not looking for someone 'to blame', merely pointing out the consequences of seriously irresponsible parental behaviour.

Libel - hon, my straw man reference WASN'T to the very valid and real fact that peeps contagious before know; it was solely in direct response to those who appeared unable to distinguish between innocently being out with an infected but NOT YET SHOWING CP kid vs. KNOWINGLY exposing others (whether pregnant women; cancer fighters; HIV carriers etc etc, or just plain darned healthy people who may not yet have had CP) to it. Meant no offence and apologise if caused any.

Lastly, for very first time, have reported a poster to MNHQ for trolling and abusive (vs. expressing own maybe very different views like the rest of us have, but without attacking people). Can debate without insulting, or ferociously inaccurate and deeply offensive comments such as that quoted at top of this.

Can I also wish EVERYONE who has a child fighting cancer all the very best; cannot imagine anything worse sad but your spirits and strength resonate.

snowybrrr Mon 21-Jan-13 15:34:05

'Also I think you were highly irresponsible to embark on a pregnancy unvaccinated , and knowing you hadn't had CP.'

that is my opinion .Just because you don't like it, just because you don't agree, does not make it troll like.I am entitled to my opinion the same as you are entitled to yours.
secondly how can the GP possibly know who you got CP from.From the date of onset he can determine a window of time (of several days duration) during which you were infected but that is all.

StoicButStressed Mon 21-Jan-13 15:55:56

Snowybrrr -

'Also I think you were highly irresponsible to embark on a pregnancy unvaccinated , and knowing you hadn't had CP.'

No. It was not your 'opinion', you - wholly inaccurately (& pretty bloody offensively & very stupidly as how on earth would or could you know this TO state it as a given) - stated I was 'highly irresponsible' etc etc. One of the 'etc's' being you asserting as fact the 'knowing you hadn't had CP'. Which, presuming you've read post correctly, you will know is an utter fallacy. I had HAD CP hon. For you to 'state' otherwise is not an opinion, it is a moronic assumption. Would suggest you maybe read through ALL the posts on here and then maybe sit back & re-evaluate your attitude. One person thinking you're being OOO is a view; TWO people thinking it is more than coincidence; THREE people (& it's actually more if you read through all) would strongly suggest the issue sits with you.

And again on a very personal level, I cannot imagine making 2 direct replies (as you did to mine) to a post that includes the fact that poster has a parent very rapidly dying but in the HIDEOUS position of NOT being able to see them as that limited time ticks away. Whether I agreed or disagreed on whatever view your/anyone else's post on any given subject was, plain decency and empathy (qualities that are pretty much everywhere on MN) would have ensured that alongside my 'view', I would also offer sympathy/empathy/good wishes/whatever regarding any other tough situation mentioned within it (& no, before you start, that is NOT why I posted - am just pointing out that along with having enough people on here commenting specifically on your tone/attitude/callousness; that too tells me something about you.


labtest Mon 21-Jan-13 16:12:46

In other words snowy, if enough people tell you you have a tail maybe it's time to look behind you.

UrticaDioica Mon 21-Jan-13 19:08:56

And perhaps time would be better spent chasing said tail. X

redspottydress Mon 21-Jan-13 19:46:49

There are some very sad and scary stories on here. I appreciate what a pp said on here about cp vaccine not being tested for long term effects, but that is true of all relatively new vaccines, they are only tested for as long ago as the first cohort had them. I also appreciate what another poster said about the economical model. I do not understand why the government are talking about bringing in rotavirus vaccine at significant cost when there have been no fatalities caused by this disease and no dangers to pregnant women. Why vaccination against rubella and no cp, even if it was only girls? I would worry greatly if my dc had been spreading about cp before the spots came out. It does sound like it is not a risk that we should be taking.

sharpyall Mon 21-Jan-13 20:01:00

i cant believe what i am reading. anyone with a tiny bit of common sense knows not to take there child out if they have cp or any other contagious illness. i have 4 children and 1 is currently fighting for his life as he has cancer. how the hell would you like it living in my shoes, waking up every day wondering if some stupid mother fucker has took there child to the shop KNOWING they have cp running the risk of my son getting it, ending up in hospital or even worse DEAD. no other way of putting it. try watching your child getting pumped full of poisen to keep them alive, try watching them be in so much pain they have to go on morphine, try waking up wondering if today is the day your son has relapsed, try staying in the hospital for days on end not knowing when you will go home, not knowing when you will see your other children all because you couldnt stay at home.
what is wrong with staying in and looking after your ill child for a few days and not going out. NOTHING. it could safe a life. could you imagine having to take your child to the hospital and have a massive neddle shoved in there leg while they cry, then them reacting to it. ooh shit no you wont have to imagine or think about it as it hopefully will never happen to you.
before you take your kids out wether they are under a raincover or not, if they are ill and contagious keep them home.
as for keeping our cancer kids home, why should we,they have chemo for more then 3yrs some of them, they have had there childhood destroyed and the only bit of normailty is school, we try to give them a much of as normal life as possible, thank god the schools and parents at school are good cos if we had you lot there they would never go to school or be in hospital.
Just try walking in the shoes of a mum with a child with cancer or other serious illneses.
as for snowybrr i think you need to get a grip and live in the real world, you have made some very unsensitive comments which are bang out of order
everyone of us has our own views but when you put another childs life at risk because you are bored or cant be arsed to try and figure out a solution you are not worth listening to. for those who didn know about the risks you could be causing then fine, make changes now, for those who wont change and wont listen, i hope you can live with yourself knowing what your recklesness has caused.

StoicButStressed Mon 21-Jan-13 21:20:11

Hear Hear SharpyAll - powerfully and well said. Sending you and your son all hope possible, cannot BEGIN to imagine that nightmare and can get why you couldn't believe what you were reading. If honest (& this is clearly nada compared to what you are dealing with), I am still steaming at someone telling me I was 'highly irresponsible' to have had the nightmare of contracting CP in pregnancy with both my life and my DS's at risk as a result - like I made a choice?? Agree with every word you have written and can only hope those who REALLY need to read it and get it DO bloody well do so.

goboboo Mon 21-Jan-13 21:44:14

Well said SharpyAll, I have to say you took the words out of my mouth. As this was my first time posting I was trying to be nice but I wish I had said it more like you.

tiggytape Mon 21-Jan-13 22:17:21

Wishing your DS and your family all the best Sharpy. It is unimaginable for you all to have to go through so much and I don't blame you for feeling anger at those whose own experience of childhood illness is very easy in comparison yet would risk those who suffer so much.

Stoic - Don't be steaming. At least your post and experience shows everyone something valuable. There are no such thing as ‘vulnerable people’. We are all potentially vulnerable if we happen to fall pregnant or contract an illness at any point in life not knowing our system is low.
You've had CP before. You had no reason to suspect you needed to be careful about it. Those around you had no reason to keep you away from illness and yet it turns out, through no fault of your own, your immunity to it hadn't stuck or hadn't lasted. That is not uncommon and is another reason why people with CP must be careful around all pregnant women and not fall into a trap of thinking that there is a rare group of ‘vulnerable people’ to avoid. So many people in everyday life are vulnerable to infection and you'd never know it by looking. Some of them won’t know themselves that they’re vulnerable.

And that's why it is not O.K to pop to the shops with a child with known CP.

The rest of society is responsible for 1 week in every lifetime for not going out and spreading CP needlessly to others. Its not too much to ask when the consequences are so awful.

StoicButStressed Mon 21-Jan-13 22:27:40

From tiggytape - most succinct and apposite post on whole thread:

The rest of society is responsible for 1 week in every lifetime for not going out and spreading CP needlessly to others. Its not too much to ask when the consequences are so awful.

BoffinMum Mon 21-Jan-13 23:18:07

Wonder why they vaccinate for CP in the US and not here?

Mimishimi Mon 21-Jan-13 23:57:53

Snowy, if I had known that I was not immunized for chickenpox, I definitely would have got immunized before my first pregnancy. The fact that I didn't know, for both my pregnancies, makes me absolutely shudder now. Something like 30% of pregnancies where the mother has contracted varicella experience serious complications and a significant number of those pregnancies result in stillborn deaths. Like many, I just assumed it was a routine childhood vaccination. I had no idea that a vaccine was only developed in Japan in 1974 and came into the universal childhood vaccination program in the US/Australia in 1999-2000. Even both my parents and those of DH assumed we had been vaccinated for it (we've asked both in the past couple of weeks).

angels3 Tue 22-Jan-13 00:59:59

Well as harsh as this may sound I think you are taking precaitions regarding school but otherwise totally crazy about going out.
Unfortunately I am one of those adults who had not had chickenpox and was not naturally immune. I caught it at 11wks and lost my baby the day before my 12wk scan. I had to be isolated and the midwives all wore infection control suits.
It was the most dreadful experience of my life!
So get a grip and stay at home! It is not forever!!!!!!

CultureMix Tue 22-Jan-13 04:13:17

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CultureMix Tue 22-Jan-13 04:19:05

I hadn't seen the latest postings on this thread before I posted myself. Stepping away now before I get flamed then.

ProudAS Tue 22-Jan-13 11:57:49

Mimishimi do you think you may have had hand, foot and mouth first time round? It does sometimes get mistaken for CP.

I saw an interesting article about getting CP twice. It seemed to be more likely the younger you are the first time.

CultureMix the checkout woman was out of order. You can't live on thin air especially after keeping your DS isolated for several days. Even if she had genuine concerns she could have put them more politely.

StoicButStressed Tue 22-Jan-13 12:19:42

Have just realised that whilst referenced fact I caught CP during pregnancy - with all the obvious risks both to me and DS (and YES, IN SPITE OF HAVING ALREADY HAD CP AS A KID DEAR SNOWY ) - I haven't actually written what it was LIKE to have it whilst pregnant....

Tiggytape pointed out that I shouldn't be steaming (^at fact I was 'told' how 'highly irresponsible' I had been!^) as what had written may have been of value to others, and she is RIGHT. Soooo.... if you have the mare of being stuck inside with DCs having CP (& yep, been there 3 times so KNOW how stir crazy it gets) but should you be in ANY doubt about the horror it causes, I'm going to spell it out.

Poor angel3 lost her baby at 12 weeks. I and my DS could have died. We were very, very lucky. But THIS is how awful it is, as you do NOT get the nice chance of 'mild' CP if contract when preggers. I had spots - and the obvious itching and pain of each of them - smothering my entire body. They covered my scalp under my hair. They were IN my ears. They pervaded my vagina (sorry, just being direct here). There is a photo of JUST my back with over 150 dots of calamine lotion on. No choice but to take Acyclovir (retro virus drug) to try and protect us both save our lives. Then needed hefty anti-emetics to counter the effects of that. And on and on and f*cking on. It was the most excruciating thing I can recall and made childbirth (which I've done 3 times with no pain relief) - and apologies for bluntness but want to drive this home - look like a piece of p*ss. So even if it DOESN'T kill you and/or your child, it is an utterly horrific thing to bear as there is NO SUCH THING AS MILD CP IF CONTRACTED WHEN PREGNANT.

And THAT is of course not even touching on the horror of dealing with a child who has cancer vs selfish dick exposing that child to an illness that could kill them. Etc etc et-bloody-cetera.

Again, kudos to OP for genuinely asking for views, but to ANYONE who has a DC they KNOW has CP, if you do not stay in you DO need to know you are knowingly risking the lives of others.


Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now