AIBU To be annoyed of at people who take kids with chickenpox into nursery?!

[dingdongmrs]

Took my eldest to nursery this morning and one of the mums had her boy in a pushchair and pushed him into the nursery, only for a few minutes while she spoke to the teachers, i wondered why he wasnt staying at nursery today until she bought him back out and he was smothered in chickenpox, not scabbed over, but still oozing and weeping and looking very sore.

Im guessing she went in to tell them he wouldnt be in nursery today but could she not have phoned?! and i know they were contagious because i was walking behind her on the way home and a friend of hers went upto her and she said asked if he was contagious and she said yes! so why take him in a nursery building where other kids are??!

If my two girls get chickenpox now i know who is to blame, i know kids will get chickenpox at some point and my eldest if nearly 4yrs old so she would be ok with it, ie would let me treat her and cover her in lotion but my youngest is only 18 months and i really didnt want her to get it yet!

Sorry for ranting, im just annoyed.

]]www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1194947358374]]. This is the official advice in the UK. States 5 days from onset of rash. However personally I would ensure that all the spots had scabbed over at the 5 days mark before sending a child back to school nursery. Each of these little blisters contain 1000s of copies of the CP virus just waiting to spread. That is the aim of the virus itself after all, to continue to live and reproduce.

I was writing in reply to xstitch's "I am pregnant and would be irate if someone knowingly exposed me to CP". My point is that she should direct a bit of that anger towards herself for not having taken care of this before she got pregnant.

I'm not saying parents of infected children should be irresponsible about it, but women who haven't thought to get the vaccine before getting pregnant should bear part of the blame if they get CP when pregnant.

try again

Oh I get angry at myself every day I am a shit human being and a shit mother but I think you should read my post above which explains why I am not vaccinated. I still don't see how that makes it right for someone to knowingly take an infectious child out in public.

Also if you read my post I said that I would be irate if someone exposed me to rubella knowingly and I have been vaccinated against that.

Nobody is saying you are a shit anything. Just that getting irate to others is all well and good but part of the responsibility is yours.

Why would you be irate if someone exposes you to a disease you are vaccinated against?

Do you have an anger problem?

Have you read the reason why I am not vaccinated for CP? The only other step I can take is to isolate myself for 9months. I don't see why I should do that so that others can avoid a week at home.

When dd had CP she was luckily not too unwell. The problem was she felt better so was bouncing off the walls because she couldn't go outside. It was difficult I admit that and she was a bit too young to understand. The thing is I had to keep her in and away from others it was my responsibility as both a parent and as a member of society as a whole. Parents stuck at home with DC with CP have my sympathy its not fun but they are doing the right thing and it is not forever even though it may feel like it at the time.

NO cote the only person I hate is myself. However i have a strong sense of social responsibility and I am not only angry on behalf of myself but transplant patients who will e immunosupressed for life (irrelevant which vaccines or illness they have had. COPD patients on steroid, those suffering form severe arthritis and psorias receiving steroids, methotrexate or MAB therapy. Those suffering from other immune problems I cannot be bother to type everything out.

What people have to remember is that although vaccines significantly reduce the chance of developing an illness the are not and can never be 100% effective.

xstitch- deep breath.....!

generally speaking people who are ill with communicable infections/viruses etc are advised to stay away from healthy folk. So that is why we keep our kids off school when they are ill. We do not take them to school as usual and expect all healthy kids to be kept away from them. (are we all dullards or what? emoticon)

ps well done cote on making xstitch feel like a complete failure and a shit parent. Well done you.

"The thing is I had to keep her in and away from others it was my responsibility as both a parent and as a member of society as a whole"

i agree that where possible you should keep a child with CP away from others. the reality is that it isn't always possible. we were lucky that ds2/dd have had CP over the easter holidays - had they had it during term time i would still have been taking them on the school run twice a day with ds1 because I couldn't have kept a 10 year old off school for 2 weeks... i imagine that this would be the scenario for many other parents.

You didn't get the vaccine because there might be side effects (as with all vaccines) and there is a possibility that you might not get the immunity (as with all vaccines). Sorry if I missed anything.

Yes cote you missed quite a lot. The main reason in fact. The comment about the side effects was an aside. I perhaps didn't type my post clearly enough so I will take the blame as you are so keen for me to do I will explain it in simpler terms to make it clearer.

1. I work in the NHS
2. Occupational health check our CP immunity amongst other things for our safety and that of the patients
3. My blood tests showed partial immunity.
4. This partial immunity would mean vaccinating me would be highly unlikely to illicit the full initial response to the vaccine required to confer full immunity
5. ie it would have made no difference.
6. occupational health as because of the blood results advised against the vaccine
7. They said it was a waste of time as it would make me feel ill and would not work and therefore would not prescribe it for me.

The comment about vaccinations not guaranteeing immunity was explaining why people worry even when they have been vaccinated.

Is this clear enough.

I get very cross with the 'everyone has to get it sometime' attitude some have to chickenpox.

It may preferable to children to get it while they are young but I really object to someone else deciding that it's OK for my child to get CP a that particular time. As with any infectious disease, NO ONE should take a child to where they can knowingly infect others, it's just selfish and irresponsible.

My DD has just got over CP and she would have been infectious for a few days before the spots came out and I would have had no idea about that at all, but I certainly didn't take her out and about before her spots had scabbed over. CP can be catastrophic for someone with a compromised immune system or in pregnancy. People just need to think about others sometimes.

Pregnant women should manage their immunity and those on chemotherapy should probably not go to nurseries and schools where childhood illnesses are likely to appear.

Sorry but that's tosh, the woman could have phoned the nursery. The responsibility runs both ways I'm afraid. Should a cancer victim not see children at all for the entirety of their illness each time someone brings a child the KNOW to be contagious to school?

Having looked after my mother through her cancer, I know she did everything she could as her life was at stake. How nice to know that others have no compassion for those that are not there own.

What really annoys me about these threads is that if the woman had knowingly brought the child in with nits everyone would be appalled and dnbu - ing all over the place. But with chickenpox, a disease that kills, its all me, me, me.

You made a judgement call. Fine. We all make judgement calls on these subjects, weighing the pros & cons and assessing the risks of both sides.

If you were so worried about getting CP when pregnant, you could have still had the vaccine. "Unlikely to illicit full response" does not mean "it would have made no difference". Partially immune people get vaccinated all the time, I presume, with the assumption that it will make a difference.

Honeydragon I totally agree with you. I too nursed my mother through cancer and had to ask a (pretty close) relative to leave the hospice she was in because she came in and announced that she'd been in bed all day with D & V but didn't think it would matter because 'she hasn't got long anyway has she'.

It's exactly this 'couldn't care less' attitide that makes me so angry, people making decisions that it's OK to infect other people for whatever reason. Of course you can't avoid picking things like chickenpox up but to knowingly put people at risk is unforgivable IMO.

Megatron , nice for her to decide it was up to her to judge what your mother should go through.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, its the knowingly that is the issue.

"someone else deciding that it's OK for my^ child to get CP a that particular time"

DS got CP at 9 months, on the 1st day of a very special holiday for our family. We spent a whole week holed up in the hotel room. Yes, I agree with you that there can be very inconvenient times to have CP.

I can't blame the little girl who gave it to DS or her mum. She had no symptoms at that point.

I certainly hope that the hotel staff didn't blame us, as we didn't have much choice, either, except informing reception and asking them not to send pregnant and/or non-immune women up to our room.

A little boy who had CP was brought to school gates four times a day by his dad several weeks ago. People weren't happy but there wasn't much the father could have done, as he didn't have anyone else to do the school run for his two DDs.

What I am trying to say is that people aren't idiots and they aren't evil. If there was a way not to bring their sick child out, they probably would have done it that way. Get angry if you like but sometimes it is just not possible to keep children at home for a full two weeks, especially if you don't have help.

Well I was told in my situation it would make no difference so they refused to prescribe it so I suggest you take it up with them.

IT STILL WOULDN'T MAKE IT RIGHT TO KNOWINGLY TAKE A CHILD OUT WHO IS INFECTIOUS.

So your view is a family of a child with CP shouldn't be inconvenienced for 1 week. So to give them this right a child who has had a second chance at life with a transplant shouldn't be allowed to go to school or nursery, should never be allowed a job when they are older should stay in a single isolated room for the rest of their life and consequently have no life at all. All so you can knowingly take your infectious child out. BULLSHIT.

Pregnant women and chemotherapy patients are not the only ones who are at significant risk. Should all of these people lose the right to a life, to be able to earn a living and go to the shops just so a family isn't onconvenienced for 1 week maybe 2 if they are unlucky. Again. BULLSHIT.

TBH I have decided that I am not the only thing I hate. I hate that we all live in a world where people think 'I'm alright jack' where it is so difficult to find an ounce of compassion anywhere and where you do find it the person showing compassion is thought of as weak. No wonder the world is in such a state. If being a strong person means being nasty, dangerous to others and unfeeling I am staying weak thank you very much.

Cote

You and that father still did everything possible to prevent exposure, at ds's school parents have been in the same situation so drop off and pick up is done at the gate often with a rain cover on etc. Walking into a nursery full of dc's and chatting is selfish and unnecessary. And as the nursery have to have a emergency contact no. then someone with access to a phone could've relayed whatever was so important.

I wouldn't be angry about what you did cote

The parent described in the OP did not have to be there.

I would always worry about exposure but I would only be angry if the parents/guardians had knowingly put people at risk. I was angry at myself when dd came down with CP. Her teacher was pregnant. As she came down with the spots at a weekend she hadn't been in for the 2 days previously as she had spiked a temperature on the Friday. I still got angry at myself about the Thursday even though at that time I had no inkling she was about to show symptoms. I had not even known she had been exposed at that point. Apparently XH had taken her to a CP party 2 weeks earlier but hadn't thought I would need to know. I admit I am a little sensitive about it but keeping dd in when she had CP was one of the things used against me in court. I would stand up in Court and defend that decision again BTW humiliating though it is.

Though I have thought long and hard about it after having to do this and have done a lot of research as a result and I have not changed my view.

Megatron - just . completely that anyone could be that fucking callous. Sorry. :(

I think that the woman in the OP was being utterly irresponsible to bring her virus-shedding sprog into a room with lots of other children. Even if she had just waited outside and asked another mum to pass on the message it would have been better!

re. the vaccines not taking, or some people not becoming immune to the virus the first time around - it's a complex process but there are some people who seem to react to infections primarily in a non-antibody fashion. Immunology itself is still a fairly young and not terribly well understood science - lots of it is still not fully elicited in terms of how things work. But - there appear to be two distinct modes of operation - one involves antibody production and the other involves T lymphocytes and other killer cells doing the job without the aid of the antibodies. The two modes also appear to be mutually suppressive, to an extent - so if a person starts off with the antibody mode, they will continue with that; whereas if the start off with the killer cell mode, they will continue that route instead (this is massively simplifying the processes, and is still only partially understood).
In most cases, vaccines will elicit an antibody response, which will create memory antibodies so that should the real virus appear, the antibodies can be made much faster (1-2 days instead of 5-7days) and dipose of the virus before the disease can get a hold. In some cases, it appears the killer cells get to the virus/vaccine first and destroy it, so no antibodies are created.
Testing for immunity = testing for antibodies to the virus.
Some people don't keep their memory antibodies for long enough; some people have high level antibodies circulating for ages (me).

Interestingly (for me anyway) it appears that the people who don't employ the antibody response first are least likely to suffer from AIDS, because their killer cells will clear the HIV infection. Whereas an antibody response is ineffective and allows the virus to hide and proliferate; so an antibody-provoking vaccine would do more harm than good.

Sorry about the lecture!