To not see the point of keeping a well but rashy child isolated

[bumbdeal]

When they were socialising freely and infectious 5 -7 days prior to the appearance of the rash.

[meditrina]

Rubella is quite mild in children usually.

Of course it KIILS or BLINDS babies in utero.

Are you sure you all adult females are a) immune and b) not pregnant? (Especially not in the very first weeks, as that is when the most extensive damage is done to the foetus).

[meditrina]

From a less shrill source: here's the list of what rubella does to a foetus:

"Rubella infection in the first 8 - 10 weeks of pregnancy can result in foetal (unborn baby) damage and may result in a miscarriage, stillbirth or the birth of an infant with abnormalities (e.g. deafness, cataracts, heart defects, liver and spleen damage and mental retardation). This is referred to as congenital rubella syndrome (CRS)"

If you have rubella, you are infectious for up to 7 days after onset of rash.

Just because you cannot know the exact time one becomes infectious pre-diagnosis (ie pre-rash) is not a good reason to ignore an individual continuing to be infectious.

[Iteotwawki]

The point is, when they were well and socialising freely during their pre rash infectious stage, you had no way of knowing that they were infectious.

However now they have a rash, you do know.

What you don't know is whether one of their classmates is being looked after by his aunt this week who is 6 weeks pregnant after 4 miscarriages. Or whether another child in the class is immunosuppressed or has another chronic condition that would render them critically ill if they catch something.

If infection is transmitted before you know it's there it's sad but cannot be helped.

If you knowingly allow an infectious child to mix with other children or adults without their express knowledge/consent then that's not sad, it's criminally irresponsible. IMHO. (I don't agree with chicken pox parties either).

[Sirzy]

If you know someone is infectious of course you don't send them out in public to share the germs!

You can't do anything about the time before symptoms appear but when they are there you act accordingly

[Dawndonna]

You selfish mare. Fair enough when you don't know, but when you know, selfish, nasty and life threatening for others.

[CouthyMowEatingBraiiiiinz]

Can somebody please link to an earlier CP thread where I have explained in detail WHY it's not right to take your DC out with CP, and the moral difference between infecting other people unwittingly, before the rash comes out, and KNOWINGLY infecting other people.

And exactly why I can't take having to ho over it again and again.

TIA.

[PopMusicShoobyDoobyDoA]

I had missed bumpdeal's post where she says "probably rubella." Oh dear. If you suspect rubella then you need to phone the doctor straight away (obviously not take them in!) to make sure. Maybe, not sure, probably does not cut it.

[PopMusicShoobyDoobyDoA]

PS, what is a chicken pox party and why the hell would anyone want to go to one?

[WilsonFrickett]

In days of yore Pop there was a school of thought that said if you knew a young DC with chicken pox you would take your DCs round to mix with them, in the hope of catching the virus early, as the popular belief was the younger you got CP, the better - hence CP parties. However, as a child of the 70's I'm not sure it wasn't a bit of an urban myth tbh, I never heard of any happening or went to any.

[McKayz]

I wish I knew why these threads keep popping up? Of course you have to keep a child with an infectious rash like CP or rubella etc off school.

There is a girl in reception at the DS's school who is recovering from Leukemia. If someone sent their child to school with something like Rubella she could die.

You can't do anything before you know they have it but you can bloody well keep them off once you do know.

[socharlotte]

I would have thought the school would send them straight back home again anyway.

[bumbdeal]

I still don't see the point.
Of course if I could have prevented exposing immunosuppressed people or pregnant women I would have but it is too late now.
Child is off by the way but am not keeping siblings off.
I am not risking (a real risk by the way) my childrens health by giving them the MMR to protect others.
If your child is that susceptible I would consider home schooling so as to protect them and not rely on others.
Schools are a hot bed of infections.
Yes qualified medically.
Also attended a chickenpox party but baby immune due to breastfeeding so will have that to come.

[WilsonFrickett]

No, it's very clear that you don't give a shiny shit about other peoples' health so I am not surprised you don't immunise your children.

[Sirzy]

So because other people are selfish parents of children who are ill and therefore immuno suppressed should home school? Should they keep them in a bubble to in order to protect them?

[bumbdeal]

How is it selfish not to give an immunisation that will make your child ill.
How is it selfish that your infectious child was at school with no symptons.
Child is not at school now!

[McKayz]

Why should the parents of an immuosuppressed child keep then away from school and a normal lifestyle because you can't be bothered to keep your ill children at home?

[poopnscoop]

Many kids have chronic illnesses like asthma... which makes them susceptible and more prone to catching something... are you saying all asthmatic kids need to be home schooled then?

No.

If your child is well they go to school... if they are not, they stay home. Period.

[crazykat]

Even if you've been vaccinated against rubella it's not guarenteed that you'll stay immune.

I had rubella as a child and four MMR jabs but found out when pregnant with DC3 that I wasn't immune even though I was two years earlier when having DC2. Cue me being terrified that I'd come into contact with someone with rubella for seven months till DC3 was born.

Now I'm worried about coming into contact with infections as my mum is having chemo. It's not just her who has to avoid people with things like rubella and chicken pox, it's family who come into contact with her as we can pass them onto her as well even if we're immune.

[tethersend]

"Of course if I could have prevented exposing immunosuppressed people or pregnant women I would have but it is too late now."

Yes, it's too late for the people who were exposed to it prior to the rash appearing.

Now you have a golden opportunity to do what you profess you wanted to do. Protect people.

But you're not going to, so I'm not sure why you posted unless its to make us feel better about ourselves. In which case, job well done

[Sirzy]

Why is it so hard to understand that your child has to stay off school with very good reason. Stop trying to move the responsibility to others it is up to you to reduce the chances of your child infecting others by keeping them in quarantine from when you discover they are ill until they better

[Namely]

Any child who showed even the slightest rash/infection/illness lasted approximately 3 seconds in my classroom this year. I was pregnant from January and there was no way I was risking the health of my baby. Children were sat in the medical room until someone could come and collect them or bring a doctors note stating that they were not infectious. I had a teacher friend in another school who lost a baby due at the same time as mine and although there is clearly no proof, measles had been in the siblings of a child she taught at the time. (This is just my observation, nothing was said to the family by the school).

[EdsRedeemingQualities]

erm [boggles at nonsensical OP]

You're saying you've kept your child off but you think it's pointless - well, no, it's not.

It's very likely that there will be people in school who were nOT exposed to your child's infection last week. And to send the child in now would be putting them at risk. How don't you understand that?

If a teacher is pregnant, are they supposed to stay off school for the duration in case a child comes in who is infectious and puts an end to their pregnancy?

You wouldn't know if they were pregnant or not.

The whole point is, yes, it's possible the child infected others before you knew they had anything. And now it's possible they will still infect others, and you know they might, so you're keeping them off school.

That's the right and only thing to do.

[EdsRedeemingQualities]

I mean it's like driving when you know your brakes aren't working. Yes, sure, you could have killed someone before you realised they were broken. But you weren't aware of it then.
Now you are, you'd be utterly wrong to keep driving in that knowledge.

[RyleDup]

You should keep your children at home and home school them op, not rely on mine, who are up to date with their jabs, to keep them safe. Unless you fall into that tiny minority who can't have the jabs for a good reason, not a made up pfb reason. And sending them to school with a rubella rash just shows you are a selfish cow.

[shriekingnora]

I thought you meant that once they have the rash they are no longer infectious. But having googled I see that they are for up to six days after the rash appears.

YABU - how can you possibly say that anyone who would have caught it has done so by now and therefore you are not increasing their risk?