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

[morecakerequired]

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)

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 .

(not directed at you libellule, I know that is not what you were saying there)

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 !

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.

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.

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.

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.

Urtica;)ditto. I have never felt as appreciative of the parents at my daughters school than since reading this thread.

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.

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...

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%

Thank you Urtica, that is an amazing video.

Thank you libelulle. Another brave little fighter. :)

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.

Incidentally, I found this article amongst others www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3486720/. 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?

sorry www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3486720/

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.

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...