To not care how important your job is, if your child has impetigo

[Normalisavariantofcrazy]

You keep them off school! More so if the sores are still active!

Got a bit of morning run rage going on at the moment

Having just read that Impertigo is caused by the staph aureous infection, I certainly would hope that people would follow the guidelines on absence. Ds2 has had terrible problems with this infection for over a year now, 70+ boils and 50+ styes. He has to be bathed in the stuff surgeons use to wash their hands before operations (head to foot), we have had 2 full months clear in 14 months. His last infection was 2 weeks ago, in his penis this time. If I found out someone had deliberately sent their child in with weeping sores I would be livid. When ds2' boils erupt they are bathed and covered until they have dried up and the school are under strict instructions to call me should they burst at school (cold water on a piece of blue roll does not constitute proper treatment). Having seen my son in pain for so long, I maybe a bit irrational about it but it is horrid.

By the way, I am not saying that ds2's problems are in anyway as bad as some one who is immuno suppressed, but for us it is hard to deal with. That said, we are in fact waiting for an appointment to see an immunologist to rule out any rare immune problems that may be causing his inability to fight this infection.

Do people moaning about HCP's leaving sick DC's at nursery / school actually know that, at least in my PCT, NHS employees have to give TWO WEEK'S NOTICE of 'EMERGENCY' leave. Or it is refused.

I couldn't even change my DS3's nappy, due to an injury on both arms, before Christmas. My Ex was not able to take EMERGENCY time off for two weeks AFTER the day I injured myself - they wouldn't even let him leave work an hour early to look after DS3 whilst I went to A&E!!

NHS can and will sack you if your attendance goes below a certain level. They use 'Bradford Factor' to determine when you get written warnings and when you get the sack. They are far from the only employer that does this. There is no compassion, no deviating from cold hard attendance figures.

It's awful, but employers have the RIGHT to refuse emergency dependants leave if it would mean that there would be severe consequences for their business - which means that if my Ex is the only chef working in the hospital that day, I could be run over by a bus and they still wouldn't allow him to take time off to look after our DS's.

If you are a Lone Parent working for an employer like this, then it becomes a shit situation you can't get out of - because if you are sacked for non-attendance YOU CAN'T CLAIM BENEFITS FOR SIX MONTHS. How do you survive?!

It would be an awful, awful situation to be in.

I've HAD to make difficult choices like that in the past - one of my DC's is on medication for asthma that leaves him immune suppressed, and CP could kill him when he's taking that medication, and it takes 6 months each time before his immune system has recovered. Yet I've also been the Lone Parent who is the sole earner, knowing that if I get sacked for non-attendance, WHATEVER the reasons behind that non-attendance, I will have NO way whatsoever of supporting my family for the next six months.

Blame the employers leave policies, not the parents faced with theses choices. Having been both sides of the fence, that's what I do!

But in all honesty how do you know they haven't

Dd gets eczema so anything tht causes a rash takes forever to disappear and her skin takes a whole to heal from impertigo.

I kept her off every time for the 48 hours. I have her leggings for pe to keep her Legs covered but not much I could so about her face.

She had a rash for weeks once she was covered. I'd been to the drs for the all clear before I sent her back but to look at her all you would see would be a child covered in a rash.

I hope you at least consider the possibility that treatment is being adhered to before assuming every scab you see is an infectious child. As I said, if I kept her off til any trace of imperteigo, Cp, rashes etc had gone she's have missed months of school.

Staying at home just because your dc have been exposed is slightly ott. The incubation time can be as long as 21 days and they probably haven't even caught it

I realize it might seem OTT to you but the day they were at the boys house playing all day was the day he would have been most contagious and my children were all over him for several hours, I've seen it's something like 90% contagion rate at that stage. I have 2 toddlers who never had it before.

I am currently over due with my third child, you can imagine how nervous I am that I will likely have a newborn and 2 CP ridden toddlers in the same house. and a dh who desn't qualify for paternity leave I don't want anyone else to feel like that (especially a pregnant woman who hasn't had CP). The family involved obviously had no idea that their son was a risk, so totally not their fault... but as I know mine are a risk, I would feel like a massive arsehole if someone got ill because of my children.

children should not be sent to school with any infectious condition.
Parents responsibility to make sure they have childcare in place if they are not fit for school.
Very unfair of parents to put others at risk.

Couthy, the person I know who bragged about leaving her sick child in nursery was not a HCP, but did do a job where she worked with children.

As long as the government continues to pursue policies that force more and more parents into work full time, even with very young DCs and allows Ofsted to penalise schools for poor attendence, we will have these problems.

Making a comment about unreasonable employers... my SIL does respite care and looks after very poorly children. The type of children who if they were to catch something, it could be a very serious threat to their life. Despite that, where she works is NOT understanding if she take time off work ill. She's been put on disciplinary in the past after stopping some home visits when she was sick with D&V or other infections.

I would love to say we live in a world where, if we are ill we are able to recover. We don't. For all the headlines that we are a nation of sick day throwers, I always see it from the other side. Pressure to keep attendance up. Rewards if attendance is hitting a certain target. This is present at work as well as at school. My DD's jnr school tasks kids with hitting 98% attendance through the year, and reward those who do.

I have seen parents punished for their attendance if children are ill. I remember having a argument with one HR department, pointing out that somebodies child was seriously ill. I remember their remark was "well... that is the rule". Not sure what "H" sometimes stands for in HR but it isn't human!

Agreed .And here lies the root of all our financial worries - modern life is financed by two working parents full time . The economy turns on that basis .
The government encourages it and penalises those dont both work full time .
I could start ranting about SAHParenting and how it's now considered ecconomic treason .

Nocomet, I agree. I can't imagine how we'd cope.
We used to both work full time, but with three kids it's a logistical nightmare.
The government need to make it easier for parents to choose to work flexibly or part time or not at all if sahm or sahd is an option. It's all well and good encouraging both parents out to work, but someone needs to s look after the Kids when they are poorly and sick kids tend to want Mum or Dad. It's utterly wrong to send a sick or contagious child to school.

Impetigo is caused by Staph aureus or Group A Strep.
I've seen two otherwise healthy children die due to invasive Group A Strep infection. It is a bug that scares the bejeesus out of me.

To those people saying they wouldn't keep their children off due to impetigo until they've had 48 hours of antibiotics (I'm looking at you, dusty) - You are being eyewateringly selfish.

Isn't staph aureus a common bacteria that lives on our skin though?

Yes it is.

You may think so bungmean, but what am I to do exactly?

If I appear at the jobcentre to announce I've been sacked due to my appalling attendance at work, do you imagine they will be throwing money and jobs at me?

To be brutally honest, I will always care more about keeping us fed and housed, than about other people's food and housing.

Someone has to put us first, and unfortunately that someone is me, eye-watering selfishness and all.

If I find myself unemployed, it will not be of any comfort to my family to know that at least the children's classmates didn't catch impetigo.

I can't just not show up at work, unless the circumstances are truly dire.

i dont think people are putting their jobs over their child - blame the government for stripping away employment rights

I will always care more about keeping us fed and housed, than about other people's food and housing.

But you fail to accept that for some people it's not about food and housing. For some people it's about the life or death (or at least serious illness) of their child. What is a minor inconvenience to one child can be seriously life threatening for another.
I sincerely hope that your own children never go through a phase in their life where their immunity is significantly compromised and some dimwit selfish person thinks that it's okay to send their infectious children to school against medical advise.
We are not talking about a two week period of illness, we are talking about 48 hours until antibiotics make it safe for the child to be around others.
And before you harp on about losing your job and compromising your own children's financial stability; I do understand that point as I resigned from my job due to my child having many many spells in hospital due to serious long term illness. I lost an income, but I did the responsible thing of knowing that my children's health came first and prioritising that. I used up all my annual leave to be with my child in hospital as I didn't want to face disciplinary or upset my employers and colleagues by taking unpaid leave.
I don't think what you are saying is acceptable, I think it is selfish beyond belief.

unpaid leave is not an option for many - take a look at the job market, at the amount of minimum wage jobs, I am lucky I am a SAHM these days, but I remember the days when my eldest was hospitalised and exh and I were fighting over who was going to get the black mark with our employer, rather than being able to care for DC.

If you face losing your job, therefore your home etc, its just not that easy.

And instead of fighting with each other over it - we should be looking at the government who have put us in this position.

I do hope you will excuse my harping on Impatientismymiddlename.

What you did was fine, but you did it for your child.

I'd not have any choice but to do the same in your situation, because my employers would fire me anyway.

But I do have a choice for now.

It's not that I fail to accept the (rare) consequences for other peoples children, I just can't afford to care that much.

Ouch.

I'm wounded.

No, really.

Impatient thank you for saying what I was thinking.

Unemployed or not, if my DS was in Intensive Care or, God forbid, died as a result of an infection passed from a child who was known to be unwell but sent to school regardless, I would want criminal charges pressed against that child's parents. I know it doesn't happen but I wish it did.

Then perhaps people wouldn't be so blasé about the lives of others.

Dusty I could lose my job AND MY CHILD. But that's ok because it's not your life. Thanks.

YANBU. I dont get paid if I take time off for poorly dcs.We just accept it and go without luxuries that week. Ive lived on bread and bananas for a week when ds1 was poorly and I didnt get paid. Poorly children need at least one of their parents with them.End of.

You sound lovely Dusty.