Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To keep my kids away from chicken pox party?

245 replies

Badgerboop · 09/02/2017 11:06

More of a WWYD?

One of my friends is having a kids party tomorrow and both of my children have been invited. I've just found out via Facebook that the birthday girl has got chicken pox in the contagious stage. The mother is not going to postpone the party and it's still going ahead.

Neither of my kids have had it. I wouldn't mind the eldest one catching it as I think she would cope with it but I really don't want my youngest to catch it as she's just getting over a cold, ear and chest infection which has knocked her for 6 and neither of us have had any sleep for the past 5 days!

Shall I just decline the invite or just take them? She's the type of woman who will get funny with me if I decline. I thought about just taking the eldest but if she catches it she will obv pass onto th youngest

OP posts:
SparkleMotions · 10/02/2017 11:55

I would decline if it was me OP, if she wants to get funny with you because you refuse the invitation and not make your child deliberately ill, then that's her problem, not yours! I really can't understand her carrying on with the party anyway.

Bettyspants · 10/02/2017 14:00

Murmation , I honestly have no real idea although I have also wondered about it evolving . despite my job I actually prefer to use natural methods where possible for my own family however I wish now I'd paid for a private vaccination for my own children particularly considering dd's ongoing eye issues (which is obviously nothing compared to some of these very sad comments). I'd be very interested to have a good hunt through figures to find if there is some good solid evidence to support the anecdotal evidence. I'm sure we will end up having the varicella vaccine offered eventually.

Gwilt160981 · 10/02/2017 14:10

Don't know why you're asking for advice but anything infectious you steer clear of.

Willyoujustbequiet · 10/02/2017 14:19

Splendide

Failing to vaccinate with a vaccine that isnt approved on a normal basis on the NHS and deliberately exposing your child to a potentially fatal disease is not the same thing at all.

The latter makes you a shit parent.

splendide · 10/02/2017 14:22

But part of the NHS' rationale for not vaccinating is that it's better for children to get it to avoid shingles later. So by not vaccinating you are basically deciding that it would be better for your children to have it than not.

PurpleDaisies · 10/02/2017 14:24

But part of the NHS' rationale for not vaccinating is that it's better for children to get it to avoid shingles later.

No it isn't. Confused
You cannot have shingles if you have never had chicken pox. It's adults who have had chicken pox who are more likely to get shingles if there are fewer children round with chicken pox.

PurpleDaisies · 10/02/2017 14:26

From the NHS website...
We could also see a significant increase in cases of shingles in adults. Being exposed to chickenpox as an adult – for example, through contact with infected children – boosts your immunity to shingles.
If you vaccinate children against chickenpox, you lose this natural boosting, so immunity in adults will drop and more shingles cases will occur.

splendide · 10/02/2017 14:26

From the NHS website -

There's a worry that introducing chickenpox vaccination for all children could increase the risk of chickenpox and shingles in adults.
While chickenpox during childhood is unpleasant, the vast majority of children recover quickly and easily. In adults, chickenpox is more severe and the risk of complications increases with age.
If a childhood chickenpox vaccination programme was introduced, people would not catch chickenpox as children because the infection would no longer circulate in areas where the majority of children had been vaccinated.
This would leave unvaccinated children susceptible to contracting chickenpox as adults, when they are more likely to develop a more severe infection or a secondary complication, or in pregnancy, when there is a risk of the infection harming the baby.
We could also see a significant increase in cases of shingles in adults. Being exposed to chickenpox as an adult – for example, through contact with infected children – boosts your immunity to shingles.
If you vaccinate children against chickenpox, you lose this natural boosting, so immunity in adults will drop and more shingles cases will occur.

splendide · 10/02/2017 14:28

Oh yes OK to avoid other people getting shingles but my point still stands - they want children to have chickenpox. By not vaccinating you are almost guaranteeing they'll get it.

TheAtheist · 10/02/2017 14:31

But part of the NHS' rationale for not vaccinating is that it's better for children to get it to avoid shingles later

No, that isn't correct. The vaccinated child will be protected for life from chicken pox and shingles. It is the other (adults) who the NHS has chosen not to vaccinate who will be at risk.

The NHS could just vaccinate everyone, and eradicate chicken pox permanently (pretty much), but it has no incentive to do so because gullible people believe everything they read on the NHS website.

The NHS is using your DCs illnesses to keep their costs down. Can't really be a surprise that they're playing that one down, is it?

TheAtheist · 10/02/2017 14:32

x post there...

splendide · 10/02/2017 14:34

I vaccinated my DS - I am completely pro vaccination.

My point is that you either vaccinate or your child is very likely to get CP. Either way (exposing deliberately or not) you are choosing for your child to have the disease - so I don't see why one makes you a shit parent and not the other.

For what it's worth I think neither make you a shit parent.

TheAtheist · 10/02/2017 14:37

so I don't see why one makes you a shit parent and not the other

I think the term 'shit parent' is a bit strong, however, taking steps to prevent a child from suffering represents better parenting than not doing so.

splendide · 10/02/2017 14:46

Sure, I agree. I just think if you want to avoid the child suffering then the step you need to take is vaccination. If you aren't going to vaccinate then you may as well try to arrange for infection at a convenient time - odds are the child is going to get it either way.

TheAtheist · 10/02/2017 15:02

My point is that I believe it to be irresponsible not to vaccinate.

You seem to be presenting the vaccinate/don;t vaccinate positions as being equivalent parenting choices when they aren;t.

annlee3817 · 10/02/2017 15:09

I was blase about chicken pox until my DD got it just after her 1st birthday. She had a really bad case of it, and was covered head to toe in spots. I know that some children just get a more mild case, but I would never encourage a chicken pox party, people joked about bringing theirs round to mine when DD had it and I told them no. I had it twice as a child (both mild) and had a shingles when I was 18.

jen333 · 10/02/2017 15:10

Vaccinate. I only paid £100 ten years ago. It worked brilliantly and I believe my daughter is now far less likely to get shingles in later life too.

tiggytape · 10/02/2017 15:10

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Bluegrass · 10/02/2017 15:30

I'm also struggling to understand why there is so much condemnation for parents who want to gain a semblance of control over when chicken pox happens, but not for those who choose not to vaccinate?

As people have noted, in the U.K. the NHS's position is that they're happy for it to happen at some point, otherwise they would push for vaccination (as happens in Australia amongst other places).

They also acknowledge that risks increase if you contract it as an adult.

Armed with that information it isn't unreasonable for parents to think "if it's almost certainly going to happen to my child at some point in their life then why not do it at a time when I have the resources, time, energy to care for my child at home and with access to decent healthcare if needed, rather than leave it wholly to chance when it could lead to increased risks resulting from age or from less access to healthcare (like on their gap year backpacking in remote Africa)".

I don't see that as shit parenting, or irresponsible decision making. Certainly no more irresponsible than leaving it to chance.

Personally I wish I'd vaccinated our children but we prevaricated and suddenly it was too late.

Willow2016 · 10/02/2017 16:24

The pount is that this mum isn't bothered about infecting anyone who comes to the party. Parents, siblings as well as the kids.
Mine had it one covered, High temp, itching, really not well the one not so much. But I know one child who had spots everywhere, mouth, nose she was not well at all, couldn't eat cos it was too painful.

I would never deliberately expose kids to something like that you cannot guarantee that it will be mild or they will cope at all. Plus passing it on to adults eho are there who havent had it (i am not on facebook so i wouldn't know till i got there) its so selfish. And pretty unfair on kids looking forward to a party when patents take them straight home again when they find out!

Willow2016 · 10/02/2017 16:25

The other one not so much stupid phone!

Bluegrass · 10/02/2017 16:31

My comment was aimed at the general principle of deliberately exposing kids, not the way this particular person has gone about it.

It is absolutely true that anyone who does this runs a risk that it might not be mild. But those that choose not to vaccinate are exposing their child to that risk every single day. Surely just as culpable (and I say that as someone who's children caught it randomly, both under the age of 4).

murmuration · 10/02/2017 16:39

bluegrass - think it has something to with the deliberate act. Like we see how people argue it's dangerous to leave a child in a car at the petrol station rather than taking them in to pay, even if (as some people say - I have no idea if it is true or not!) it could be more dangerous to walk across the forecourt than stay in the car. A parent+child with them is considered 'normal' but leaving is considered 'different' - so if you do something different and something bad happens, it's more your fault than if you do something 'normal'. I think they've done studies on things like this: like looking at morality judgements in made-up situations, like a train switch where its heading to run over 10 people (or 100, etc) but you could switch the track and have it run over 1 instead. People tend to have stronger moral judgements on the act of flipping the switch, than the act of doing nothing and letting the thing happen.

Willyoujustbequiet · 10/02/2017 16:46

Spendide surely you can appreciate the difference between deliberate exposure and catching it normally?

Lots of kids never get it (I was one) so not vaccinating is not comparable to actively seeking infection.

And no I don't believe shit parent is too strong a term. Its a potentially fatal disease. To risk your child's life on purpose like that is unforgivable.

Bluegrass · 10/02/2017 16:50

I think there is a lot of truth in that.

I'm just a bit taken aback by the strength of feeling against people taking a course of action that (once you discount vaccination) can be honestly defended as the lesser of two evils. I can see people might weigh it all up and come to different conclusions, but to call people shit parents?!

It's not like anyone really wants their child to get sick. I had it when I was quite old, old enough to remember it all in vivid detail. The memory still haunts me.

Swipe left for the next trending thread