Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

48 hour exclusion rule

88 replies

Samsond · 02/03/2024 11:01

Ok I know IANBU here but I want to moan anyway.
WHY? Do some parents think the 48 hour isolation rule for D & V doesn't apply to them / their kids??
A child threw up in my DCs class yesterday. Whilst running to the door so managed to pass quite a few pupils close by whilst actually vomiting. (Poor kid)
She then told the teacher she'd been sick the day before and in the night but her parents thought she was feeling better so sent her in.
She has now directly exposed about a third of the class to her gastro bug as well as humiliated herself. I have emetophobia which was caused by throwing up on front of the class when I was 11 so I really feel for this poor girl and am very anxiously monitoring my DC for signs of nausea now.
Why are some people so fucking selfish???

OP posts:
ItIsYou · 02/03/2024 13:10

Because not being in work can be a nightmare, they might on a warning, they might just not want to deal with the vomit

BabyLindor · 02/03/2024 13:12

Because they are selfish

juglover2008 · 02/03/2024 13:12

It's hard when you work for a company who's not very understanding. schools also don't help by making such a big deal of 100% attendance

Soreteatowel · 02/03/2024 13:13

Because life's not back and white and everyone's just getting by doing the best they can.

ShirleyPhallus · 02/03/2024 13:13

Because vomiting isn’t always caused by a bug

and some parents don’t have the luxury of being able not to send your child in for the day of school as they don’t have other childcare and can’t afford not to work

sleepyscientist · 02/03/2024 13:15

Maybe her parents couldn't get it off or though she was better. What about respiratory bugs, everyone in this house has cold should DH stay home and make work cover his shift just in case he's sick or sneezes on someone?

CrispsandCheeseSandwich · 02/03/2024 13:15

Because they are selfish arseholes who think nothing of making teachers and other school staff clean up their child's vomit.

LolaSmiles · 02/03/2024 13:16

Because they don't have the common sense to realise that because they don't want to annoy their boss/would rather not deal with an unwell child, another 10-20 families will end up missing work, having poorly children, the infection going round their household.

Much as I dislike the government current rhetoric on attendance, it's been clear for a long time (and is in current guidance) to not come into school after being sick. Anyone blaming attendance guidance for sending a vomiting child into school needs to give their head a wobble.

Lucylou07 · 02/03/2024 13:16

My boy was sent home from school on Tuesday with tummy ache. He had no symptoms active issues until Thursday evening. Easily spread that way

Soreteatowel · 02/03/2024 13:22

LolaSmiles · 02/03/2024 13:16

Because they don't have the common sense to realise that because they don't want to annoy their boss/would rather not deal with an unwell child, another 10-20 families will end up missing work, having poorly children, the infection going round their household.

Much as I dislike the government current rhetoric on attendance, it's been clear for a long time (and is in current guidance) to not come into school after being sick. Anyone blaming attendance guidance for sending a vomiting child into school needs to give their head a wobble.

And you have no idea how many families live, if you think it's about "annoying" the boss. If you're in a zero hours job, you lose that day's pay and the chance of other shifts, which will be give to those seen as more reliable.

Maybe wobble your own head?

HoHoGo · 02/03/2024 13:24

@Soreteatowel but that also applies to the other 10 or so families who likely now have to take a couple of days off work. Who's to say they're not in the same situation?

CrispsandCheeseSandwich · 02/03/2024 13:26

If you're in a zero hours job, you lose that day's pay and the chance of other shifts, which will be give to those seen as more reliable.

That is not a reason to make a teacher look after a child with a stomach bug, instead of looking after them yourself. They're your child.

And there's a reasonable chance your child only has it because some other selfish parent sent their child back too soon. If everyone followed the rule, there'd be less about anyway (I know it can be contagious before symptoms, and after the 48 hour period but that is the most contagious period).

Soreteatowel · 02/03/2024 13:29

CrispsandCheeseSandwich · 02/03/2024 13:26

If you're in a zero hours job, you lose that day's pay and the chance of other shifts, which will be give to those seen as more reliable.

That is not a reason to make a teacher look after a child with a stomach bug, instead of looking after them yourself. They're your child.

And there's a reasonable chance your child only has it because some other selfish parent sent their child back too soon. If everyone followed the rule, there'd be less about anyway (I know it can be contagious before symptoms, and after the 48 hour period but that is the most contagious period).

I'm not saying it's OK, I'm saying some families have really tough choices to make.

sleepyscientist · 02/03/2024 13:30

HoHoGo · 02/03/2024 13:24

@Soreteatowel but that also applies to the other 10 or so families who likely now have to take a couple of days off work. Who's to say they're not in the same situation?

So do we stop the 48hour and say they can go in when not actively vomiting.

LolaSmiles · 02/03/2024 13:30

And you have no idea how many families live, if you think it's about "annoying" the boss. If you're in a zero hours job, you lose that day's pay and the chance of other shifts, which will be give to those seen as more reliable.

Maybe wobble your own head?
No head wobbling needed thank you.

I'm well aware some people are in the situation where the loss of a day pay is a big issue.

The thing here is that each time a child is sent in vomiting, that parent is saying "actually it's totally fine for up to 20 other families to have to take time off work, lose pay, have multiple unwell children in their family as the bug goes through their household".

Or do those families not matter?

But sure, let's not bother trying to reduce the spread of nasty illnesses. Let's send vomiting children into school so that another family can lose a fortnight's pay whilst their 2-3 children come down unwell one after the other. At least one parent didn't have to take a day off work.

HoHoGo · 02/03/2024 13:50

@sleepyscientist no, because that's how it spreads like wildfire. What we need to do is enforce the 48-hour rule, so that these things can't spread so much in the first place. If everyone stuck to the rule, there would be far less illness about, and that would be much more beneficial to the families who struggle to get the time off work.

NotSmallButFunSize · 02/03/2024 13:57

LolaSmiles · 02/03/2024 13:30

And you have no idea how many families live, if you think it's about "annoying" the boss. If you're in a zero hours job, you lose that day's pay and the chance of other shifts, which will be give to those seen as more reliable.

Maybe wobble your own head?
No head wobbling needed thank you.

I'm well aware some people are in the situation where the loss of a day pay is a big issue.

The thing here is that each time a child is sent in vomiting, that parent is saying "actually it's totally fine for up to 20 other families to have to take time off work, lose pay, have multiple unwell children in their family as the bug goes through their household".

Or do those families not matter?

But sure, let's not bother trying to reduce the spread of nasty illnesses. Let's send vomiting children into school so that another family can lose a fortnight's pay whilst their 2-3 children come down unwell one after the other. At least one parent didn't have to take a day off work.

Maybe those other people are not their problem, their own finances are more of an issue unfortunately.

I'm not saying I agree with spreading bugs, drives me mad, but let's not pretend people can necessarily afford to be altruistic when having to think about their own financial situation

Soreteatowel · 02/03/2024 14:05

I don't believe anyone here wouldn't risk sending in a child who's been a bit off, but seems OK this morning, if the alternative was not paying the rent, not working again for weeks or having hours drastically cut.

Very easy to do the right thing when it carries no real disadvantage to you or your family.

sleepyscientist · 02/03/2024 15:01

@HoHoGo less illness = more autoimmunity tho.

LolaSmiles · 02/03/2024 15:04

I don't believe anyone here wouldn't risk sending in a child who's been a bit off, but seems OK this morning, if the alternative was not paying the rent, not working again for weeks or having hours drastically cut
You're making a lot of assumptions about people's circumstances here.

There's alsoba big difference between a child feels a bit off and a child who has been vomiting though.

But who cares let's make sure that many more families also have poorly children.

I'm freelance. If someone sends their vomiting children in and mine get unwell, I don't get paid or I have to hope my clients can rearrange. I'd rather not have to lose work because other people send their children in to spread their vomiting bugs.

CrispsandCheeseSandwich · 02/03/2024 15:14

Soreteatowel · 02/03/2024 14:05

I don't believe anyone here wouldn't risk sending in a child who's been a bit off, but seems OK this morning, if the alternative was not paying the rent, not working again for weeks or having hours drastically cut.

Very easy to do the right thing when it carries no real disadvantage to you or your family.

Define "a bit off".

The child in the OP had thrown up in the night. I wouldn't send a child in who had actually vomited. Other things are more of a judgement call based on what they're normally like, and what the symptoms are.

DH and I both work full time with 2 children under 5. Kids getting ill is undeniably a massive pain. But sometimes keeping them off school/nursery is just something you have to do - don't send them in with chicken pox, impetigo, 48 hours after D&V, and a number of other things that require absence.

Original poster
Samsond · 02/03/2024 15:57

Of course it's hard to lose a couple of day's pay. But now potentially lots of other families are going to be in that boat as well. And since the child got sent home anyway the original family will still (presumably) be in that boat anyway.
And frankly even if you're selfish enough to not give a shit about all the other kids in the class, what about your own child? That poor little girl probably felt awful all morning up until the point she threw up and then had the embarrassment of being sick in front of her entire class. That sort of shit traumatizes some kids. I'm 100% sure my emetophobia goes back to when that happened to me age 11. And to be fair to my parents I hadn't been ill the day before like this poor kid.
Absolute arseholes.

OP posts:
Soreteatowel · 02/03/2024 16:04

Samsond · 02/03/2024 15:57

Of course it's hard to lose a couple of day's pay. But now potentially lots of other families are going to be in that boat as well. And since the child got sent home anyway the original family will still (presumably) be in that boat anyway.
And frankly even if you're selfish enough to not give a shit about all the other kids in the class, what about your own child? That poor little girl probably felt awful all morning up until the point she threw up and then had the embarrassment of being sick in front of her entire class. That sort of shit traumatizes some kids. I'm 100% sure my emetophobia goes back to when that happened to me age 11. And to be fair to my parents I hadn't been ill the day before like this poor kid.
Absolute arseholes.

You're not listening, it's not just a couple of days pay for lots of people, it's the prospect of any further work.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying I don't think you'd do anything different if you thought your rent wouldn't be paid and you couldn't do the weekly shop.

LolaSmiles · 02/03/2024 16:18

People are listening.
They're just pointing out that there's a lot of families who need to work and aren't in a position to have their children with a revolving door of illnesses because other parents think it's fine to make everyone else's children unwell.

If everyone actually followed the 48 hours, there'd be less illness going round, fewer children would be unwell and everyone would be taking less time off work.

The problem when some people don't do 48 hours is that more children come in unwell, more children get unwell, more parents end up having to take more days off work (which in turn can cause issues in their workplaces that wouldn't be an issue if absence for illness was occasional).

CarrotOfPeace · 02/03/2024 16:20

Whilst I understand the rule I do also understand why parents can't take multiple days off work. They can try but employers will soon get shitty.

They need to normalise "dependents leave" at the moment it's meant for emergancies/last minute absence but really it would help if parents knew they could have 2 days if their kid was ill