Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4

Original poster

To be annoyed at parents who don't follow the "keep your children home for 48hrs rule if they have been vomiting"

95 replies

Ripeberry · 28/03/2008 14:30

This morning a little girl in my DD1s class came in early (for a change). She is reception and was basically left to get into school on her own from the car park.
But she told the teacher that she was sick all day yesterday and last night.
The reception teacher was NOT happy as our school has a rule that kids MUST stay at home for at least 48hrs after symptoms stop. The parents are aware of this but they chose to drop and run.
Anyway, the school may ring them anyway but it's annoying as there is a sickness bug going around and this little girl is going to a swimming party tomorrow with my DDs.
If they all start coming down with it, then the Easter break is going to be pants!
AB

OP posts:

wiggleit · 28/03/2008 22:06

God, I'm amazed at some of the comments on here! Nelly, i share your thoughts as you know. Why are some parents so inconsiderate, coz they can't be bothered to take the day off work to look after their child?? Sad or what? As for the little boy being sick over the toys...that's just disgusting!

Blueshoes - yes i agree about building the immune system up..but don't think it should be inflicted on people as in sending sick kids to school. Kids will build up immunity over time anyway. We don't need that sort of exposure.

3monkeys · 28/03/2008 22:10

wiggleit - it's not about taking the day off work, it's about whether the chid is ill or not!

wiggleit · 28/03/2008 22:12

3monkeys - yes i know but just because your child hasn't been sick for a few hours doesn't mean to say they are well or that aren't contagious anymore!

wiggleit · 28/03/2008 22:22

Let's think of this logically..this bug has been going round now since last Oct..by rights it should have been long gone, but it's people like some inconsiderate selfish parents on here that keep it around by sending their sick kids to school or going to work poorly themselves.If people adhered to the advice and kept away from everyone for 48hrs then this bug would have probably died off a long time ago. The people who set these guidelines know what they're on with, but people just choose to ignore the advice.

misspollysdolly · 28/03/2008 22:24

YA - most certainly - NBU!

I hate the idea that my kids are at risk because of other parents sending their kids to school when probably still carrying bugs around, leaving them on toilets, taps, tables, etc and coughing/sicking bugs everywhere. The 48-hour rule is actually quite conservative. At the children's hospital where I work, a child is deemed clear of noro and roto virus after 72 hours of being symptom free as the viruses are known to still be live and in the gut until this time. So even 48 hours isn't completely 100% certain for containing bugs. Totally freaked by vom-ing - quite phobic really so find playground talk of tummy bugs sends me into a complete tizz . Two things that would make a massive difference to their spread is kids being off for at least 48 hour post last symptoms PLUS schools adopting brilliant hand-washing ethos. Otherwise without these two elements there is no hope...we are all doomed...!!

blueshoes · 28/03/2008 22:32

Has the D&V bug been around since Oct? Surely D&V bouts come and go, as do other bugs. I know my ds' nursery had a fresh bout recently in their baby room. But it wasn't like it was a continuous thing from Oct, not that I even knew there was one in Oct. Certainly none at dd's school since she started last September.

I don't think D&V will ever really go away, realistically, unless the human race dies out and stops hosting it. Bugs mutate and so do humans' responses to them.

But I digress.

annoyingdevil · 29/03/2008 00:09

It's been around since September actually. (when dd and ds had it) This variant actually started earlier for some reason. The virus mutated this year which is why so many people have succombed.

Don't forget that many infants are hospitalised with it (DD almost was during her first bout). So whilst it may be trivial for your child, it could be dangerous for a young baby.

madamez · 29/03/2008 00:36

Well, some people who were brought up robustly (ie you don't get to stay off school unless you're in a coma) may genuinely believe that it's better to work through a mild bug. There's also the factor of people who may lose their jobs or at least their day's pay if they have to take time off (employment laws my arse, unskilled or contract workers know their employers don't give a toss and don't have the money to pursue tribunals). IN cases like that, parents put keeping a roof over their own DCs heads before the risk of givin other people's kids collywobbles.
People are always so quick to think the worst of other people, especially other parents (oh they are just thick/lazy/selfish).

chipmonkey · 29/03/2008 01:09

Christie, do you mind me asking why, if the father of that child was contactable, why he wasn't asked to come in and collect the child, rather than relying on the mother? Just curious as it's a bugbear of mine. The type of work my dh does means it's more practical for him to collect kids in an emergency but the school/nursery always seem to automatically assume that it's my job!

blueshoes · 29/03/2008 09:25

Trying to prevent a virus mutating is like trying to hold back the tide. It is a genetic imperative of survival.

The most important thing is not to overuse antibiotics, which is how the virulent stains develop. I certainly avoid it when either me or my dcs fall ill, even though it might speed the recovery period. Shall I say people who DO use antibiotics or antibacterials liberally are selfish and inconsiderate?

I don't think keeping an otherwise well child off for an arbitrary period of time after symptoms stop out of an abundance of caution is the solution.

Christie · 29/03/2008 09:59

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

pointydog · 29/03/2008 10:00

yes, yes madamez. I agree completely. Reading this thread makes it sound like there are deathly children on every corner suffering terribly from run of the mill viruses caught from inconsiderate 'other people'.

nellyraggbagg · 29/03/2008 10:21

That toys thing really is revolting. It reminds me that we witnessed something truly vile recently. We were in Eureka (children's museum), and a baby threw up over her Dad. Her Dad mopped her up, then washed his hands in ... the water which the children play with in the water zone. How gross is that?!?! I reported it to the staff, who were duly horrified...

I don't think anyone will ever be able to persuade me that children who've been sick should be at school the following day, whatever the reason. Surely you'd want to keep an eye on them for a day, just for your own peace of mind, even if you're not bothered about putting others' children at risk?

notalone · 29/03/2008 10:22

Well I also think it is selfish of parents to send a child into school who has been sick. My DS caught a bug a few years ago and was sick twice in the space of 20 minutes then was fine, on the other hand DP and I got it, were sick all night anf felt horrendouse. If we had lived with an elderly person or young baby it could have been extremely dangerous.

Madamez - sorry but don't agree at all. I have been in that situation with a totally unsympathetic boss who would not pay me and we were well and truly on our arses at the time, but I still did not send Ds into school. If I had done he would have been feeling awful all day and he would have passed it on to others whos parents would then also have had to take the day off work.

I and a few other on here suffer from emetophobia which is the 7th most common phobia in the country and is more than just the collywobbles. It brings on panic attacks and severe stress which quite frankly I can do without as its horrendous.

Chipmonkey - very good point. Why was the Dad not asked to come in? Unless he was working away or abroad or something there is no excuse for him not to come instead. And as for the mother, words fail me. What on earth can be more important than your child being scared, ill and on the way to hospital?

notalone · 29/03/2008 10:24

Oh and the toys thing is disgusting. Hey Nelly . That dad at eureka - what planet was he on?

Christie · 29/03/2008 10:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

UniversallyChallenged · 29/03/2008 10:35

So agree with you Christie.
My ds isnt as ill as the children you care for but has epilepsy so if he gets a bug from pre school we have the worry about his temp going up and meds then not controlling his seizures. It happens of course through no fault of anyones - but when a parent knows their LO is/could be infectious it is so cruel to send them in.
The end results for some of us could be far more than just a day off work...

madje2 · 29/03/2008 10:51

One problem I have had in the past is at prize giving at the end of year dds school give out prizes for 100% attendance. A prize not just a certificate usually a book. I've had many arguments with her when she was about 7 or 8 about going to school unwell because she wanted to "win" a prize. Makes the school hypocritical imo. They can't insist you keep them off when ill then penalise them when you do. I pointed this out to head one year when dd missed out on prize because she had one day off. She was mortified I wouldn't let her go. She had dv on a Friday but wanted to go so she would still get her prize. I said that the type of parent who would let child stay off school for anything other than genuine need is not going to be bothered about their kid winnng a prize so you are just punishing a child for being ill or rewarding one whose parents would send them in with a missing limb!!!!! and being sick at same time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Countingthegreyhairs · 29/03/2008 11:16

YANBU - this makes my blood boil (largely on behalf of the poor children!!)

I help out with art-work at dd's school from time to time and there are - sadly - usually one or two pupils (aged under 11) present who are not fit enough to be there. The other week, a little girl was curled up on a cushion looking very unwell - she was literally grey and had been sick - and the school said they couldn't get hold of her parents. Of course, bugs like this can come on suddenly, but guess what, when I went in to the school the next day the little girl was there again looking tired and ill. The school were trying to contact her parents again as she had been dumped at the gate by a nanny who didn't speak any of the native languages here (I live abroad).

I always keep my dd off for 48 hrs or more if she's ill (and she's had everything this term) for her sake and out of consideration for others. In fact I've cut down on my working hours & dh and I have made financial sacrifices so that I can be available for this. All children get ill. It's the parents job to look after them when that happens.

We know as adults how miserable it is to have to struggle in to work when we are ill (even just with a bad cold). A child is far less well-equipped to deal with that. Sick children need to be at home with their parents or another close carer. Rant over!!

Countingthegreyhairs · 29/03/2008 11:22

Mmm, issue of prize for 100% attendance is a tricky one ....

Can it not be organised so that genuine sick days are taken in to account or is that too difficult to police?

Or perhaps better to dump attendance prizes and focus on prizes for effort.

madamez · 29/03/2008 11:26

Again, you don't know the circumstances of the parents who send an unwell child into school. They may be living in terror of losing their jobs if they have any more time off, they may be spending every waking hour at the bedside of a dying relative - and don't forget that in the case of single parents it isn't a matter of one parent or the other could look after the DC if the NRP is totally uncontactable or lives in a different country.

And pious posturing about the financial sacrifices you have made is all very well: people on the minimum wage can't make any more financial sacrifices or they'd starve.

Countingthegreyhairs · 29/03/2008 11:39

I didn't intend my post to come across as pious posturing. I know I'm luckier than single parents earning a minimum wage who do not have a choice.

However it is a FACT that dh and I have made choices (no holidays, driving bashed car, living in unrenovated house) so that I can be available when my child is ill.

And whatever anyone's circumstances, no one can argue that it is good for a sick child to be at school.

Countingthegreyhairs · 29/03/2008 11:41

And by the way, both dh and I are looking after sick parents.

shoshe · 29/03/2008 11:56

Did you know they should not swim for TWO weeks after as well.

HPA Guidence for Sickness in Schools

Aimsmum · 29/03/2008 12:22

Message withdrawn

Flip

1 2 3 4