Come on admit it - how many of you break the 48 hour rule for sickness / diarrhoea?

[Santaclaustrophobia]

Wondering about this rule that schools / nursery have.

If your child vomits once or has a few 'dodgy' poos (possibly due to something unrelated to illness) and is otherwise ok and showing no other signs of illness - would you just use your judgement and send your child in anyway?

Or do you always keep your child off for 2 days after a vomiting / diarrhoea episode?

My school is 24 hours and I always stick to it from the last incident.

My DD2 has a tendency to gag when she has a congested cold, which has led to the odd vomit. I wouldn't keep her off for 48 hours for that if the cold wasn't making her ill. And once she came home from her class Christmas party, sat on my knee, said 'I think I've had too much to eat' and bleeeuuurgh. I sent her in the next day, completely well. Must remind her next week.

I'd keep both children off if it was actually a stomach bug though.

Ours is 24hrs to (although i thought it was 48) and i always stick to it too.

DD1's school is 24 hours, DD2's nursery is 48. I have followed the policy with DD2 as I'd have been mortified if the bug she had cut a swathe through the small nursery! (I knew where it came from and it wasn't nursery.) I've never had to use the rule for DD1 because she's never ill!

Yes, allways and it anoys me when parents don't stick to the 48hr rule (yes it should be 48 hrs, not 24). My dd2 has just picked up a bug from school, she was very poorly last night and has slept all day today, we often end up in hospital because she refusses to drink (due to her Autism).

I am always cautious and follow it to the letter (48hrs) if I have any doubt about the cause. However in obviously non contagious situations I would do 24hrs.

School hates me for this.

I don't think a lot of parents grasp the fact that even if a child is well over the actual vomming, the virus that caused it will be being passed out of their system for 48 hours afterwards, and children are NOT always adept at washing hands after going to the loo.
Therefore it's likely it'll be passed on through using the loos at school.

If it;s a bug then I'll stick to the 48 hours but DS tends to be "loose" anyway so if it is just the runs, no sickness then I might send him back a bit sooner.

yes I always stick to it. I think it's really annoying when people don't.

No I keep mine home for the 48 hours because I would feel guilty letting them pass on an illness. Also my 3 tend to lose weight quickly with sickness/ diarrhoea and are tired and need the recovery time!

Mine are all now teens, but I must admit when I was a single parent and lacked support there were times when I did send them as long as they were well in themselves.

I would definitely use judgement over a 48 hr rule.

DS1 had diarrhoea for about 18 months as a toddler and often goes through patches. I think it's possible to differentiate that from a D&V bug.

He also has been known to vomit from a congested cold or from being so upset that he cries himself in to vomiting (last time was because he was not allowed to watch Thomas DVD pre-nursery - not because of a terrible emotional trauma).

You know your child.

Dd doesn't attend nursery but if she did and was unwell I wouldn't send her if she has sickness and diarrhoea but I would when it stops if I have no choice and it's not been 48 hrs.

I would for d&v but not for just vomiting if they were well and keeping food down. 48 hours off for a one off chucking up which couold have a myriad of causes is a huge over-reaction imo. One a lot of parents seem to love making though

Of course I always stick to it. Because I am considerate of other people. Only wankers don't.

24 hours. Always even though the only time it has happened was because ds had eaten an entire punnet of blueberries!

Unbelievably mine have got to 14 and 11 and never and sickness/ diarrhoea. They have been a bit under the weather but never ill so they couldn't attend school.

Upahill - They must employ a cleaner at your DCs' school!

upahill I believe you - mine are 12, 9 and 3 and very rarely are ill. Dd1 has had d&v twice in 12 years and dd2 once afair.

I would always stick to it. I would find it totally irresponsible not to, I don't want my dd to pass her illness on to others if I can prevent it. Mind you, I was always flabbergasted when we went to baby groups and that there were mums on occasions with clearly ill (feverish) babies.

bibbitybobbitysantahat thanks for that. So my son should have had 18 months off nursery? wanker yourself.

With respect I'm CERTAIN Bibbers didn't include kids with a physiological bowel disorder in her generalisation

Uphill I'm sure my dd has never had a stomach bug either.

But she has had single vomiting incidents, where she's sick once and then is fine and can keep food down. I always assumed its because she ate something that didn't agree with her. Or ate too much.
She has also suffered from what might be toddler diarrheoa, which may go on for a couple of weeks with no other symptoms. I've always just sent her into nursery anyway because she's not ill and its not contagious. Also because I work and don't have any alternative childcare.
Obviously if she's ill I don't send her in - and nursery always send children home at the first sign of illness or temperature.