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
Parenting

For free parenting resources please check out the Early Years Alliance's Family Corner.

Original poster

Is it irresponsible to take a child with chicken pox out?

102 replies

thatsnotmymonster · 05/12/2008 09:17

DS (3) has just come out in a few spots. 2 others from nursery are also off with chicken pox. He is not going and is missing his Christmas Fayre today.

I have 2 other younger children at home and a million things to do (I have no food in and need to go to the supermarket for a start).

Would you go?

OP posts:
DoesntChristmasDragOn · 05/12/2008 10:23

You do say the most idiotic things, SGB.

IllegallyBrunette · 05/12/2008 10:23

It is only irresponsible if there is an alternative.

jimjamshaslefttheyurt · 05/12/2008 10:24

Anyway the OP seems to have the option of leaving the kids in the car so that would seem to be the best option for everyone. It's not as if she has no choice.

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about these subjects:

Families General health General parenting
DoesntChristmasDragOn · 05/12/2008 10:24

No, it's irresponsible whether there is an alternative or not. The lack of an alternative simply makes you decide whether to be irresponsible or not.

IllegallyBrunette · 05/12/2008 10:25

I have thought ds had chicken pox several times now, but he hadn't. He is just a child who comes out in spots with everything for some reason.

If I kept him in everytime he had a few spost then he'd never go out.

stealthsquiggle · 05/12/2008 10:26

jimjams I had no idea with either of mine - DS was a bit grumpy immediately before, DD was absolutely fine - before and after emergence of spots, and was only grouchy when they started itching.

IllegallyBrunette · 05/12/2008 10:26

Thats rubbish.

If there is no alternative but to go out and get food, because you have no one else who can go and get it then that isn't irresponsible, it's just how it is.

DoesntChristmasDragOn · 05/12/2008 10:28

[shrug]

I had to take DS2 out when he had CP. There was no alternative. I don't fluff it up into being just how it was, there is no doubt it was irresponsible but unavoidable.

jimjamshaslefttheyurt · 05/12/2008 10:29

Mine were cross and slightly sniffly. But I knew they'd been exposed - which helps (ditto ds1 with rubella).

Luckily the most serious of childhood illnesses (measles) does send out very clear messages during the infectious stage.

But the OP does have a choice IB. She's said she can drive somewhere and leave her kids in the car.

HappyChristmasYourArse · 05/12/2008 10:29

Would be irresponsible to go out anywhere where there are people. Your DS would still be highly contagious. It's a bummer but that's the way it is.

my youngest DD got it aged around 12 months and she was incredibly ill with it for a week, and has some scars for life as a result.

jimjamshaslefttheyurt · 05/12/2008 10:33

When ds1 had eczema herpeticum it was initially misdiagnosed as chickenpox. His GP wanted a consultant to see him as an emergency but the dermatologist refused to see him because he had cancer patients there as well and he didn't want him in the waiting room. So I guess it can be pretty bad news for people with compromised immunity. So important to not knowingly expose people I would guess.

In the end we found another dermatologist who wasn't treating cancer patients and the time that he saw her, was correctly diagnosed and treated.

Niecie · 05/12/2008 10:33

According to her last post she is going to a garage and leaving the children in the car.

So everybody should be happy......except those who don't believe you should leave your children in the car alone whilst you go in a petrol station, of course.

Helsbels4 · 05/12/2008 10:35

Surely it's only unavoidable if you have no dp/dh, no close family and no friends. I wouldn't have thought that many people with young children would fall into that category tbh.

stealthsquiggle · 05/12/2008 10:35

I knew mine had been exposed too - but then DS had been exposed (as in it had been going around nursery) 3 times before he eventually caught it.

DD was out and about a bit because I had no choice but I kept her away from people as much as possible (i.e. out of sneezing distance) and warned people at DS's school. We went ahead with DS's party 4 days after her spots emerged but warned everyone who was coming - and no-one dropped out.

goldFAQinsenceandmyrrh · 05/12/2008 10:37

haven't read the entire thread - but if you have no food and need to go out them you don't really have a choice.

It's all very well saying just go to s a small shop or petrol station, but that depends on how little you have in, and whether you can afford petrol station/small shop prices (and of course if you do actually drive - which in this case I see that the OP does).

cali · 05/12/2008 10:38

I wouldn't go out with a child who has active chicken pox, it can be transmitted by both airborne particles and close contact, especially until all the spots have crusted over. Children remain highly contagious when they are still at the fluid filled spot stage. It can take up to four days for all the spots to appear and they will all be at different stages.

I recently started a post about my daughter not being allowed to attend a party when she had fully recovered from chickenpox but had been left with a lot of scabs on her face. I was told by a few people that I was BU for wanting to take a well child to a party, despite the fact I had explained that she was well and posed no risk to anyone.

It is a real pain being confined to the house, dd2 now has chickenpox but as they have all scabbed over, my incarceration is now at an end . Have never felt so pleased about the prospect of going to a supermarket before

goldFAQinsenceandmyrrh · 05/12/2008 10:39

"I wouldn't have thought that many people with young children would fall into that category tbh. "

Well yesterday I had to go to town with DS3 with him still full of a cold and nasty chest infection - I have no family close, none of my friends were available to go for me and I needed stuff - oh and I have no DH/DP either.

electra · 05/12/2008 10:39

I personally wouldn't go out, no because he is probably very infectious atm.

solidgoldbrass · 05/12/2008 12:48

I can't believe how dumb and paranoid some people are about risk. There is a low risk of encountering a 'vulnerable' individual on a quick journey to the shops: most people are not in danger from a child with chickenpox. Risk means a degree of possibility that something will happen, not a guarantee it will. ANd I wouldn't leave my child hungry or waiting for medicine on the off-chance of crossing paths with a stranger who might pick up the infection.

jimjamshaslefttheyurt · 05/12/2008 12:51

Except in this case there is no need to cross the pass of any stranger because the OP has access to a car, a shop she can park outside and a husband due home at 7pm. So no-one needs to starve, no-one needs to go without medicine (presumably calpol), and no-one needs to be exposed to chickenpox.

Seems thoughtful - rather than dumb and paranoid.

misdee · 05/12/2008 12:56

By solidgoldbrass on Fri 05-Dec-08 10:21:09
Edam: well it;s up to the vulnerable people to stay indoors then. ARe you seriously suggesting that a sick child should have to wait several hours for medicine because of a hypothetical risk of crossing paths with some high-risk individual?

damjmit, i didmt know dh had a heart transplant to stay cooped up for the rest of his life.

cali · 05/12/2008 12:56

SGB, yes the theoretical risk might be low, but have you ever seen the effects that Congenital Varicella can have on an unborn baby?

We can't prevent coming into contact with infections that we have no knowledge of, but we can surely minimise the risk to others?

goldFAQinsenceandmyrrh · 05/12/2008 13:02

no nobody is going to starve, but don't you think that 7pm is a rather a long time to wait for little children to be fed, and possibly given Calpol if it's needed??

As horrible as it is there are times when you HAVE to go out, have no-one to go out for you and have a contagious child. It's shit, but it's life.

justneedsomesleeppleasesanta · 05/12/2008 13:05

90% of pregnant women are not at risk and the others are screened in pregnancy and given a vaccination if it is deemed necessary.

So for those 10%, the risk of congenital varicella is very real and stressing - so please don't take your child out. You know he is infectious, and surely someone else can get bread or milk for you?

Also, it is not true that you get screened in pregnancy - only if you are in contact eith someone with chicken pox, will your blood get checked. My daughter had chicken pox when I was pregnant with my son and I had to get the SEVERAL PAINFUL injections! (in the bum!) So, again, please don't!

I also found it very stressful, espcecially when I read up on the effects of congenital varicella!

And all those with low or suppressed imunity are not going to thank you either!

misdee · 05/12/2008 13:06

run to chemist, pop head round door, get chemist attention, say you need calpol and cal lotion and get them to bring it to your door. (i can do this as know chemist well).

food, is there a garage near by to go to? or do you have enough food to feed the kids tonight? even when you need to go shopping, the cupboards are never completly bare.