# would you be upset? uninvited from BD party after exposure to chicken pox



## rejoiceinlife (Aug 13, 2009)

My kids were uninvited from a birthday party this weekend because I exposed them to chicken pox last weekend. Never mind that they couldn't possibly be contagious until the middle of next week, and mom has been told that and could easily verify online or with a quick call to her pediatrician. And the family doesn't even vaccinate, it just isn't a convenient time for their kids to get it. I felt like I had been slapped when I got the text uninviting us. DH doesn't understand why I'm so upset. Would you be upset, or am I over-reacting?


----------



## ChristyMarie (May 31, 2006)

I think I'd be totally confused but not necessarily upset - depending on any history there. If she doesn't vaccinate you'd think she would want the exposure and have read up on how long your kiddos would be contagious. Odd.


----------



## baglady (Jul 13, 2009)

Maybe it's more about the other kids at the party. She may be afraid that other parents will find out that she knew about the exposure and be upset that she didn't warn them. Or, maybe she's afraid others will find out before the party and not bring their kids.

That was my first thought.


----------



## VillageMom6 (Dec 2, 2008)

I respectfully think you're over-reacting.

There seem to be two approaches to chicken pox amongst non-vaccinators. One group seeks actively to expose their children so that they will catch it and develop immunity. The other group hopes that their children will be exposed at some point, but prefers not to seek it out.

Maybe you are in the first camp and your friend is in the second. I understand your friend's un-inviting to the party because I am in the second camp.

I wanted my children to become exposed to chicken pox but I could never have walked into it knowingly. If one of my children got critically ill (unlikely but not impossible) I would feel like it was my fault. The incubation period could take a while so if my children got it at separate times, we were looking at months of dealing with the pox.

You chose to expose your children and that's your perogative but the consequence is that not every mom is going to want her children exposed to yours. Incubation periods are not set in stone... I'd be afraid of a fluke earlier risk.

I know it must be disappointing to be uninvited and I am sorry for that. But I understand where the other mom is coming from. You made your choice and she gets to make hers. They just happen to be different.


----------



## AllisonR (May 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *baglady* 
Maybe it's more about the other kids at the party. She may be afraid that other parents will find out that she knew about the exposure and be upset that she didn't warn them. Or, maybe she's afraid others will find out before the party and not bring their kids.

That was my first thought.

This, Regardless of whether she wants her own children exposed, or not, she needs to be respectful to everyone else she invited to the party.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *VillageMom6* 
You chose to expose your children and that's your perogative but the consequence is that not every mom is going to want her children exposed to yours. Incubation periods are not set in stone... I'd be afraid of a fluke earlier risk.

I know it must be disappointing to be uninvited and I am sorry for that. But I understand where the other mom is coming from. You made your choice and she gets to make hers. They just happen to be different.

ITA.

I think you should have offered to uninvite your kids, and not put your friend in the awkward spot of having to uninvite you herself. An easy "Hey XYZ, my kids are exposed to chicken pox, would you like me to keep them home? Ok, no problem. I hope you have a nice party."

I actually offered to have a chicken pox party. But I never would have taken my kids to anther party while they were contageous, without first OKing it with the other parents.


----------



## ~Charlie's~Angel~ (Mar 17, 2008)

I would not be offended at all.

I would have uninvited my kids MYSELF. Or if the party was that important, held off on the exposure to CP. However, exposure is not particularly that impoirtant to me.


----------



## happysmileylady (Feb 6, 2009)

I think you are over reacting and not thinking. This is a birthday party, you and she are not the only people to consider, there's everyone else at the party. And I would be upset with someone who invited me to a birthday party, and then also knowingly had someone there who had been recently exposed to chicken pox, regardless of when that parent thinks their child might be contagious. I don't vax for CP, but I don't believe in trying to get my child sick either.


----------



## Alyantavid (Sep 10, 2004)

I wouldn't be upset at all. Dealing with chicken pox isn't the funnest thing in the world and I'm assuming since they don't vax, they do intend for their kids to get it but maybe they want to wait until a better time. There's nothing wrong with that.

And what about all the rest of the people at the party? Adults getting chicken pox is a big deal and there's no way to know who's had it and who hasn't.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

I think if you choose to expose your kids to CP then yeah - you are pretty much making the commitment to the disease for that period of time and not going to gatherings where people are uncomfortable with it. There might be grandparents present who are at risk for shingles or all kinds of things.

Obviously we all get exposed to things at various times, but that is different than knowing we've deliberately worked on it.

I'm sorry for the disappointment though; it is never fun to be uninvited.


----------



## crunchy_mommy (Mar 29, 2009)

I don't think I'd be upset, just disappointed, however I also don't think I'd share the info that I'd exposed my kids to the chicken pox unless they were actively contagious (at which point I'd minimize their exposure to other kids anyway, as I would with any illness). I guess I just wouldn't have told her they'd been exposed & would just mention we couldn't come to the party because they were coming down with something. I tend to lean toward keeping medical issues quiet (i.e. I don't share with people IRL that we don't vax, even if I know the other person doesn't vax either, unless it specifically comes up & I feel comfortable sharing).


----------



## EviesMom (Nov 30, 2004)

Well, that's actually at the edge of my comfort zone--it appeared with DD I think 11 days after exposure and as you can be contagious 2 days before, that would be 9 days... It's not the "standard two weeks before spots" but it's within the realm of remote possibility of exposure at 8-9 days.

4 days after you'd been exposed, I would be fine with a party, as that's very far outside of contagious zone even in the most remote fluke cases, but by 8-10 days it would be a "only if it would be a mildly annoying time to get it" and after 10 days only if we actually wanted to catch it. I wouldn't do 8 days post exposure if we had, for example, an out of state or even worse, out of country flight coming up.


----------



## swd12422 (Nov 9, 2007)

I have to agree with PPs about the fact that this isn't just about your family and hers. There will (presumably) be other kids at the party, all of whom have family members they live with. We never know if there's going to be a kid there who has a compromised immune system or some sensitivity or some reason why they should not knowingly come into contact with someone who is carrying a virus. And if you want to argue and say that such kids wouldn't be at a birthday party, around other kids, fine. But they might live with someone who shouldn't be exposed. So the kid will be a carrier and bring it into their home unnecessarily.

Your kids *could* be contagious. We have no way to know that. It's better to be safe than find out someone got really sick b/c of their exposure.


----------



## camracrazy (May 27, 2006)

I think I might be a little offended to receive the news in a text message instead of a phone call, but otherwise I wouldn't be upset about it. You never know, they could have made plans already that they don't want messed up by their kids being sick.


----------



## limabean (Aug 31, 2005)

I would have uninvited my kids myself. A consequence of choosing to expose your kids is missing out on social stuff like this until the illness is gone.


----------



## TCMoulton (Oct 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *limabean* 
I would have uninvited my kids myself. A consequence of choosing to expose your kids are missing out on social stuff like this until the illness is gone.

I agree with this 100%. The hostess has to take into account all of her guests and there is no way to know if any children or adults with weakened immune systems will be in attendance.


----------



## Joyster (Oct 26, 2007)

As a pregnant mother with a son going to a birthday party this weekend, I would certainly appreciate it is the hostess were looking out for everyone else who has not chosen to expose their kids to CP. You don't know what is going on in other people's lives and if someone chooses to err on the side of caution, I don't think it's right to be offended about that.


----------



## iamama (Jul 14, 2003)

I would be miffed that yet again I witness ignorance and fear beats science and fact.


----------



## rejoiceinlife (Aug 13, 2009)

It is not other kids she is concerned about, it is her own. She was initially interested in exposing hers but decided it was a bad time. And this party is 6 days after my kids were exposed. The absolute widest range I could find for when they could possibly "catch" CP is 9-21 days after exposure...so there is no possibly way ANYONE could get CP at this party, and she knows that.

I think my biggest issue is more the way the text was worded than anything. I think I would have been ok with something like, "I know you know I'm concerned about this not being a good time for my kids to be exposed to CP, so I think it might be best if you didn't bring your kids to the BD party." I would have felt like that was at least tactful, and then I could have again reminded her that they will not be contagious this weekend. I guess at that point if she still didn't want to be rational about it, well, not my problem. What I got for a text was "Since your kids have been exposed to CP please don't come to the party." IMO that was rather rude, especially to come out-of-the-blue like that. If the party had been the following weekend, right in prime "contagious" time frame, then perhaps I would have uninvited myself.


----------



## limabean (Aug 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rejoiceinlife* 
I think my biggest issue is more the way the text was worded than anything. I think I would have been ok with something like, "I know you know I'm concerned about this not being a good time for my kids to be exposed to CP, so I think it might be best if you didn't bring your kids to the BD party." I would have felt like that was at least tactful, and then I could have again reminded her that they will not be contagious this weekend. I guess at that point if she still didn't want to be rational about it, well, not my problem. What I got for a text was "Since your kids have been exposed to CP please don't come to the party." IMO that was rather rude, especially to come out-of-the-blue like that. If the party had been the following weekend, right in prime "contagious" time frame, then perhaps I would have uninvited myself.

People often come across much shorter via text than they would IRL -- for some reason it bugs me when my MIL just writes "k" in reply to one of my texts, since I take the time to write out full sentences. But I know she doesn't mean anything by it so I talk myself out of taking offense. Your friend should have called you rather than texting so that she could speak more properly and let you down more softly -- uninviting someone from a party is a sort of big deal no matter the circumstances, and she could have been much gentler about how she went about it. I still think she was well within her rights to do it, but she should have been more considerate of your feelings.


----------



## intentionalmama (Aug 23, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rejoiceinlife* 
my problem. What I got for a text was "Since your kids have been exposed to CP please don't come to the party." IMO that was rather rude, especially to come out-of-the-blue like that. If the party had been the following weekend, right in prime "contagious" time frame, then perhaps I would have uninvited myself.

It would have been nice if she had called you as emails can appear harsh with out hearing the tone, etc. However, I think her email was fine - it was polite and too the point.

It sounds like your upset because your kids would not have been contagious. In my experience I have found that often people get nervous when there has been exposure to chicken pox; and don't necessarily trust the number of days a person has been exposed.

When my child was young we had a baby/toddler group that would meet. I had started the group. One of the women sent an email to the group saying that her child had been exposed and was going to come to an event we had planned. Back then, I was not strong enough to say not to come. The other's didn't either. (boy,sometimes it is hard to speak up). Some of the women were upset that she had chosen to come to the group and were also upset that I had not told her not to come. They ended up leaving; and reading your post - I still feel sad about the way that happened.

So, whether your friend just didn't want to get it at this time, or whether it was partly to allow others to feel comfortable - I understand why she requests that you not come.


----------



## MaerynPearl (Jun 21, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *baglady* 
Maybe it's more about the other kids at the party. She may be afraid that other parents will find out that she knew about the exposure and be upset that she didn't warn them. Or, maybe she's afraid others will find out before the party and not bring their kids.

That was my first thought.

and/or their parents who may not have had it as adults tend to get it much worse.


----------



## rightkindofme (Apr 14, 2008)

Her tone could use work, but I wouldn't be upset. When I get around to exposing my children to chicken pox I'm not going to feel like my feelings about it get to trump anyone else's feelings about it.


----------



## SleeplessMommy (Jul 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AllisonR* 
This, Regardless of whether she wants her own children exposed, or not, she needs to be respectful to everyone else she invited to the party.


yes. maybe someone has a suppressed immune system. it would be embarrassing, anyway, if a bd party turned into a "surprise" pox party.


----------



## NiteNicole (May 19, 2003)

Quote:

MO that was rather rude, especially to come out-of-the-blue like that.
Maybe she expected that you would back out of the party since you exposed your kids to an illness and was put off that she had to tell you not to come. I think most people wouldn't send sick kids to a party. The whole Pox Party thing may be common here at MDC but in the world at large, most people try to keep sick kids home.

As for me, I would be furious if someone deliberately exposed their kids to something and then brought them to a slumber party with my kid and lots of others. My own child has a neurological issue that gets much worse when she's run down and sick, to the point of falling and needing help walking. She's already had mono this summer, she doesn't need this on top of it. And then how awkward would it be explaining to other kids' parents that yes, I knew your kids had been exposed to chicken pox but decided for all of them that I was comfortable with the "window." Yikes, no.

When you choose to expose your kids to chicken pox, you don't get to make that call for other parents. I know they shouldn't be contagious at the time of the party but my experience with this kind of thing is that those time frames are loose at best.


----------



## _ktg_ (Jul 11, 2008)

No I would not be upset, and I would have taken the steps to uninvite myself & kiddos first since it my choice to expose and recognize the consequences of that decision.

I agree though sending a quick text might not have been the best way to convey the message.


----------



## AbbieB (Mar 21, 2006)

I think that when you choose to expose your kids to an illness and share that information you should expect people to want to limit contact with you.

As a non-vaxing parent I have always kept my kids away from known exposure to illness. Scientific thinking about dates of exposure, incubation, etc... really do not matter to me, I'm playing it safe rather than sorry. If I know your kid was sick, or was around something pretty catchy or something nasty that was "going around" (stomach bug comes to mind) I'm not hanging out with you for a bit. Windows between exposure and being contagious are pretty short and there is a lot of room for error when being used as a guide in the real world.

Your kid was exposed to chicken pox for the purpose of getting them sick so I would feel better avoiding your family for a month. I would have given you a call and asked you if you minded skipping the party and instead getting the kids together next month for a rain-check, after the kids have recovered.

As a non-vaxer I am pretty open minded about chicken pox parties and how others choose to handle common childhood illnesses. But, when I think about it, I can easily see how others, regardless of vax status, would get upset at a friend that accepted an invitation to come to a child's party and then purposely exposed themselves to a contagious illness that many fear enough to vax for.


----------



## Drummer's Wife (Jun 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *limabean* 
I would have uninvited my kids myself. A consequence of choosing to expose your kids is missing out on social stuff like this until the illness is gone.


yup - what she said.

I don't see any reason to be offended or upset.


----------



## Sharlla (Jul 14, 2005)

i would not be upset
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

I think that the right thing for you to do is to keep your kids away from people who shouldn't get chicken pox (pregnant moms, babies, elderly people) until you're sure that they're not contagious.


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Barbie64g* 
I would have uninvited my kids MYSELF. Or if the party was that important, held off on the exposure to CP.

Yes, to that!


----------



## Jennifer3141 (Mar 7, 2004)

I wouldn't be offended in the least. Just as it was YOUR choice to expose your kids to CP at this time, it's HER choice not to.

I see no reason to be upset. It's simply natural consequences.


----------



## Norasmomma (Feb 26, 2008)

As a kid I did get exposed the CP at a B-day party, I would have liked to not have been considering I was one of those who has had a *severe* reaction to them(I probably would have gotten them anyway, but still).

If my kids were exposed I'd keep them home, it's not fun getting invited to a surprise pox party. I know first hand.

Her text didn't seem rude to me, it seemed to the point.


----------



## new2this (Feb 11, 2010)

I wouldn't be upset either. You chose to expose and its not about if they are contagious or not that is besides the point. You should have univited yourself and not put it on her to do so. As far as the text message thing goes. Some services only allow so many characters and so shorter texts seem to be the norm. I know I send more short text vs complete proper sentences.

I also was exposed to chicken pox as a child at a gathering and so thats how I remember my Christmas that year. Yeah real fun for me having to miss out on some things because people figured it was no bid deal.


----------



## DragonflyBlue (Oct 21, 2003)

I was searching CP and found this thread.

I wouldn't be upset at being uninvited. Choosing to expose your own kids is one thing. Risking exposing others is another.

I knowingly exposed my oldest two and kept them home till after they had gotten and recovered from the CP.

Four of my younger kids were exposed at a playdate- a mom knew her kids had been exposed and she brought them anyway- and my four all got it. I was livid! My grandmother was dying from cancer and I was going home for her funeral when the kids got sick. My husband stayed home with the kids so I could go.

Because another parent could not keep her kids home from all the fun at a playdate, I had to attend my grandmothers funeral without my hubby there to lean on.

Choosing to expose your children to illness/disease means that you have to miss out on things like birthday parties and such. I think it's pretty crappy when parents decide what is okay for other kids to be exposed to.


----------



## laila2 (Jul 21, 2007)

My FIL recently had shingles because he was exposed to chicken pox as a child. He is the sole caretaker of my MIL who had a stroke 6 years ago. It was a real hardship for all of us. It interfered with his arthritis medication, and he had a staff infection he was trying to get rid of at the same time. MIL had to go to a rest home so he could get better. It was a very trying time for my dh. I remember having CP and I was miserable with it. Crying a lot. Now I am hoping not to get shingles as an elder.

So eventhough it is hard to be excluded, it is important to consider others fears and feelings


----------



## Happiestever (May 13, 2007)

I wouldn't be upset. People have the right to do whatever makes them feel comfortable. Even if it seems silly to us, it is the other persons party. Wouldn't you want the same right to uninvite someone who was exposed to another illness?


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Naaa. It wouldn't upset me. It's not your place to decide when other's get exposed to chicken pox. There might be an immune compromised child attending the party. It's always better to be safe than sorry.

On another note, I hope your kids all come down with it at the same time! It's actually a little fun to have it at the same time as everybody else. Tiring.. but, fun.


----------



## MommatoAandA (Jun 4, 2010)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *iamama* 
I would be miffed that yet again I witness ignorance and fear beats science and fact.

YESSS thank you!

a little OT:
What scares me is that with less and less children having the chicken pox today because of that vax, my children will have less of a chance of getting the disease, so it seems that exposing them purposefully is the only way to get it done and out of the way. So if you do not vax and do not expose and they do not get it, what is the plan then? It is so severe and dangerous in an adult.

I would have chosen to keep my kids home personally most likely, but wow, it's JUST CHICKEN POX PEOPLE?! I had them, my cousins, brother, family, we ALL HAD THEM. Why is this all of a sudden such a huge deal?

I had a horrid case of chicken pox. In my throat, vagina, ears, nose, eyelids, but hey, its done and over with. Those who are vaxed and unvaxed and not exposed cannot soundly say the same.

ETA- I would not be upset though at being uninvited. I can respect someone else's decisions even if I don't agree with them.


----------



## MommatoAandA (Jun 4, 2010)

I did also want to add, maybe had the hostess made a call rather than a text and just talked it over with OP, it would have felt less, I don't know, exclusive?

Texting is the demise of interpersonal skills if you ask me, texting and Facebook. LOL


----------



## rejoiceinlife (Aug 13, 2009)

Well I do know this: next time I expose my children to something, I will NOT be telling ANYONE. I only told 2 people (fellow non-vaxers) that I thought might want to expose their children as well. I will not make that mistake again, next time if someone wants to expose their children, they can come to me when and if my children actually have the illness.

As far as I am concerned, it IS unreasonable for someone to completely ignore the time frame during which my children could be contagious. I have no problem with asking us not to attend an event if we were in the contagious window, or others choosing not to be around us in that time frame. When people just ignore the facts, I guess I do have a problem with that. There is not an issue of anyone who is immune compromised or adults who haven't had CP here, either with the party or anything else that has come up (it's a small community and I do know). I don't have a problem avoiding people who perhaps shouldn't be exposed, like someone who is due very soon and her 1 year old, or a baby who was born premature, or a newborn...during the contagious period, as a common courtesy. I do not see the need to avoid healthy vaccinated children, adults who have had CP, or the general public.

And I feel like all this becomes a bigger issue when I now have the choice of avoiding every situation where I'd normally come in contact with any of these people for several weeks (and there are quite a few, church 2x/week, a volunteer thing this weekend, playgroups, etc), or simply going about my business as usual and letting people choose to absent themselves and their entire families (including adult males who have already had CP, which is ridiculous IMO) because we are there when they know my kids could not be contagious. Perhaps from the middle of next week on when they could be contagious I'll choose differently, but not right now. It's chicken pox, not small pox, and really, would people have been acting this way 10 years ago (or however long ago it was) before the CP vaccine? I cannot imagine people simply stopped sending their children to school and doing anything socially for months out of fear of contracting CP when it was going around unless there were some extremely compelling reason like a immune suppressed individual.


----------



## Rivka5 (Jul 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MommatoAandA* 
I would have chosen to keep my kids home personally most likely, but wow, it's JUST CHICKEN POX PEOPLE?! I had them, my cousins, brother, family, we ALL HAD THEM. Why is this all of a sudden such a huge deal?

Well, for me it would be a pretty big deal if I had to take two weeks off of work to take care of kids with chicken pox. My family would also miss our vacation.

If I lived with a frail elderly person or an immunocompromised person, I would probably also think CP was a big deal. If I had the rare kid who wound up in the hospital for CP, I'd think that was a very big deal. If I didn't have health insurance and my kid wound up in the hospital with CP, that would tip the balance into a *huge* deal. If I were in the first trimester of pregnancy, I would think it was a big deal.

If you don't feel that CP is a big deal, go ahead and expose your kids. But don't make the decision that CP is an equally minor deal to everyone you are likely to meet while contagious or potentially contagious. It isn't.

Opting out of vaccination means opting in to quarantine, if your kids are exposed to or infected with a vaccine-preventable disease.


----------



## swd12422 (Nov 9, 2007)

I agree w/ everything Rivka5 said... And I also agree with MommatoAandA that CP just isn't that big a deal. Or at least I don't think it is in most cases. But I'd still resent having my kids purposefully exposed without my choice/knowledge. And DS isn't vaxed for it.

Someone else said something along the lines of a "surprise CP party." And yeah, the surprise element isn't good. My friend's daughter had a birthday party last winter and it ended up a "surprise H1N1 party." A mom dropped her DD off at the party, left, and within 5 minutes the kid was lying on the couch, feverish and moaning. So not only did my friend get to care for a vomiting, feverish, miserable little girl during her daughter's BD party, her whole family ended up with the flu the week before Christmas. The kids missed out on seeing their family, they didn't get their pics taken with Santa (an annual tradition for the family photo album), and Christmas Day was completely spoiled b/c the kids didn't have the energy to play with the few toys my friend was able to buy before everyone got sick and no one could go to church, which is a huge deal to them.

So yeah, my son isn't vaxed, and if/when he gets CP I'll take care of him. And maybe I'll even expose him on purpose if possible, but I want it to be MY choice. Not someone else's.


----------



## lalaland42 (Mar 12, 2006)

You are overreacting. It is just a birthday party and you are asking to possibly expose a ton of people without their consent.

FWIW, DD is non-CP-vaxed and she might have been exposed because her classmate came down with it last week, right before summer break. I am a little pissy because she only gets 1 month vacay from school and I don't want it ruined by CP.


----------



## TCMoulton (Oct 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MommatoAandA* 
I would have chosen to keep my kids home personally most likely, but wow, it's JUST CHICKEN POX PEOPLE?! I had them, my cousins, brother, family, we ALL HAD THEM. Why is this all of a sudden such a huge deal?

Because while chicken pox might seem like no big deal to someone with a healthy immune system it can, in fact, be a huge deal to a immunocompromised child or adult, a pregnant woman, etc.


----------



## lovingmommyhood (Jul 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lalaland42* 
You are overreacting. It is just a birthday party and you are asking to possibly expose a ton of people without their consent.

FWIW, DD is non-CP-vaxed and she might have been exposed because her classmate came down with it last week, right before summer break. I am a little pissy because she only gets 1 month vacay from school and I don't want it ruined by CP.

THIS.

OP, I Wouldn't be upset in the least. Texts are short, it's what people do in 2010. I certainly don't think she meant offense by it. Don't sweat the small stuff.


----------



## VillageMom6 (Dec 2, 2008)

Quote:

Well I do know this: next time I expose my children to something, I will NOT be telling ANYONE.
So you are okay with _you_ getting to choose to expose or not but you're not willing to grant _others_ that same courtesy? Because you might miss out on some social events if others choose differently than you?

Quote:

As far as I am concerned, it IS unreasonable for someone to completely ignore the time frame during which my children could be contagious.
Would you guarantee me... in writing... subject to a financial penalty... that it is *impossible* for your children to infect mine on day six of your children's exposure?

Quote:

I do not see the need to avoid healthy vaccinated children, adults who have had CP, or the general public.
A. Vaccines don't always work, so those "healthy vaccinated children" could still get the pox.
B. You don't know which adults have had CP and which haven't. Even if you know everyone at the party, you don't know who _they_ come into contact with.
C. It's not for you to decide who gets exposed.

Quote:

So if you do not vax and do not expose and they do not get it, what is the plan then? It is so severe and dangerous in an adult.
What you mention is a real dilemma. I was hoping that my children would just be randomly exposed to CP but they weren't.

That said, I, personally, could never ever intentionally expose my children. So when they reached the more dangerous age of 12-ish, I had them vaccinated. Was I 100% confident in my decision? No. But it was my decision to make.


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rejoiceinlife* 
Well I do know this: next time I expose my children to something, I will NOT be telling ANYONE. I only told 2 people (fellow non-vaxers) that I thought might want to expose their children as well. I will not make that mistake again, next time if someone wants to expose their children, they can come to me when and if my children actually have the illness.

As far as I am concerned, it IS unreasonable for someone to completely ignore the time frame during which my children could be contagious. I have no problem with asking us not to attend an event if we were in the contagious window, or others choosing not to be around us in that time frame. When people just ignore the facts, I guess I do have a problem with that. There is not an issue of anyone who is immune compromised or adults who haven't had CP here, either with the party or anything else that has come up (it's a small community and I do know). I don't have a problem avoiding people who perhaps shouldn't be exposed, like someone who is due very soon and her 1 year old, or a baby who was born premature, or a newborn...during the contagious period, as a common courtesy. I do not see the need to avoid healthy vaccinated children, adults who have had CP, or the general public.

And I feel like all this becomes a bigger issue when I now have the choice of avoiding every situation where I'd normally come in contact with any of these people for several weeks (and there are quite a few, church 2x/week, a volunteer thing this weekend, playgroups, etc), or simply going about my business as usual and letting people choose to absent themselves and their entire families (including adult males who have already had CP, which is ridiculous IMO) because we are there when they know my kids could not be contagious. Perhaps from the middle of next week on when they could be contagious I'll choose differently, but not right now. It's chicken pox, not small pox, and really, would people have been acting this way 10 years ago (or however long ago it was) before the CP vaccine? I cannot imagine people simply stopped sending their children to school and doing anything socially for months out of fear of contracting CP when it was going around unless there were some extremely compelling reason like a immune suppressed individual.

Prior to 1) the wide availability of antibiotics to treat the occasional complications of chickenpox and 2) the vaccine, chickenpox was a quarantinable illness. State departments of public health still have quarantine policies about it.

Yes, you're right, everyone got it, eventually. But everyone also kept their children home when they had it. IF they knew their kids were exposed, they kept them home when they were likely to be shedding virus (some quarantine polices included the entire incubation period).

As late as 1976, when I got them, the standard policy was that kids stayed home until the scabs had all dried up and fallen off -- it wasn't widely known that it was safe to be out and about earlier than that even at that point in time.

When childhood diseases were circulating naturally in the community, they behaved naturally. Which means they came and went in cycles. They arent' evenly spread around so that everyone could get a nice safe case when they were at the optimal age, not too young, not too old, not too pregnant.

And people knew that - they knew that there were people who would be hit harder and who should try to avoid infection. And so people who *were* infected were kept away from the general public. To protect those for whom it was too soon or to late for it to be "no big deal."

Chickenpox wasn't EVER seen as some kind of wonderful gift that people should be glad to get at any age! Parents of kids of "the right age" might have rushed to get their kids exposed -- but that would be because they knew if their kids didn't get it in this round, they might be much older before it came around again, old enough to be in the group more severely affected.


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

I would not be upset if I were in your shoes.


----------



## ladymeag (Aug 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MommatoAandA* 
YESSS thank you!

a little OT:
What scares me is that with less and less children having the chicken pox today because of that vax, my children will have less of a chance of getting the disease, so it seems that exposing them purposefully is the only way to get it done and out of the way. So if you do not vax and do not expose and they do not get it, what is the plan then? It is so severe and dangerous in an adult.

I would have chosen to keep my kids home personally most likely, but wow, it's JUST CHICKEN POX PEOPLE?! I had them, my cousins, brother, family, we ALL HAD THEM. Why is this all of a sudden such a huge deal?

I had a horrid case of chicken pox. In my throat, vagina, ears, nose, eyelids, but hey, its done and over with. Those who are vaxed and unvaxed and not exposed cannot soundly say the same.

ETA- I would not be upset though at being uninvited. I can respect someone else's decisions even if I don't agree with them.

My husband has had chicken pox three times. He seems to not develop an immunity. He was vaccinated for them as a child before the first time he got them. Each run gets worse. You bring your kids to a birthday party that we're at because we have a child and now my husband gets to deal with a fourth run of the chicken pox? Or would you rather that we always stay home when there are children around because "it's just chicken pox?"

One of my good friends is the sole caretaker for her elderly mother. She often has to pass up family events or events where lots of kids are invited. Why? Her mother has never had chicken pox and she wound up with them after a 4th of July BBQ one year. She had to hire someone to care for her mother during this time and stay with friends who didn't mind the exposure. She's now out of work and couldn't afford to hire someone again - so she gets to stay home because "it's just chicken pox."

Many people have more than one child - so should I not bring my 9 month old to my 7 year old's birthday party because it's "just chicken pox?" Pregnant moms? People who want to visit sick relatives? People who need to travel by air soon? That's a whole lot of people staying home so that your kid with chicken pox exposure can come to the birthday party.

Children are not the only people who get chicken pox. Children at the birthday party are not the only concern.

If you have known exposure to something that could be as serious an issue for so many people as chicken pox, I'd appreciate it if you stayed home. If I am the host of an event and know that you have a known exposure and you don't let me know that you're going to not attend, I'm going to un-invite you and probably be pretty cranky about being put in the position of "uninviting" someone to my kid's birthday party.

Some people I know recently spread hand-foot-and-mouth around to their friends because they were told they were "outside of the contagious window." Another friend wound up giving a pregnant friend of ours parvovirus (and exposed me) because she's an ER doctor and "wasn't in the contagious window." I can't tell you how many times I've heard "But I wasn't contagious! You must have gotten parvo/mono/chicken pox/hfm somewhere else!" Heck, I've heard this excuse used among adults for STIs. The windows are a guideline. If you know you're exposed, find fun things for your kids to do at home until you know you are healthy - this is part of the planning for exposure.


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *baglady* 
Maybe it's more about the other kids at the party. She may be afraid that other parents will find out that she knew about the exposure and be upset that she didn't warn them. Or, maybe she's afraid others will find out before the party and not bring their kids.

That was my first thought.

Or a pregnant woman. When Iw as pregnant with my third, I avoided any pox, because we knew she would be in the nicu after birth (chd diagnosed in utero) and if my unvaxxed older children contracted it, they would not have been able to see her.


----------



## rejoiceinlife (Aug 13, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *VillageMom6* 
So you are okay with _you_ getting to choose to expose or not but you're not willing to grant _others_ that same courtesy? Because you might miss out on some social events if others choose differently than you?

I would be perfectly fine with it if my kids came down with CP or measles or mumps randomly. Sure it might be a horrible time, I might have a young baby, whatever...part of life as far as I am concerned. Or at least, life as it used to be.

Quote:

Would you guarantee me... in writing... subject to a financial penalty... that it is *impossible* for your children to infect mine on day six of your children's exposure?
The burden of proof is not on me to "prove" that the timeline the experts give is accurate. Bottom line.

Quote:

A. Vaccines don't always work, so those "healthy vaccinated children" could still get the pox.
B. You don't know which adults have had CP and which haven't. Even if you know everyone at the party, you don't know who _they_ come into contact with.
C. It's not for you to decide who gets exposed.
People seem to have the idea that's it's only possible to contract chicken pox if you are knowingly exposed to it by someone else. Many times parents have no idea where their kids contracted it! So I'd say it's part of life, and I do not believe "not vaccinating" means I'm obligated to quarantine my family any time they have been exposed to any vaccine-"preventable" illness. Aside from the fact that I am not exposing ANYONE to CP at this point.

You know, it doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks. I feel quite hurt about the whole situation, and that hurt only increases when someone snatches a child up and leaves when they see my kids because "his mom doesn't want him exposed to chicken pox". If it were up to me I'd go to my parents' in a different city for a week or two and leave the whole situation behind, but DH doesn't want that. At this point I would be perfectly happy not to go anywhere where I know anyone for the next couple of weeks. And I think it's just as well that I probably won't see my friend for the rest of the month...I don't think I could even look at her right now. Hopefully I'll feel better about the whole situation in a few weeks.


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *iamama* 
I would be miffed that yet again I witness ignorance and fear beats science and fact.

Huh? Chicken pox CAN be dangerous for some people - and I don't vax for it. But like I said above, I was having a sick baby, and I didn't want my kids to get chicken pox right before she was born, so that they would be able to see her.

Not sure what is ignorant and fearful about that scenario...


----------



## TCMoulton (Oct 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rejoiceinlife* 
The burden of proof is not on me to "prove" that the timeline the experts give is accurate. Bottom line.


Actually, the burden of proof is yours in a situation where you have knowingly exposed your child to chicken pox and will then be in contact with children/adults who DO NOT want to be exposed. If you have exposed yourself and cannot guarrantee that you are not contagoius on day 6, 8,l or whatever then you need to remain away from others who do not wish to be exposed until the infectious period has passed.


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Well, here is what is says about when your kids are contagious.

Quote:

When and for how long is a person able to spread chickenpox?

A person is most able to transmit chickenpox from one to two days before the rash appears until all the blisters are dry and crusted. People with a weakened immune system may be contagious for a longer period of time.
In my experience (and I have lots of experience with Chicken Pox) the kids tend to break out between 10-14 days after being exposed. So, that means that IF your kids were exposed six days ago, they could be contagious in anywhere from two to five-ish days from day six. I think that's a chance some people just aren't willing to take.

YOU said it will have been only six days on the day of the party... but, other parents might not completely trust that. I know you can count.. and there is no reason to lie about it. But, some parents jump the gun a little, and may think you might have miscounted. (or rounded down)


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

OP, I'm a little confused you started this thread asking people if they agreed with you or thought maybe you were over reacting. Then when not everyone agreed with your point of view 100% you seemed to get angry or upset with them for not thinking the exact same way you do about this situation and said it didn't matter what other people thought. Which is it?


----------



## DragonflyBlue (Oct 21, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rejoiceinlife* 
I would be perfectly fine with it if my kids came down with CP or measles or mumps randomly. *Sure it might be a horrible time, I might have a young baby, whatever...part of life as far as I am concerned. Or at least, life as it used to be.*

*The burden of proof is not on me to "prove" that the timeline the experts give is accurate. Bottom line.*

People seem to have the idea that's it's only possible to contract chicken pox if you are knowingly exposed to it by someone else. Many times parents have no idea where their kids contracted it! So I'd say it's part of life, and I do not believe "not vaccinating" means I'm obligated to quarantine my family any time they have been exposed to any vaccine-"preventable" illness. Aside from the fact that I am not exposing ANYONE to CP at this point.

You know, it doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks. I feel quite hurt about the whole situation, and that hurt only increases when someone snatches a child up and leaves when they see my kids because "his mom doesn't want him exposed to chicken pox". If it were up to me I'd go to my parents' in a different city for a week or two and leave the whole situation behind, but DH doesn't want that. At this point I would be perfectly happy not to go anywhere where I know anyone for the next couple of weeks. And I think it's just as well that I probably won't see my friend for the rest of the month...I don't think I could even look at her right now. Hopefully I'll feel better about the whole situation in a few weeks.

Re the bolded:
And people DIED. If you choose to risk yourself or your kids- that is your choice. You do NOT get to choose to willingly and knowingly expose anyone else.

Adults who have had CP are at risk for shingles. Ever had it? Ever known someone with it? Not fun. Ask my mom how fun it was when she got them in 2003 at the same time my dd died.

The burden is on you to NOT willingly and knowingly put others at risk for exposure without their prior knowledge and consent.

The attitude of entitlement and total lack of care for others choices is what gives non-vaxers a bad rap.

For the record- I don't vax. But I'll be damned if I want anyone but myself making the decision as to if and when I expose my children to something.


----------



## One_Girl (Feb 8, 2008)

I would uninvite someone who has a cold and that is a lot less annoying to catch than chicken pox, though around here people cancel coming if they know they have even a mild illness that could spread to other kids. You exposed your kids to something that is generally quarantined, the fact that you are fine with them getting even more serious illnesses that require quarantine doesn't give you the right to decide to infect the world with chicken pox, mumps, measles, whooping cough or whatever else your kids have just so they can have birthday cake. I got chicken pox when I was five and I still vividly remember how horrible it was, I would never wish that on a child. I would be annoyed with someone choosing to expose my dd to a cold, irate if it was something worse like strep, chicken pox, whooping cough, or measles. I am surprised that you didn't choose to do the courteous thing and cancel going to the party to cut down on your risk of infecting another person, that is something that moms tend to do where I live. I bet your friend is just as annoyed by your lack of courtesy as you are at being uninvited. I suggest using the money you would have spent on a present to buy cupcakes, sickie food, and some movies to watch when your kids have full blown chicken pox. It is going to be a miserable few days for them.


----------



## WildKingdom (Mar 26, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rejoiceinlife* 
Well I do know this: next time I expose my children to something, I will NOT be telling ANYONE.

And I feel like all this becomes a bigger issue when I now have the choice of avoiding every situation where I'd normally come in contact with any of these people for several weeks (and there are quite a few, church 2x/week, a volunteer thing this weekend, playgroups, etc), or simply going about my business as usual and letting people choose to absent themselves and their entire families (including adult males who have already had CP, which is ridiculous IMO) because we are there when they know my kids could not be contagious. Perhaps from the middle of next week on when they could be contagious I'll choose differently, but not right now. It's chicken pox, not small pox, and really, would people have been acting this way 10 years ago (or however long ago it was) before the CP vaccine? I cannot imagine people simply stopped sending their children to school and doing anything socially for months out of fear of contracting CP when it was going around unless there were some extremely compelling reason like a immune suppressed individual.

If you want to have this attitude toward your friends, fine, but I wouldn't be surprised if they stop inviting you anywhere at all. Then you won't have to worry about being uninvited.


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

You knowingly expose your children to an illness, you have to be willing to accept that other parents won't want to expose their children to yours until they feel comfortable about the illness not being passed on. I'm with a few of the PP's in that I would have uninvited my children my self in that situation. I would not be offended if they ask my children no attend either.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MommatoAandA* 
I would have chosen to keep my kids home personally most likely, but wow, it's JUST CHICKEN POX PEOPLE?! I had them, my cousins, brother, family, we ALL HAD THEM. Why is this all of a sudden such a huge deal?

Why is it a big deal to some? DD's last birthday she invited someone from her class who was immuno-compromised. It would be a huge deal to that child's parents and it was a huge deal to us. We went out of our way to make sure that party was as safe an environment for that child as we possibly could and with the help of the other parents managed to pull of a party that all the kids enjoyed. I would have been royally PO'd if someone had though "Well it's just chicken pox, whats the big deal?" and came anyway. I would have also felt horribly guilty if the other child had caught something because another parent couldn't understand that something as simple as chicken pox or even the common cold _is_ a big, potentially life threatening deal to someone else. You can't tell just by looking at someone who is at risk for these complications either.

I would have gone so far as to turn someone away at the door if their child was noticeably sick. It was right in the invitation "please do not have your child attend if they are sick, or been recently exposed to someone who is sick."


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

I wouldn't have been offended. The host has the right to make decisions about her own party, and about her knowing exposure to illness. Personally, I'm quite glad to have sick kids (cold, chickenpox, whatever) around me and my family. I don't think healthy human beings were ever meant to be cut off from illness through hygiene/isolation, and I have strong doubts that doing so is in our best interests from a health standpoint.

And, OP...wish you were close to me. I've tried to expose my kids to chickenpox twice and it still hasn't taken.

ETA: I do understand that different people have different comfort levels with this, so I'd probably have uninvited myself, in any case.


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rejoiceinlife* 
Well I do know this: next time I expose my children to something, I will NOT be telling ANYONE. I only told 2 people (fellow non-vaxers) that I thought might want to expose their children as well. I will not make that mistake again, next time if someone wants to expose their children, they can come to me when and if my children actually have the illness.


If your town is really as small as you say, people will find out that you have exposed your children, because word gets around, and the other people may talk.

Unless you're doing it through the mail.

In which case you should be aware that mailing "Infectious material" without meeting certain safety criteria is against USPS regulations and may be a violation of the Patriot Act.
http://pe.usps.com/text/pub52/pub52c3_021.htm


----------



## Joyster (Oct 26, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rejoiceinlife* 

You know, it doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks. I feel quite hurt about the whole situation, and that hurt only increases when someone snatches a child up and leaves when they see my kids because "his mom doesn't want him exposed to chicken pox". If it were up to me I'd go to my parents' in a different city for a week or two and leave the whole situation behind, but DH doesn't want that. At this point I would be perfectly happy not to go anywhere where I know anyone for the next couple of weeks. And I think it's just as well that I probably won't see my friend for the rest of the month...I don't think I could even look at her right now. Hopefully I'll feel better about the whole situation in a few weeks.

I am having a hard time understanding why you are hurt that someone wants to parent differently than you? Myself, being exposed to chicken pox at this time would be dreadful for me as I'm heavily pregnant and at risk for preterm labour. Why would you be hurt by me keeping my kids away from yours? I might decide to side on the err of caution, but if anything, that would be a "M'eh" moment for me. You might think you know what is going on in everyone's lives, but you don't really, no one does. Me and my friends are very close, but I don't have any expectation of knowing what goes on behind their closed doors, so for all you know, someone might have a seriously compromised immune system, they might be first trimester pregnant, they might be caring for someone. It has nothing to do with you.

I'm saying this gently. People are going to make choices all the time that are different than your own and yes sometimes those choices are going to have an impact on you, just as your choices are going to have an impact on them. In this case, they are saying "I don't want this impact" and that is fine, you shouldn't take it personally. I think if you're getting hurt by this, you need to look within to see why.


----------



## crunchy_mommy (Mar 29, 2009)

I agree that you would have been better off not telling anyone. But, you still KNOW your kids were exposed and are nearing that contagious window.

When anyone around us is sick, we expect them to avoid close contact with us. My inlaws were sick with a cold not long ago, and they called asking if they could still visit. We said no, wait 'til you feel better -- I'm certainly not afraid of a cold (or chicken pox or the flu) but if I have a choice, I'd rather not get it. I was shocked my inlaws would even CONSIDER visiting while sick -- we have a baby in the home! Also on DS's 1st birthday he was sick. I notified all our guests ahead of time (especially my SIL with a baby nephew) to let them know he had a cold. We went ahead with the party & everyone came but it was THEIR CHOICE, I didn't knowingly force it on them. I would have been disappointed if they didn't come, but I wouldn't blame them one bit. And that's just with a common cold!

There's a big difference between unknowingly acquiring a disease & intentionally exposing yourself to it. If you don't know you're contagious, there's obviously nothing you can do. But your responsibility when you KNOW you've been exposed is to at least inform people you'll be in close contact with & let them decide whether to risk it... I would not avoid large public places like the grocery store but I would avoid playgroups, parties, etc. until no longer potentially contagious.

I'm glad you posted this though, DH wants to intentionally expose DS (and I'm willing to when he's older & can talk well, just not yet) so this gives me a lot to think about, I probably wouldn't have planned to spend a few weeks at home if I hadn't read this thread.


----------



## number572 (Aug 25, 2004)

Maybe she's upset that you knew about her party and chose to expose so close to that date?

Your friend hosting the party, could be "hurt" that one of her friends has such little respect for the other friends' and families' choices that she's invited. Its a choice to expose knowingly & people tend to get upset when other's try to control their choices. I don't get why you'd choose to be upset. If you're mad about others not believing in "the window", there's really nothing that you can do. IMO, trying to make choices for others is more rude that a short text message. As far as chicken pox, I won't be vax'ing unless my kids don't get it naturally before age 11-12ish, and would be really disappointed in someone if they exposed my kids knowingly without asking me first. Its one thing to walk into an illness accidently, but quite another if the illness is brought knowingly by a sneaky person.


----------



## momtoS (Apr 12, 2006)

My daughter had chicken pox after attending a Halloween party last fall. I called the school to tell them she had the chicken pox.....and the secretary told me that it was going around the ENTIRE school.

They send a notice home everytime a child has lice. But NOTHING was said about the chicken pox. NOTHING.

Anyways.....I do understand your friends reason for uninviting you. Gosh, I wouldn't want to face all the angry parents if my party kids all ended up with the chicken pox.

If you live in a small community....they may very well already be infected. BUT......if you went to the party they would blame it on you.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *crunchy_mommy* 
I was shocked my inlaws would even CONSIDER visiting while sick -- we have a baby in the home!

Why were you shocked? I wouldn't have any problem with someone visiting my family, including a baby, if they had a cold. It wouldn't even be on my radar. And, honestly, until I started hanging out on MDC, I don't think it would have even occurred to me to mention it if I had one.


----------



## crunchy_mommy (Mar 29, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
Why were you shocked? I wouldn't have any problem with someone visiting my family, including a baby, if they had a cold. It wouldn't even be on my radar. And, honestly, until I started hanging out on MDC, I don't think it would have even occurred to me to mention it if I had one.

Because we don't want to be sick if we can avoid it!!

Don't get me wrong -- I know illness is a part of life. We don't use hand sanitizer & cart covers, we aren't obsessive about hand-washing, but if someone is clearly sick I would appreciate them keeping their distance. I'm actually surprised anyone would willingly expose a baby to anything -- and my DS already had a tough enough time of adjusting to this world (very high needs), I definitely don't want to add to it by needlessly subjecting him to something that would cause him to cough & vomit etc. I believe that one reason we instinctively want to stay in bed all day when we're sick is because that prevents needlessly spreading germs...


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *crunchy_mommy* 
Because we don't want to be sick if we can avoid it!!

Don't get me wrong -- I know illness is a part of life. We don't use hand sanitizer & cart covers, we aren't obsessive about hand-washing, but if someone is clearly sick I would appreciate them keeping their distance. I'm actually surprised anyone would willingly expose a baby to anything -- and my DS already had a tough enough time of adjusting to this world (very high needs), I definitely don't want to add to it by needlessly subjecting him to something that would cause him to cough & vomit etc. I believe that one reason we instinctively want to stay in bed all day when we're sick is because that prevents needlessly spreading germs...

Okay - I get that _you_ don't want to be exposed to it. I was asking why you're shocked that someone else (your in-laws) might have a different view.

I believe the reason we want to stay in bed all day when we're sick (and I don't think that's really "instinctive") is because we need rest to feel better more quickly. I don't think it has anything to do with spreading germs. Humans living in communal living situations, for example, aren't going to prevent germs from spreading by staying in bed.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rejoiceinlife* 
It's chicken pox, not small pox, and really, would people have been acting this way 10 years ago (or however long ago it was) before the CP vaccine? I cannot imagine people simply stopped sending their children to school and doing anything socially for months out of fear of contracting CP when it was going around unless there were some extremely compelling reason like a immune suppressed individual.

Actually, as someone who grew up in the 70s and who had it in the wild - yes, people did act that way. When I had the chicken pox there were still quarantine laws in effect. I remember going to school to get checked out for scabs and I still had two so I had to stay home for several more days. I also remember some drama because I got them from a friend who was breaking out while I was there and her mother didn't send me home right away.

What's more, my sister had to stay home from school because *I* had chickenpox. And when she had whooping cough I had to stay home. I can't remember about scarlet fever but I do remember for that one we had the doctor come to the house.

Actually I had whooping cough myself about a year ago and we were asked to keep my son home from daycare for a few days. So we did.

I know you're upset and it is a shame, but I really think in this case you've missed the point a little bit - you planned the exposure and you presumably didn't know that people would care as much as they do, but now you do know. You picked to expose your kids at this time, so it's time to take that responsibility to heart.


----------



## Jugs (Mar 18, 2009)

Maybe the party host was afraid of her other guests being upset *with her* about children being at the party who are recovering from CP. Even if they are no longer contagious at that point, they'll still likely have some residual scabs healing over, and she should not have to be in the position of having to deal with angry parents possibly walking out on her kid's party.


----------



## newbymom05 (Aug 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jugs* 
Maybe the party host was afraid of her other guests being upset *with her* about children being at the party who are recovering from CP. Even if they are no longer contagious at that point, they'll still likely have some residual scabs healing over, and she should not have to be in the position of having to deal with angry parents possibly walking out on her kid's party.

Yes. I had CP at 22 while at college and it wasn't a big deal, I don't plan on vaxing my kids for it ever, and I wouldn't stress if they got CP. But I would be







if a CP kid was *knowingly* at a party b/c like a PP wrote, I just don't want to deal w/ it if I don't have to. I'd be mad at the host for letting it happen. And the idea of not telling anyone so you don't have to deal w/ the repercussions (like missing a party)--not cool.

Wow, the more I think about this, my DH has never had it, and we're about to go on our first vacation in 4 yrs, his work schedule would be so screwed up if he had to take off now, I don't even want to think about keeping my 2 y/o from scratching...I would def keep my kids away from that party even if I thought there was the remotest possibility of our getting CP, and how fair is that to the birthday kid? Really, the friend is the one who should be upset.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

I wouldn't be upset.

I would want to know if someone who has been exposed to an illness is intending to attend my child's party or was going to be at a party my child was also intending.

I would also uninvite someone who might be contagious, I might not care if my kids get CP but it isn't right to make that decision for others.

I would be upset if someone knowingly exposed my children to an illness without my consent. My older sister is in town soon and so we plan on visiting my family, I wouldn't be able to go if my kids had CP as my younger sister just finished cancer treatments and I cannot risk her getting shingles. I would be really upset, I haven't seen my older sister for a year.

That is just one example of why someone might not want to be exposed right then.


----------



## earthmama369 (Jul 29, 2005)

I would have expected you to uninvite yourself, honestly. There are always statistical outliers, and 6 days isn't that far from 9. It would be rare, but enough of a risk for me to say no if warranted. It may be a small community and you may know everyone who was invited, but you can't possibly know all of their family ties and connections. If I were the hostess in that situation, I would totally tell you not to come because I didn't want to expose my kids at that point, whether or not it was true. I wouldn't consider it your business that my father has rheumatoid arthritis and is currently undergoing treatment that destroys his immune system, thereby negating all his developed immunities. Or any of the other possible scenarios making it likely that a guest or loved one of mine would be compromised against their wishes, however small the risk. I'd give the polite lie and take the "blame" myself for uninviting you.

That said, I really dislike text as a means of communicating anything significant. A phone call or visit would have been more courteous.


----------



## NiteNicole (May 19, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
Why were you shocked? I wouldn't have any problem with someone visiting my family, including a baby, if they had a cold. It wouldn't even be on my radar. And, honestly, until I started hanging out on MDC, I don't think it would have even occurred to me to mention it if I had one.

Most people I know try not to get sick. It's miserable and if you need to go to the doctor, it's expensive. People with jobs don't get a lot of sick time, kids don't get many absences from school, and people have plans - summer vacation, parties, etc. It does not make any sense to me that people would think oh hey, I'm sick. You can just deal. Even if that is how you think, you must know that most people don't. Even if you don't understand it, you must know that most people actively try to avoid being sick, having sick kids, missing work, etc.


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rejoiceinlife* 
It's chicken pox, not small pox, and really, would people have been acting this way 10 years ago (or however long ago it was) before the CP vaccine? I cannot imagine people simply stopped sending their children to school and doing anything socially for months out of fear of contracting CP when it was going around unless there were some extremely compelling reason like a immune suppressed individual.


When I was a kid in school 30 + years ago, people didn't have to stay home to avoid exposure, because those who were sick knew THEY were the ones who should stay home. I think it's rude to go somewhere when you're sick. Why do people think that's okay? Just asking in general, not specifically the op...


----------



## EviesMom (Nov 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *earthmama369* 
I would have expected you to uninvite yourself, honestly. There are always statistical outliers, and 6 days isn't that far from 9. It would be rare, but enough of a risk for me to say no if warranted.

While I generally agree, I did want to point out that this sort of argument can be used to back up "far outlier" events to unreasonable levels.

I know someone who claimed that he got a respiratory illness from a woman because within 4 hours of her arriving at his house, he was sneezing and coming down with fever. He was convinced that he had caught his illness from her, that day. You don't catch and then come down with a cold within 4 hours. Other people at his office had fever and sneezing, but he felt he had been careful not to catch it from them, so it must have been the sneezing woman who "contaminated" his home 4 hours before he got ill. (Not to mention, she had diagnosed allergies that caused her symptoms and did not have a respiratory illness.) I think his claim was silly and paranoid personally.

But, fears are fears, even when they're in no way founded. Avoiding a party on day 6 is the smart thing to do OP, such that any bizarre event doesn't get blamed on you. Kids do get breakthrough pox after the vax, fairly regularly, and should that happen, even if it's a clear 14 days from vax to pox, they're probably more likely to blame you than the vax.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NiteNicole* 
Most people I know try not to get sick. It's miserable and if you need to go to the doctor, it's expensive. People with jobs don't get a lot of sick time, kids don't get many absences from school, and people have plans - summer vacation, parties, etc. It does not make any sense to me that people would think oh hey, I'm sick. You can just deal. Even if that is how you think, you must know that most people don't. Even if you don't understand it, you must know that most people actively try to avoid being sick, having sick kids, missing work, etc.

Actually, no - I "must" not.

I had no idea until I came to MDC that this was such a big deal to so many people. It's not even on the radar for most people I know irl. I now get that it bothers people. I get that people try to avoid it, which is why I now check and/or uninvite myself and/or my kids. I'm still surprised that anyone would be "shocked" that someone would even _consider_ visiting someone else when they were sick. The in-laws of the poster I was replying to _did_ call and ask. I just don't see anything even remotely shocking about it.


----------



## EviesMom (Nov 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 
When I was a kid in school 30 + years ago, people didn't have to stay home to avoid exposure, because those who were sick knew THEY were the ones who should stay home. I think it's rude to go somewhere when you're sick. Why do people think that's okay? Just asking in general, not specifically the op...

The question here isn't whether people should stay home when they are actually sick. It's if they should stay home when they have been exposed to an illness and might, in several days, become sick. For most illnesses, you don't really know that you've been exposed, so you can't make that kind of judgement call. In rare cases, like intentional CP exposure, you can. I got pretty annoyed with people who would come into the office 2 days after watching their H1N1 diagnosed nephews, so I kind of understand it, it's just that the incubation period for CP is so long relatively speaking.


----------



## bebebradford (Apr 4, 2008)

In my area if you bring a sick child to an event it is super rude. I would never ever take my child to a get togther,etc if they had been sick or exposed to something. It's just not fair to the other children and their families.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 
When I was a kid in school 30 + years ago, people didn't have to stay home to avoid exposure, because those who were sick knew THEY were the ones who should stay home. I think it's rude to go somewhere when you're sick. Why do people think that's okay? Just asking in general, not specifically the op...

Because in some social circles, it _is_ okay. If I stayed home from most social events in my circle, because I was sick, people wouldn't appreciate it - they'd just be sad that I was absent (and concerned about my health, of course). My social circle (my original one...pre-MDC/local homeschooling community) is such that this is just not an issue. I never went to school with a contagious illness, because we weren't allowed (which was locking the barn door after the horse was stolen, because I usually caught it at school). I wouldn't have gone to work with chickenpox, for instance, because I probably wouldn't have been able to work, and would have been sent home, anyway. But, I just haven't ever experienced the attempts to avoid illness in my own circle.


----------



## peaceful_mama (May 27, 2005)

I also have not vaccinated *any* of mine against the CP. And I *DO* hope they get it naturally!

I *might* go so far as to attend a CP party, but I've never had the real life opportunity.

BUT...I would have to first research the risk to my mom, who lives with us, has MS, and might end up w/shingles. If that was a high possibility, I would NOT INTENTIONALLY expose my child to CP. (it just occured to me right now that this would be a consideration actually, thanks to a comment or two I read.)

And I would not INTENTIONALLY expose my kids during the time I had a newborn in the house.

Yes, they *could* get it anyway. That's beyond my control. And no, I'm not planning to vax them for it because I don't believe it *will* prevent it. I have a friend whose 3 kids were *all* vax'ed at least one shot against the CP, I think the oldest was in school and had had the 2 recommended. They *all* got the CP and the oldest actually got it the *worst.* (she didn't live close enough or i might have gone ahead and exposed mine then







)

Me, in your situation, I would have told my friend about the exposure and the chance of them being contagious at the party (next to zero apparently) in a way that gives her the option of backing out nicely like "Hey, my kids were exposed to CP, it will have been 6 days by the time of your party, they should not be contagious until at least 10 days...but are you OK with them still coming?" or something like that.

Even if I were thinking of going to a gathering with mainly non-vaxers, I know quite a few....I would still inform them if my kids had been exposed to something and let them make the decision. After all, they are the only ones who know if they're, say, going to be around a newborn or someone who has a weakened immune system. Or going to visit Grandma for Christmas next week or whatever.

And *I* as hostess of a party, would have done the same thing your friend did, though I would have said it much nicer like "*I* personally know the risk of spreading this is pretty low at this point, but this is not a good time for me to intentionally expose my kids , and I can't speak for everyone at my party, I don't know all their situations....I just can't risk even a small chance of exposing everyone."

I also would not bring my children to a gathering after they'd been exposed to CP (and I knew of the exposure) unless it was an agreed-upon intentional CP party. (or insert other "preventable by vax" disease here) I would never want to be responsible for indirectly exposing someone's immune-compromised or newborn family member, etc.

Just a responsibility I accept.


----------



## lovingmommyhood (Jul 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 
When I was a kid in school 30 + years ago, people didn't have to stay home to avoid exposure, because those who were sick knew THEY were the ones who should stay home. I think it's rude to go somewhere when you're sick. Why do people think that's okay? Just asking in general, not specifically the op...

This!

This winter I spoke with an acquaintance who has three children. She said her two youngest have diarrhea but it was no longer explosive so she brought them anyway. They were playing in the nursery, merrily with my three children.







My middle child proceeded to get RSV which after 7 days of hell and losing five pounds, he finally got over.

I can see ACCIDENTALLY exposing other kids...or say you have no choice, but you know your kid has something contagious and you bring them around other kids anyway? Rude. **Not intended toward the OP...just mostly this woman at my church...lol** -Facepalms-


----------



## limabean (Aug 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
Because in some social circles, it _is_ okay. If I stayed home from most social events in my circle, because I was sick, people wouldn't appreciate it - they'd just be sad that I was absent (and concerned about my health, of course). My social circle (my original one...pre-MDC/local homeschooling community) is such that this is just not an issue.

I don't think most people would expect you to just preemptively stay home, just to call and give a heads-up and let the other attendees make the decision for themselves about whether to come into contact with you that day. My friends and I all do that, even though 99% of the time everyone says it's fine and to come anyway. In the in-laws case that sparked this side-convo, I agree with you that the ILs did the right thing by calling and asking, and I'm not shocked either that they would consider going ahead with the get-together as long as everyone else was okay with it. Quite considerate, IMO!


----------



## khaoskat (May 11, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TCMoulton* 
I agree with this 100%. The hostess has to take into account all of her guests and there is no way to know if any children or adults with weakened immune systems will be in attendance.

I agree as well. We suspect DD2 had CP, and were supposed to go to a function, where there was going to be a 9 month old baby. DD2 had about a dozen or two of spots on her belly. It was right in the realm of time for it to develop after an accidental exposure (someone at DS2's pre-school had it, and she was there on the same day as DD2 was..we were not vaxed against CP as the 2 yo shots came during the holidays).

We opted, because of the baby being there, to not go to the function/event to prevent exposure to the baby.


----------



## To-Fu (May 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Barbie64g* 
I would not be offended at all.

I would have uninvited my kids MYSELF. Or if the party was that important, held off on the exposure to CP. However, exposure is not particularly that impoirtant to me.

This is how I would have rolled, too.


----------



## mekat (May 18, 2005)

I have an immunocompromised child. Something like this could kill him or land him in the ICU. Why do you get to decide you can roll the dice on someone else's child or family member when you don't know their medical history and the medical history of those they come in contact with? When you are talking about such serious consequences for other people I don't give a darn how low you think the risk is, it is completely unethical and completely selfish to force a potential exposure on others unless they are aware of the risk and agree to it. Do you know how many times my son has landed in the SICU because he was exposed to someone who supposedly wasn't contagious? I can't even go to church any more because the last time I took him someone sent a kid in that was shedding strep and landed my kid SICU. I just can't take the risk and the thought of passing a family like you in the grocery story just gives me cold chills of terror down my spine because that grocery shopping trip could turn fatal for my child. Please think about others when you make decisions like this. There are real people and real lives behind those statistics. Right this very moment I am trying to see if I can get away long enough to drive to another state for the burial of immune compromised three year old. She died of infection that would have been completely treatable in another child. Please, please don't play Germ God with other people's lives.


----------



## crunchy_mommy (Mar 29, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
Okay - I get that _you_ don't want to be exposed to it. I was asking why you're shocked that someone else (your in-laws) might have a different view.

These are the same in-laws who would use hand sanitizer at every chance, constantly washing hands, vax against everything, mainstream medicine, etc. They were not 'casual' about illness exposure, but they wanted to see DS... It wasn't about having a different view in this case, but about having selfish reasons for suddenly changing their view.

But I'd still be shocked if anyone else did this -- around here, people keep sick kids home from school. People don't visit a new baby if they aren't feeling well (even if it's just a tickle in their throat). Most people seem to realize no one wants to be sick if they can avoid it. I guess I don't really understand why you'd want someone to knowingly/purposefully give you or your newborn a cold?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
I believe the reason we want to stay in bed all day when we're sick (and I don't think that's really "instinctive") is because we need rest to feel better more quickly. I don't think it has anything to do with spreading germs. Humans living in communal living situations, for example, aren't going to prevent germs from spreading by staying in bed.

Those people living communally aren't going to prevent the spread of germs because they're in such close contact on a daily basis. I'm talking about not passing it to people from other families/communes.


----------



## Jane91 (Mar 4, 2009)

Well, the OP's friends must feel good to know that they always have someplace to send their kids for a visit -- whether or not their kids might be coming down with the flu, a cold, lice, CP or any of the other goodies which kids have a tendency to share.

Or might that bother the OP a bit?


----------



## mtiger (Sep 10, 2006)

My brother's MIL lives with them, and is on a vent. My mother and I spell the caregiver and family regularly. We are all vigilant about staying away if one of us is ill or exposed to something where there is the remotest possibility of contagion. Because it could, frankly, kill her. This involvement isn't something most people in my circle know about, because it's really none of their business and (IMO) not something that I need them to know.

If I were invited to a party/social event, yes, I would like to know whether another guest was even remotely possibly contagious - and they knew it. It's not their choice to make for me, whether or not I'm to be exposed to whatever.

As someone above said - it's not all about you.


----------



## mama1803 (Mar 4, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jennifer3141* 
I wouldn't be offended in the least. Just as it was YOUR choice to expose your kids to CP at this time, it's HER choice not to.

I see no reason to be upset. It's simply natural consequences.


----------



## loraxc (Aug 14, 2003)

Seriously? NO, I would uninvite myself.

I once was at a public park when it became clear that the playgroup there was actually have a pox party AT THE PARK. I tangentially knew a couple of the people and I regret to this day that I did not say something.

I suspect that people who think this is not a big deal have never had a medically fragile child. (I have.)


----------



## ameliabedelia (Sep 24, 2002)

I'm curious how the responses to this thread would differ if the exposure was accidential, instead of intentional? I do think that 15 or 20 years ago, before the vaccine, when chicken pox was always "going around", that no one would have expected someone to stay home for 2 weeks (symptom-free) because at some point in the last 2 weeks they had been exposed to chicken pox.

Aren't all children that attend school, exposed to a whole host of illness all the time? A chlid who had just been to the doctor's office the previous day for a well-child visit has also likely been exposed to various illnesses.

Yes, defintiely stay home if you're sick, but the idea of healthy people staying home, simply due to exposure seems a bit weird to me.

However, the fact that the exposure was intentional also puts another level to it. I assume you had the kids do things like share lollipops to increase transmission, which I don't think most people did 15 or 20 years ago. So, it's more than just your kids were exposed to chicken pox. is it that they were exposed to chicken pos and measures were taken to INCREASE the liklyhood of them contracting it. In that situation, yes, I do think you take a responsiblity for staying home when the chances are greater they are carrying this disease, than if it was just "general exposure"


----------



## earthmama369 (Jul 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ameliabedelia* 
I'm curious how the responses to this thread would differ if the exposure was accidential, instead of intentional? I do think that 15 or 20 years ago, before the vaccine, when chicken pox was always "going around", that no one would have expected someone to stay home for 2 weeks (symptom-free) because at some point in the last 2 weeks they had been exposed to chicken pox.

I was old enough when I got the chicken pox 28 years ago to remember how it went down. I was exposed at school. I was on the early wave and was quarantined at home when I started showing symptoms. My sister was assumed to have been directly exposed through me -- she was quarantined without symptoms. She developed chicken pox a little over a week later. So yes, she did stay home for quite some time while feeling perfectly healthy.

I think sometimes when we look back at the halcyon days of yesteryear, we gloss some of the details. They did, in fact, quarantine healthy children if there was a reasonable suspicion that exposure of a communicable disease had occurred. The strictness of policy probably varied from town to town, just as it does now, but as I understand it, the one in which I grew up was pretty average.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ameliabedelia* 
I'm curious how the responses to this thread would differ if the exposure was accidential, instead of intentional? I do think that 15 or 20 years ago, before the vaccine, when chicken pox was always "going around", that no one would have expected someone to stay home for 2 weeks (symptom-free) because at some point in the last 2 weeks they had been exposed to chicken pox.

Aren't all children that attend school, exposed to a whole host of illness all the time? A chlid who had just been to the doctor's office the previous day for a well-child visit has also likely been exposed to various illnesses.

Yes, defintiely stay home if you're sick, but the idea of healthy people staying home, simply due to exposure seems a bit weird to me.

However, the fact that the exposure was intentional also puts another level to it. I assume you had the kids do things like share lollipops to increase transmission, which I don't think most people did 15 or 20 years ago. So, it's more than just your kids were exposed to chicken pox. is it that they were exposed to chicken pos and measures were taken to INCREASE the liklyhood of them contracting it. In that situation, yes, I do think you take a responsiblity for staying home when the chances are greater they are carrying this disease, than if it was just "general exposure"

In all the cases where I knew there was an exposure and we were coming up the contagious period, I'd call the hostess to talk about it. If it were a really close exposure (in the wading pool with a friend who came down with it) I'd call with the assumption that we'd be sitting the party out. And if it were just going around in say our daycare I'd talk it through with my friend.

I guess my base assumption is if I KNOW something, I should offer the choice to my friend if we're attending a big event together with a bunch of people. It's different than if you don't know.

Chicken pox is also in my mind one of those diseases that really disrupts your life (especially if both parents are working out of the home), and which we know can cause really painful effects in people who get shingles or serious complications for some people. I nursed a cabin full of kids who had it one summer and that was miserable - it's intense caregiving. Also, maybe they have prevention for this now, I don't know, but one of my friends ended up pretty badly disfigured on her cheeks from scarring. So to me although it's not like ebola it is something to be careful with.

For me it's worth flagging to my greater village. Also as I posted we were kind of brought up that way about all the common unusual diseases as well as stuff like stomach flu.

It's really about the communication around it more than the ultimate decision about whether to stay home or not - in a lot of cases people say oh sure, come over anyway.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *earthmama369* 
I think sometimes when we look back at the halcyon days of yesteryear, we gloss some of the details. They did, in fact, quarantine healthy children if there was a reasonable suspicion that exposure of a communicable disease had occurred. The strictness of policy probably varied from town to town, just as it does now, but as I understand it, the one in which I grew up was pretty average.

Yeah - I was thinking about this last night too, and although my memory is as suspect as anyone's, I think people were also just a bit more relaxed in some ways about keeping kids home from school. I remember taking homework and books to friends on a regular basis because they were going to be out for a while.

I suspect this is because most families were still not two-income families (I remember when they put a school lunch programme in at our school and it was SCANDALOUS that children would have to STAY at SCHOOL ALL DAY due to their neglectful, neglectful parents - lunch was also 1 hr 20 minutes so kids could walk home and back.) The base assumption was that a mother would watch her sick child at home until the child was all better - maybe not for a cold but certainly for everything else.


----------



## NiteNicole (May 19, 2003)

Quote:

I'm curious how the responses to this thread would differ if the exposure was accidential, instead of intentional? I do think that 15 or 20 years ago, before the vaccine, when chicken pox was always "going around", that no one would have expected someone to stay home for 2 weeks (symptom-free) because at some point in the last 2 weeks they had been exposed to chicken pox.
Well, if you've been exposed and you know it, it's the same thing - on purpose or by accident. The point is you KNOW.

Fifteen or twenty years ago, I was in high school (boarding school) and if you got strep, chicken pox, flu, and a few other things on "the list" you had to go home for at least two weeks.

When I got chicken pox in kindergarten, I missed a lot of school and my bff's (seriously, we're still friends) slumber party. That was the late 70s.

If you talk to people who had kids a generation ago, mostly they say things like, "remember when people used to keep sick kids HOME?" (My mom says this ALL THE TIME). As someone else said, things weren't so tight about unexcused absences/doctor's notes and usually there was a parent, if not a grandparent who could stay home.

I also remember a year in middle school where the flu was going around. The official request from the school was that if you even THINK your kid might have it, KEEP THEM HOME. I remember because quite a few of us had fake coughs.


----------



## Oriole (May 4, 2007)

I think it's not reasonable to assume that your kids should be going to a party after they have been exposed to chicken pox.

Here is my reasoning:

* There was a child in our classroom who was flown to the hospital the day one of her classmates was diagnosed with chicken pox. She has a condition that means she is at risk of *dying* within 24 hours of exposure to chicken pox.

* There might be pregnant moms at the party, that's an unnecessary worry for them if they later find out they were at the same event as children with chicken pox.

* Some of the children at the party might have siblings with medical conditions that don't mesh well with chicken pox.

No matter how well I know the families, I would not assume that I am familiar with their medical history and make a decision to endanger their well-being.

Incubation period is a great thing to rely on, only in my lifetime I have learned to realize that the anxiety doesn't always follow reason. I'm okay with sparing several families this kind of worry, when all I have to do is keep my kids home for a couple of weeks.


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *earthmama369* 
I think sometimes when we look back at the halcyon days of yesteryear, we gloss some of the details. They did, in fact, quarantine healthy children if there was a reasonable suspicion that exposure of a communicable disease had occurred. The strictness of policy probably varied from town to town, just as it does now, but as I understand it, the one in which I grew up was pretty average.

Exactly. I love researching old information on this stuff.

This newspaper article is really illustrative. St Petersburg, Florida, 1938:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...+measles&hl=en

Note that Whooping cough was quarantined (technically, "Isolated," as there was no placard put up) for up to 5 weeks, and all _contacts_ with an infected child were also isolated.

Yes, you'll see that that community did not isolate CP contacts -- but I have (someplace) a state health department manual from Massachussets in 1915 that *does* include CP as among the quarantinable diseases.

Today, growing up in a world with antibiotics and widespread vaccinations, there's a tendency by nonvaxers to dismiss a lot of this stuff as somehow mythological, or to feel that all that is 'the past." Well, it is the past, but the present in which we live was brought about in part by the antibiotics and vaxes. If you choose not to take part in them, you have to understand fully what you're opting for, and quarantine and isolation were the only effective ways, prior to vaccination, of protecting the susceptible population. Done properly and adhered to, quarantine is an effective public health too. Australia and New Zealand managed to eliminate smallpox almost entirely via quarantine rather than vaccination campaigns.


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TCMoulton* 
Actually, the burden of proof is yours in a situation where you have knowingly exposed your child to chicken pox and will then be in contact with children/adults who DO NOT want to be exposed. If you have exposed yourself and cannot guarrantee that you are not contagoius on day 6, 8,l or whatever then you need to remain away from others who do not wish to be exposed until the infectious period has passed.

I agree with this. There can be no guarantee on incubation period no matter what the "experts" say, and my dd is the "proof" of that. She was exposed on a Thursday at a LLL leader's meeting and had spots on the Monday night when I was getting her pajamas on. By Tuesday is was obviously CP. That's a max of 5 days from exposure to contagious CP... and we had them run a titer on her for her records to confirm it was CP, so there was no doubt.

I think it would be foolhardy to believe that if the "experts" say they are not contagious until >9 days after exposure, that it must be true. Obviously, anecdotally, it is not. Few people who do their own research on vaxing would take the "experts" at face-value that it's impossible that your child is contagious for the first 8 days post-exposure. Perhaps the people who do not want to be with CP-exposed kids at a BD party are not as ignorant as they have been labeled to be.


----------



## ~Charlie's~Angel~ (Mar 17, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *savithny* 
Australia and New Zealand managed to eliminate smallpox almost entirely via quarantine rather than vaccination campaigns.


Erradicate an illness WITHOUT using vaccines? Hogwash. Thats impossible......


----------



## bebebradford (Apr 4, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
Why were you shocked? I wouldn't have any problem with someone visiting my family, including a baby, if they had a cold. It wouldn't even be on my radar. And, honestly, until I started hanging out on MDC, I don't think it would have even occurred to me to mention it if I had one.

?
Nobody wants their newborn or small babe sick. Babies take sickness, even colds, a lot worse than most adults. If someone came to visit us while my children were infants knowing they had a cold I think my head would explode. I thought it was pretty much standard courtesy everywhere that you don't come around infants if you have an illness..No mother wants a small babe to be sick, and I'm sure her momma bear claws would come out if someone knew they were sick and risked her child's health.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *crunchy_mommy* 
These are the same in-laws who would use hand sanitizer at every chance, constantly washing hands, vax against everything, mainstream medicine, etc. They were not 'casual' about illness exposure, but they wanted to see DS... It wasn't about having a different view in this case, but about having selfish reasons for suddenly changing their view.

As they called and asked, I think "selfish" is really overstating it, personally.

Quote:

But I'd still be shocked if anyone else did this -- around here, people keep sick kids home from school. People don't visit a new baby if they aren't feeling well (even if it's just a tickle in their throat). Most people seem to realize no one wants to be sick if they can avoid it. I guess I don't really understand why you'd want someone to knowingly/purposefully give you or your newborn a cold?
Want? I don't "want" them to, particularly. I just don't care one way or the other. I simply don't try to avoid illness through hygiene/isolation. I do try to keep my immune system healthy (exercise, eating right, etc.), but I don't try to avoid exposure to illness. I don't know that many people who do try to avoid it, actually. It's just a different world view.

Quote:

Those people living communally aren't going to prevent the spread of germs because they're in such close contact on a daily basis. I'm talking about not passing it to people from other families/communes.
When I mentioned people living in communal societies, I wasn't discussing communicable illnesses in general, so much as responding to the idea that we have an "instinctive" desire to stay in bed while sick, because we're trying not to spread the illness. That just doesn't make a lot of sense to me, as staying in bed would only prevent the spread of illness in a society like ours, where individual families live in separate homes. That hasn't been the norm throughout human history, so there's no reason that instinct would exist. I think we want to stay in bed (when we do - I have to be _really_ sick to want to stay in bed), it's because we need rest.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bebebradford* 
?
Nobody wants their newborn or small babe sick. Babies take sickness, even colds, a lot worse than most adults. If someone came to visit us while my children were infants knowing they had a cold I think my head would explode. I thought it was pretty much standard courtesy everywhere that you don't come around infants if you have an illness..No mother wants a small babe to be sick, and I'm sure her momma bear claws would come out if someone knew they were sick and risked her child's health.

I guess I don't have momma bear claws.

ETA: It's also not my experience that babies take colds a lot worse than adults. Two of my kids have had colds during their first month, and they were both pretty easy about it, and didn't seem to be experiencing anything unusual/severe. IME, it's the kids from about 6-18 (maybe 15) months that have a really hard time with it. They seem to have a good idea of how they "should" feel, but no understanding of why they don't.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *earthmama369* 
I was old enough when I got the chicken pox 28 years ago to remember how it went down. I was exposed at school. I was on the early wave and was quarantined at home when I started showing symptoms. My sister was assumed to have been directly exposed through me -- she was quarantined without symptoms. She developed chicken pox a little over a week later. So yes, she did stay home for quite some time while feeling perfectly healthy.

I think sometimes when we look back at the halcyon days of yesteryear, we gloss some of the details. They did, in fact, quarantine healthy children if there was a reasonable suspicion that exposure of a communicable disease had occurred. The strictness of policy probably varied from town to town, just as it does now, but as I understand it, the one in which I grew up was pretty average.

No. They claimed to have quarantined healthy children if there was a reasonable suspicion that exposure of a communicable disease had occurred. If they were _really_ doing that, they'd have been closing schools on a regular basis. I've never heard anyone mention that as a policy, and I've heard a lot about quarantines on these threads. (I honestly have no idea what the rules were around here, but I know that when I had mumps and went home sick, my sister wasn't kept home...and neither was I when _she_ had mumps a year or two before that.) There _is_ a reasonable suspicion that the classmates/playmates of a child with a communicable disease have been exposed to it.


----------



## Oriole (May 4, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
No. They claimed to have quarantined healthy children if there was a reasonable suspicion that exposure of a communicable disease had occurred. If they were _really_ doing that, they'd have been closing schools on a regular basis. I've never heard anyone mention that as a policy, and I've heard a lot about quarantines on these threads.

I just wanted to say that it might not be the standard policy in the US at the moment, but where I grew up, they did close schools for one, even two weeks at a time (usually some time in winter) when too many kids got sick. My sister, back at home, said our city of 2 million had schools closed this past winter as well. I remember that it was not unusual to get an extra vacation due to quickly spreading illness.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic* 
I agree with this. There can be no guarantee on incubation period no matter what the "experts" say, and my dd is the "proof" of that. She was exposed on a Thursday at a LLL leader's meeting and had spots on the Monday night when I was getting her pajamas on. By Tuesday is was obviously CP. That's a max of 5 days from exposure to contagious CP... and we had them run a titer on her for her records to confirm it was CP, so there was no doubt.

While I agree that the "experts" aren't necessarily correct, I'm curious as to how you know that your dd got the chickenpox at the LLL meeting. I had chickenpox as a child. We have no idea where I got it, or when I was exposed. My son and nephew had chickenpox as children. We have no idea where they got it, or when they were exposed. (Presumably, both cases were at school, but there was nobody there with _known_ chickenpox.) Unless you'd been living in isolation, your dd could have been exposed prior to the LLL meeting, and then happened to be exposed again _at_ the meeting.

I see this a lot, actually (not really pointing fingers at you velochic, as you certainly could be right). People are constantly saying stuff about "so-and-so showed up at such-and-such event and he/she was sick and I just _know_ that's why dd/ds/dh/I got sick." We don't know that. It's not always the obvious "culprit" who passes on an illness.


----------



## VillageMom6 (Dec 2, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
I don't "want" them to (expose my newborn/child to an illness), particularly. *I just don't care one way or the other*.

Wowzers. I've always prided myself on recognizing that there are a variety of approaches to parenting.

But your outlook is so totally alien... so _completely_ foreign to me... that I can't even wrap my mind around it.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Oriole* 
I just wanted to say that it might not be the standard policy in the US at the moment, but where I grew up, they did close schools for one, even two weeks at a time (usually some time in winter) when too many kids got sick. My sister, back at home, said our city of 2 million had schools closed this past winter as well. I remember that it was not unusual to get an extra vacation due to quickly spreading illness.

If "enough" kids get sick. The point is that if they were actually quarantining anyone who had a "reasonable suspicion" of being exposed, they'd close schools as the _first_ known case. Quarantining a sibling looks good on paper, but a best friend or regular playmate is also at high riks of picking up the illness, and they don't quarantine _them_.

I don't really care if the schools want to require siblings to stay home. I just think it's a pretty serious case of closing the barn door after the horse escaped. I mean...my sister and I both had both measles and mumps as children. We didn't have _either_ of them at the same time...but there were mumps going through the school when my sister had them (not when I did...and I had measles before I was school age).

ETA: They didn't close my high school during a measles outbreak in...'84, I think. I had classes where half the students were out sick, and we just kept chugging. I wonder if this is some kind of strange regional/cultural difference or something.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Oriole* 
I just wanted to say that it might not be the standard policy in the US at the moment, but where I grew up, they did close schools for one, even two weeks at a time (usually some time in winter) when too many kids got sick. My sister, back at home, said our city of 2 million had schools closed this past winter as well. I remember that it was not unusual to get an extra vacation due to quickly spreading illness.

They closed schools here this year for H1N1.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *VillageMom6* 
Wowzers. I've always prided myself on recognizing that there are a variety of approaches to parenting.

But your outlook is so totally alien... so _completely_ foreign to me... that I can't even wrap my mind around it.

Well, this discussion has veered around a little bit. I _would_ be concerned about exposing my newborn to chickenpox, but I was talking about colds and such.


----------



## ~Charlie's~Angel~ (Mar 17, 2008)

I graduated in 98, and I can remember a number of times since then our school disctrict closing the high school and middle school because too many kids were out with the Flu-bug.

OH, and they sent home a note towards the end of the school year that there was a confirmed case of fifths disease.







GOOD LORD IN HEAVEN WHATEVER SHALL WE DO.







sorry.


----------



## Ceinwen (Jul 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
Want? I don't "want" them to, particularly. I just don't care one way or the other. I simply don't try to avoid illness through hygiene/isolation. I do try to keep my immune system healthy (exercise, eating right, etc.), but I don't try to avoid exposure to illness. I don't know that many people who do try to avoid it, actually. It's just a different world view.

Yikes, I sure do avoid illness/exposure to illness - all the time.

I work in an emergency department of a busy hospital, and trust me - if I can avoid myself and/or my kids being sick... I do it.

We wear gloves and masks at work, frequent hand washing, quarantine people, give medications and iv fluids... I keep my kids away from other kids with known viral illnesses (like the flu) and quarantine my own kids when they're sick with something I'm sure other people would not like their kids exposed to (again, flu, gastro virus - not just simple cold symptoms)

I can't envision 'not caring' one way or the other. I hate feeling sick, and my kids are hell on wheels when they're sick - so we really try to stay healthy. Including avoiding known cases of viral infection.


----------



## Oriole (May 4, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 

I see this a lot, actually (not really pointing fingers at you velochic, as you certainly could be right). People are constantly saying stuff about "so-and-so showed up at such-and-such event and he/she was sick and I just _know_ that's why dd/ds/dh/I got sick." We don't know that. It's not always the obvious "culprit" who passes on an illness.

I guess from my point of view, it doesn't matter if you can exactly pinpoint where you got an illness this or that particular time in your life. What matters is, communicable disease spread from person to person, and it's a very understandable approach in parenting where you try not to expose your child to everything that's going around town.

Being seriously ill is not fun. Some people / children won't have too many symptoms and will go on with their life just fine. Some people will have to go through a great deal of pain while getting over the illness. Some people will die from the exact same illness that I might not even remember one year from now.

I guess I view it just as a nice thing to at least try to prevent spreading what I have on to others. Will I always succeed? Probably not. Is it a big deal in most cases? Probably not. Should I care about trying to contain an illness that may cost painful recovery and maybe even life to someone else? I think I should.


----------



## NiteNicole (May 19, 2003)

Quote:

GOOD LORD IN HEAVEN WHATEVER SHALL WE DO. sorry.
I don't see how it's all that funny. When kids get sick, they have to stay home. When kids stay home, someone needs to stay with them. Not everyone has a stay at home parent, daycare on stand by, or grandparent who can step in. Not everyone has infinite sick days. Just because an illness doesn't outright kill everyone who gets it, that doesn't mean it's no big deal for the people who have to deal with the consequences.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Oriole* 
I guess from my point of view, it doesn't matter if you can exactly pinpoint where you got an illness this or that particular time in your life. What matters is, communicable disease spread from person to person, and it's a very understandable approach in parenting where you try not to expose your child to everything that's going around town.

I was responding to a specific post, which was about incubation times. While I'm not arguing that it may have been only five days, the poster doesn't actually know that, because she doesn't _know_ that her child caught it when she thinks she did. (Maybe she does - I do realize they may not have left the house for a week prior to the LLL meeting or something.)

Quote:

Being seriously ill is not fun. Some people / children won't have too many symptoms and will go on with their life just fine. Some people will have to go through a great deal of pain while getting over the illness. Some people will die from the exact same illness that I might not even remember one year from now.

I guess I view it just as a nice thing to at least try to prevent spreading what I have on to others. Will I always succeed? Probably not. Is it a big deal in most cases? Probably not. Should I care about trying to contain an illness that may cost painful recovery and maybe even life to someone else? I think I should.
And, since discussing this with people on MDC, I do wash my hands all the time when out shopping and such. I wouldn't let my sick child go to a party with peopple I don't know well. I've come to realize that my circle of friends and family isn't the norm. But, we haven't changed the way we interact within that circle.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Barbie64g* 
I graduated in 98, and I can remember a number of times since then our school disctrict closing the high school and middle school because too many kids were out with the Flu-bug.

OH, and they sent home a note towards the end of the school year that there was a confirmed case of fifths disease.







GOOD LORD IN HEAVEN WHATEVER SHALL WE DO.







sorry.

Well...just so you know, I'm pregnant (in my first trimester) and my son just recently had Fifth's Disease. So I'm learning a lot about it.

If you're in your 3rd trimester, it's fine. But unfortunately in your first, it can kill your baby. I was tested last week and didn't have any antibodies (so I didn't have it as a child) and I am going in for testing this afternoon to find out if that has changed, i.e. I got it, since I am not in the lifelong immunity group.

If I did, I will have to go for an ultrasound probably weekly to see if my baby survives; in 6 to 10 per cent of cases, the fetus develops a severe anemia that can result in heart failure. The only treatment option is blood transfusions, that I know of so far.

Now Fifth's is a tough one to know they've got because they're contagious _before_ they get the rash. In my son's case he was probably most contagious at home, but he was in school the day before he got the rash (we had no idea). We kept him home an extra day + weekend to be sure he couldn't spread it. We don't know where he got it, especially because Fifth's is such a mild illness...unless you're pregnant. So I totally get that there was not a way to prevent it.

But just so you know - I have already lost a child and had 9 early miscarriages. This is my last shot at having a baby, I kind of feel (almost 40) and this minor childhood disease has made me really stressed out, teary, and sad.

So - yeah.


----------



## peainthepod (Jul 16, 2008)

Speaking as a non-vaxer who has several friends and acquaintances who also do not vaccinate their children, I'm a little appalled that anyone would think this is okay. I'm wracking my brain but I don't know a single person who would intentionally bring a CP-exposed child to an event without asking the other parents first. In fact, a dear friend recently offered to cancel a visit to our house because her DS had recovered from a respiratory infection the week before! I told her not to worry about it and my DS didn't get sick, but I really appreciated her letting me know just in case. I'm pregnant and in the midst of a cross-country move and we _really_ can't afford to catch anything too nasty right now. It was a courtesy that I would have extended to her, and expect from others.

Just because we don't vaccinate doesn't mean we don't take our health--and the health of others--very seriously. In fact, quite the contrary. Yikes.


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
While I agree that the "experts" aren't necessarily correct, I'm curious as to how you know that your dd got the chickenpox at the LLL meeting.

Because I remember that week very well, I have it written in her baby book, and because of the snow, that was literally the only thing we did outside of the house that week. That coupled with the fact that the mom called me the day after the meeting to tell me that her dd and ds had the CP, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that that is exactly where dd contracted it, and her incubation period was about 5 - 6 days.


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Barbie64g* 
Erradicate an illness WITHOUT using vaccines? Hogwash. Thats impossible......









Please note how they did it: STRICT Quarantines. Rigorously enforced. Adhered to.l

Not "Oh, I don't think this is any big deal! I'm just going out for an hour or two! I've got important things to do! I need to run out for these things! My kids will miss this event! Anyway, doesn't everyone WANT to get this disease? They should be GRATEFUL I'm out exposing them! It's better to get it naturally!! So they dont' have to be vaccinated!!"

If you want to live without vaxes, you've got to accept that prior to their availability, people treated these diseases differently.

During diptheria epidemics? A common response if it kept moving through a household was to burn the house and its contents to the ground. Now _that_ shows committment to disease prevention.


----------



## Ceinwen (Jul 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
Well...just so you know, I'm pregnant (in my first trimester) and my son just recently had Fifth's Disease. So I'm learning a lot about it.

If you're in your 3rd trimester, it's fine. But unfortunately in your first, it can kill your baby. I was tested last week and didn't have any antibodies (so I didn't have it as a child) and I am going in for testing this afternoon to find out if that has changed, i.e. I got it, since I am not in the lifelong immunity group.

If I did, I will have to go for an ultrasound probably weekly to see if my baby survives; in 6 to 10 per cent of cases, the fetus develops a severe anemia that can result in heart failure. The only treatment option is blood transfusions, that I know of so far.

Now Fifth's is a tough one to know they've got because they're contagious _before_ they get the rash. In my son's case he was probably most contagious at home, but he was in school the day before he got the rash (we had no idea). We kept him home an extra day + weekend to be sure he couldn't spread it. We don't know where he got it, especially because Fifth's is such a mild illness...unless you're pregnant. So I totally get that there was not a way to prevent it.

But just so you know - I have already lost a child and had 9 early miscarriages. This is my last shot at having a baby, I kind of feel (almost 40) and this minor childhood disease has made me really stressed out, teary, and sad.

So - yeah.

I'm so sorry mama







That must be incredibly scary. Thinking of you and your little one.


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 

ETA: They didn't close my high school during a measles outbreak in...'84, I think. I had classes where half the students were out sick, and we just kept chugging. I wonder if this is some kind of strange regional/cultural difference or something.

Generally the reasons to close a school are:

1) so many kdis out sick that you can't be teaching new material anyway
2) disease without a vax to prevent it.

In the case of measles, first response is to quarantine cases and then vaccinate/booster shot those who are still well, rather than shut down the school these days. I know I've heard of daycare and school policies for such cases wherein unvaccinated children will be sent home for the duration of the outbreak.


----------



## Ceinwen (Jul 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *savithny* 
Please note how they did it: STRICT Quarantines. Rigorously enforced. Adhered to.l

Not "Oh, I don't think this is any big deal! I'm just going out for an hour or two! I've got important things to do! I need to run out for these things! My kids will miss this event! Anyway, doesn't everyone WANT to get this disease? They should be GRATEFUL I'm out exposing them! It's better to get it naturally!! So they dont' have to be vaccinated!!"

If you want to live without vaxes, you've got to accept that prior to their availability, people treated these diseases differently.

*During diptheria epidemics? A common response if it kept moving through a household was to burn the house and its contents to the ground. Now that shows committment to disease prevention.*

I realize you didn't mean it to be funny, but this totally cracks me up (oh, and I know it's true! not funny in a 'you're so silly' kind of way)


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ceinwen* 
I'm so sorry mama







That must be incredibly scary. Thinking of you and your little one.

I forgot to say P.S., I have mostly stayed at home except for work, and there I've been really careful about handwashing. But it's true that we didn't send a notice through the school which I'm feeling guilty about right now.

ETA: We did TELL the school though.


----------



## peainthepod (Jul 16, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
Well...just so you know, I'm pregnant (in my first trimester) and my son just recently had Fifth's Disease. So I'm learning a lot about it.

If you're in your 3rd trimester, it's fine. But unfortunately in your first, it can kill your baby. I was tested last week and didn't have any antibodies (so I didn't have it as a child) and I am going in for testing this afternoon to find out if that has changed, i.e. I got it, since I am not in the lifelong immunity group.

If I did, I will have to go for an ultrasound probably weekly to see if my baby survives; in 6 to 10 per cent of cases, the fetus develops a severe anemia that can result in heart failure. The only treatment option is blood transfusions, that I know of so far.

Now Fifth's is a tough one to know they've got because they're contagious _before_ they get the rash. In my son's case he was probably most contagious at home, but he was in school the day before he got the rash (we had no idea). We kept him home an extra day + weekend to be sure he couldn't spread it. We don't know where he got it, especially because Fifth's is such a mild illness...unless you're pregnant. So I totally get that there was not a way to prevent it.

But just so you know - I have already lost a child and had 9 early miscarriages. This is my last shot at having a baby, I kind of feel (almost 40) and this minor childhood disease has made me really stressed out, teary, and sad.

So - yeah.

























So sorry, mama. That sounds really scary. Happy thoughts and prayers to you and your little bean.


----------



## Oriole (May 4, 2007)

Rejoiceinlife,

I just wanted to say I understand that it can be uncomfortable when you ask for an honest opinion expecting people to side with you, and come to find out that majority doesn't see the situation your way. I see that you are new, and I hope you stick around despite this disagreement.









Welcome to MDC.









Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
I I wouldn't let my sick child go to a party with peopple I don't know well.

I think this is what OP is missing to see that it's not an outrageous line of thought that some people would prefer to be safe than sorry in a situation where CP can be passed around at a birthday part, kwim?

Either way, I hope rejoiceinlife doesn't disappear. This is not that bad of a place.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *savithny* 
Generally the reasons to close a school are:

1) so many kdis out sick that you can't be teaching new material anyway
2) disease without a vax to prevent it.

In the case of measles, first response is to quarantine cases and then vaccinate/booster shot those who are still well, rather than shut down the school these days. I know I've heard of daycare and school policies for such cases wherein unvaccinated children will be sent home for the duration of the outbreak.

This was '84. I don't know if the vax existed then or not, but we (students at the high school) didn't receive it as children. Nobody was given a booster, if they were available. Whatever the reasons for keeping the school open, it wasn't about vaxes.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Oriole* 
I think this is what OP is missing to see that it's not an outrageous line of thought that some people would prefer to be safe than sorry in a situation where CP can be passed around at a birthday part, kwim?

Either way, I hope rejoiceinlife doesn't disappear. This is not that bad of a place.









I think she's trusting in the incubation numbers, mostly. I use them as a guide, but (despite my post to velochic) I don't rely on them to be totally accurate, yk?


----------



## SpottedFoxx (Feb 8, 2010)

When my son was 9 months old, someone thought nothing of coming over and holding him while they were still sick (it's just a cold). My DS ended up in the hospital for 3 days (you want to pay that bill?).

OP, your post smacks of entitlement like I have never encountered before. There are people who choose to vac and people who choose not to. However, there is another group who have no choice. Their children cannot be immunized even if their parents want them to be. Additionally, a good portion of those children are immuno-compromised. So if those parents have the good fortune of being able to bring their child to a birthday party - your "no big deal" could possibly kill their child. Even if the chances of it happening are 1 in a 1,000,000,000 - it's too great a risk IMHO.

You want your child to be exposed. I get that - truly I do. My Mom was 35 when she got CP and she was in the hospital and almost died. However, you do not get to determine who else in your community has to be exposed.


----------



## MommatoAandA (Jun 4, 2010)

I cannot possibly respond to each person who responded to my post, but I wanted to say this:

Chicken Pox, in the grand spectrum is not that big of a deal, as I said in my post I would not have been upset at being uninvited and i would have chosen to keep my children home. However, if someone is THAT imunocompromised, they could get something at the grocery store, the bank, ANYWHERE. If someone is THAT imunocompromised they would most likely stay at home A LOT. (I am in the medical field, so I am not just blindly writing this). I just am surprised so many people do not vax and do not plan to expose their children. Also, those who were vaccinated as children and have contracted the disease subsequent times, that is part of the risk with the vaccine. You cannot judge a normal persons immune system against that of a person who has been vaxed, we still do not know enough about the vax and how it reacts in adults who have been vaxed or vaxed as kids or boostered as adults.

Chicken Pox, really are not that big of a deal, if I was imuno compromised, I would be worried about the millions of people who walk around with MRSA right in their nasal passages. Or people with VRE or something like that. Much more prevelent in adults. I wouldn't be hanging out at a little kids bday party if I had an issue with my immune system, THAT's for SURE!


----------



## geekgolightly (Apr 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
I guess I don't have momma bear claws.

ETA: It's also not my experience that babies take colds a lot worse than adults. Two of my kids have had colds during their first month, and they were both pretty easy about it, and didn't seem to be experiencing anything unusual/severe. IME, it's the kids from about 6-18 (maybe 15) months that have a really hard time with it. They seem to have a good idea of how they "should" feel, but no understanding of why they don't.

The most vulnerable populations to illness are the very young, the very old and the immunocompromised. Babies are very vulnerable.


----------



## geekgolightly (Apr 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mekat* 
I have an immunocompromised child. Something like this could kill him or land him in the ICU. Why do you get to decide you can roll the dice on someone else's child or family member when you don't know their medical history and the medical history of those they come in contact with? When you are talking about such serious consequences for other people I don't give a darn how low you think the risk is, it is completely unethical and completely selfish to force a potential exposure on others unless they are aware of the risk and agree to it. Do you know how many times my son has landed in the SICU because he was exposed to someone who supposedly wasn't contagious? I can't even go to church any more because the last time I took him someone sent a kid in that was shedding strep and landed my kid SICU. I just can't take the risk and the thought of passing a family like you in the grocery story just gives me cold chills of terror down my spine because that grocery shopping trip could turn fatal for my child. Please think about others when you make decisions like this. There are real people and real lives behind those statistics. Right this very moment I am trying to see if I can get away long enough to drive to another state for the burial of immune compromised three year old. She died of infection that would have been completely treatable in another child. Please, please don't play Germ God with other people's lives.

I think people should read this.

With knowledge comes intent. I could *never* intentionally put my ill child out to expose potentially vulnerable populations.

And to the OP, please do not stop warning people when you have exposed your children to diseases.

ETA mekat, I wish you all the best and hope you never have to have your babe in SICU again. I have tried to imagine this happening to me, and have been scared witless just imagining. To actually go through this over and over must be absolutely heartbreaking.


----------



## NiteNicole (May 19, 2003)

Quote:

Chicken Pox, in the grand spectrum is not that big of a deal
TO YOU. It's not a big deal TO YOU. To other people, many of whom have said so here, IT IS. You don't seem to want to hear that at all, on any level.

Maybe your kids are good little patients when they get sick and you have plenty of time off and good insurance. That's excellent. Not a lot of people live like that.


----------



## MommatoAandA (Jun 4, 2010)

Mekat- I'm sorry for what you are going through.

I wanted to add, I did not mean to sound harsh about the immunocompromised, I work with them daily. I was just saying kids at this party could be exposed to something and the parent not even know it yet. My daughter currently has Step throat and I still have to go to work, even though I have made my employer aware of the situation. She played with her cousins and friends at a BBQ too last weekend and a few of them are no running fevers. I had NO idea until Saturday night when she had a fever that something was going on. Point is, having an immunocompromised loved one is frustrating and very hard, but they could be exposed to a lot of things a lot of places.

I think the OP is hurt. I do think there was a better way for her friend to uninvite her, like verbally, on the phone. I think it just sucks to have people run in every direction when they see you and your kids.


----------



## MommatoAandA (Jun 4, 2010)

misunderstood post


----------



## NiteNicole (May 19, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MommatoAandA* 
AND AGAIN, I REPEAT. When my children are sick, THEY STAY HOME. I ALSO do not purposefully expose them to anything (they are still a bit young for CP) and when they are sick and I know it, I keep them HOME. You don't know my personal situation so assume away. WOW

Also, your kids are probably exposed to worse diseases daily if they attend outside daycare/school. If they go to the gorcery store, the bank, get in the car, breathe the AIR for God's sake. Really the only difference in this situation is that the OP knows and so does the hostess and other guests.

I actually had attributed some posts from further back in the thread to you as well (in my head, I mean) so yeah, busted, and you quoted me so I can't even go back and fix it


----------



## MommatoAandA (Jun 4, 2010)

Do you want me to delete mine so you can delete or edit yours? LOL I feel bad now...


----------



## SpottedFoxx (Feb 8, 2010)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MommatoAandA* 
I cannot possibly respond to each person who responded to my post, but I wanted to say this:

Chicken Pox, in the grand spectrum is not that big of a deal, as I said in my post I would not have been upset at being uninvited and i would have chosen to keep my children home. However, if someone is THAT imunocompromised, they could get something at the grocery store, the bank, ANYWHERE. If someone is THAT imunocompromised they would most likely stay at home A LOT. (I am in the medical field, so I am not just blindly writing this). I just am surprised so many people do not vax and do not plan to expose their children. Also, those who were vaccinated as children and have contracted the disease subsequent times, that is part of the risk with the vaccine. You cannot judge a normal persons immune system against that of a person who has been vaxed, we still do not know enough about the vax and how it reacts in adults who have been vaxed or vaxed as kids or boostered as adults.

Chicken Pox, really are not that big of a deal, if I was imuno compromised, I would be worried about the millions of people who walk around with MRSA right in their nasal passages. Or people with VRE or something like that. Much more prevelent in adults. I wouldn't be hanging out at a little kids bday party if I had an issue with my immune system, THAT's for SURE!


Momma - I don't disagree about the severity of chicken pox to the general population. However, there are people in the community who this will kill. I have a very rare disease (since you are medical - you may know it - systemic mastocytosis). If I somehow lose immunity (which reminds me, I need to get a titer), CP could send me into horrible bouts of anaphalaxis or worse. I'd most likely have a huge mast cell degranulation which at best would result in anaphalaxis at worse - hemorrhaging.

Who gets to decide? It's one thing to unknowingly expose yourself or others to a disease. It's something entirely different to intentionally expose yourself and your children to a disease and then get your panties in a twist when others don't want to be exposed.


----------



## MommatoAandA (Jun 4, 2010)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SpottedFoxx* 
Momma - I don't disagree about the severity of chicken pox to the general population. However, there are people in the community who this will kill. I have a very rare disease (since you are medical - you may know it - systemic mastocytosis). If I somehow lose immunity (which reminds me, I need to get a titer), CP could send me into horrible bouts of anaphalaxis or worse. I'd most likely have a huge mast cell degranulation which at best would result in anaphalaxis at worse - hemorrhaging.

Who gets to decide? It's one thing to unknowingly expose yourself or others to a disease. It's something entirely different to intentionally expose yourself and your children to a disease and then get your panties in a twist when others don't want to be exposed.

ITA with this! I think I may have poorly and inaccurately expressed my opinion. Sorry for what you are going through dear. I am not familiar with that disease. Now I want to go research since I am unfamiliar with it. ((HUGS))


----------



## NiteNicole (May 19, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MommatoAandA* 
Do you want me to delete mine so you can delete or edit yours? LOL I feel bad now...

No, no. Let's just leave it. It'll be chaos because I assure you I will somehow delete the wrong one. Thanks anyway! It was my mistake.


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

Quote:

Well I do know this: next time I expose my children to something, I will NOT be telling ANYONE
I wouldn't be comfortable having someone with that attitude in our circle of friends in real life. There are some germs that I'm comfortable with (colds) but some that I try to avoid at all costs (anything stomach virusy). I have friends whose kids have asthma where a cold can land them in the hospital. I wouldn't want to be friends with someone who knows their kids could be carrying something and wouldn't warn us and let us decide.


----------



## Marylizah (Jun 17, 2005)

I would not be upset-- in fact, I would uninvite myself. We recently had a similar situation, with a friend who's son got CP the week before his birthday party. She really wanted to hold it as planned (he still had spots, though most were dry). I have a 4 year old and a 5month old and we're leaving for vacation tomorrow. I don't want to deal with CP on vacation. I told her we didn't feel comfortable with going while he still had some "active" spots. She moved the party.

Her text was brusque, I get why you feel hurt. But I totally understand where she's coming from.


----------



## Maluhia (Jun 24, 2007)

Aloha all - please remember that we can discuss and disagree with ideas but not take issue with posters themselves as inidviduals including casting suspicion or taking direct issue with another poster. Thanks for keeping the User Agreement in mind when posting


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Oriole* 
I just wanted to say that it might not be the standard policy in the US at the moment, but where I grew up, they did close schools for one, even two weeks at a time (usually some time in winter) when too many kids got sick. My sister, back at home, said our city of 2 million had schools closed this past winter as well. I remember that it was not unusual to get an extra vacation due to quickly spreading illness.

My elementary school was closed once because of an out break of whooping cough and they couldn't keep parents from sending their sick kids to school. So they just closed the school for a couple of weeks.


----------



## ladymeag (Aug 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MommatoAandA* 
Chicken Pox, in the grand spectrum is not that big of a deal

From: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/...s-faqs-gen.htm

"Many people are not aware that before a vaccine was available approximately 10,600 persons were hospitalized and 100 to 150 died as a result of chickenpox in the U.S. every year"

"Many of the deaths and complications from chickenpox occur in previously healthy children and adults."

"These reports have shown that some deaths from chickenpox continue to occur in healthy, unvaccinated children and adults."

Ten THOUSAND people paying hospital bills for your "not a big deal?" Of those, 150 die. Do you get to determine who the 150 are?

But then, I'm in the number of people who you think should just stay at home at all times and never share in birthday parties, BBQs, or other joyous events because we have immuno-compromised people in the house.


----------



## Tigerchild (Dec 2, 2001)

I totally support and respect parents who choose not to vax.

However, it frustrates me to no end when some then *refuse* or get highly hostile to having to follow quarentine procedures! I think it's because very few people bother to research that, because it's not widely available info now that the common presumption is that all people are vaccinated.

We did see some of that reinstated with H1N1 (moving from very conservative must-stay-home for 2 weeks even if the fever breaks before then/must stay home while anyone in the immediate family is sick, to the less conservative 48 hours after fever breaking and just the ill person affected). How quickly we as a society forget!

It's really not fun to have to deal with quarentine. I had to deal with 4 weeks of it because we had very early H1N1 cases. It really really sucked. I really can't imagine how stressful that would be for a working parent--at least both DH and myself a SAH/WAH anyway, and we have a good support system and were able to receive dropoffs of fresh produce (I keep a couple months supply of nonperishable food and water at all times, thank goodness!) After the immediate period of illness, when you don't feel like going anywhere or doing anything ANYWAY, I felt very oppressed, anxious, and angry and even belligerent! And I even accepted intellectually that because not much was known about the virus that I agreed I should adopt conservative practices! We did have the opportunity to get vaccinated, but chose not to (we never have gotten flu shots for a variety of reasons both rational and perhaps irrational). Dealing with quarentine was, IMO, part of the responsibilities of my choice and the consequences of getting the illness. It wasn't a punishment.

When other people choose a very conservative approach, it's not a punishment personal to you. (though if you seriously decide that you'll just not tell anyone and intentionally expose your kids and then go out without informing your friends who you know are concerned about that--they may have pretty punitive reactions when they find out!) You may feel like they're being silly and alarmist; but by the same token, they might feel that you are being alarmist and fearful by not getting your kids vaxed. It can work both ways. I think that it's better to call no harm/no foul in these cases. Everyone has to miss events sometimes because of just life timing crap. It doesn't really matter why.

If your issue is with your friend's "rudeness" then by all means ask her for clarity on that. But that is a separate issue to the exposure. I really don't think that you can fault someone from setting conservative boundaries at their OWN party. If someone says something in a tone that hurts you though--I think that's something that should be addressed, and frankly I would not read too much "tone" in a text. Why not ask and see if she was upset with you first. If not, then now that the party's over (I think) if you can calmly tell her that you felt hurt because you thought she snapped at you, then I bet you can mend that quickly.

I wouldn't carpetbag the CP debate onto that though, if I were the OP.


----------



## Dandelionkid (Mar 6, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *One_Girl* 
That is strange because my dd's doctor told me that people who have the vaccine are less likely to get shingles than people who don't. Gary Goldman is an engineer with a PHD in computer science, my doctor has actually been to medical school and knows how to interpret the literature, she has also told me which shots not to get because they aren't supported by the literature. I think that like many people I will rely on my doctor and not an engineer for medical advice.

Here is a link with his biography:

http://www.novaccine.com/gary_s_goldman.asp

Yes, I realize that Dr Goldman is a research analyst but this doesn't detract from the fact that shingles seems to be kept from occurring in the unvaccinated population by periodic contact with varicella virus. Doesn't it stand to reason that if blanket varicella vaccination occurs in the younger population that those who have not received boosters for the vaccine, or have not received the vaccine at all, will be at increased risk for older-onset chicken-pox or increased incidence of shingles?
I think the vaccine has caused more harm than good in the long-term.


----------



## EviesMom (Nov 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dandelionkid* 
Yes, I realize that Dr Goldman is a research analyst but this doesn't detract from the fact that shingles seems to be kept from occurring in the unvaccinated population by periodic contact with varicella virus. Doesn't it stand to reason that if blanket varicella vaccination occurs in the younger population that those who have not received boosters for the vaccine, or have not received the vaccine at all, will be at increased risk for older-onset chicken-pox or increased incidence of shingles?
I think the vaccine has caused more harm than good in the long-term.

That's why the UK doesn't vaccinate for Chickenpox routinely. The Dept of Health there is concerned that it will lower the age of shingles and increase the number of cases and severity: http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1032.asp...bCategoryID=63

That's why shingles is still a disease of old age in the UK but is becoming more and more common at younger ages in the US.


----------



## EviesMom (Nov 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Tigerchild* 
We did see some of that reinstated with H1N1 (moving from very conservative must-stay-home for 2 weeks even if the fever breaks before then/must stay home while anyone in the immediate family is sick, to the less conservative 48 hours after fever breaking and just the ill person affected). How quickly we as a society forget!

Actually, here in NYC during H1N1, we got nasty letters from the school from April until June saying that kids had to be in school unless they had fevers over 100.5 within the last 24 hours. They made it very clear that they didn't feel that parents could make the call as to how ill was ill enough to stay home. Family members being sick was not an excused absence in any way. That seemed to be the attitude of employers as well. So that's not universal.

No quarantine restrictions I have seen from CP in the past involved potential exposure, staying home when family members were sick, or staying home before fever or spots appeared. There's also a thread going around about why a cancer patient is told to stay away from vax-age young children, and it appears to be because recently vaxed MMR, Rota, and CP (live vax) all shed enough to give immune suppressed individual those illnesses.


----------



## EviesMom (Nov 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Oriole* 
Incubation period is a great thing to rely on, only in my lifetime I have learned to realize that the anxiety doesn't always follow reason. I'm okay with sparing several families this kind of worry, when all I have to do is keep my kids home for a couple of weeks.









Now, this I agree with.


----------



## One_Girl (Feb 8, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dandelionkid* 
Yes, I realize that Dr Goldman is a research analyst but this doesn't detract from the fact that shingles seems to be kept from occurring in the unvaccinated population by periodic contact with varicella virus. Doesn't it stand to reason that if blanket varicella vaccination occurs in the younger population that those who have not received boosters for the vaccine, or have not received the vaccine at all, will be at increased risk for older-onset chicken-pox or increased incidence of shingles?
I think the vaccine has caused more harm than good in the long-term.

Shingles has been around longer than the vaccination so it isn't something that is kept from occurring in the unvaccinated population. If it was it wouldn't have started until the chicken pox vaccine came out. It isn't something that is just now coming about because we now can vaccinate for chicken pox, so no I don't think that stands to reason. The CDC states that people who have had chickenpox and recovered from it sometimes get shingles again, it says nothing about the vaccine being linked to shingles.

Looking at research and being a research analyst qualified to analyze research in the medical field are two different things. I wouldn't expect a doctor to be qualified in computer science and I don't expect a man with a PHD in computer science to be an expert in medicine.


----------



## Chamomile Girl (Nov 4, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *One_Girl* 

Looking at research and being a research analyst qualified to analyze research in the medical field are two different things. I wouldn't expect a doctor to be qualified in computer science and I don't expect a man with a PHD in computer science to be an expert in medicine.

By that logic I suppose that no mama is qualified to look at the data for reasons not to vaccinate their children. 'Cause we sure don't all have PhDs (or is that MDs?). By that logic we should just turn all of our decision making power to those "who know better".

Give me a break. I am just as qualified to interpret medical data as mr. doctorman. And having a PhD _in anything_ certainly teaches you more about doing research than most medical professionals ever learn.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *One_Girl* 
Shingles has been around longer than the vaccination so it isn't something that is kept from occurring in the unvaccinated population. If it was it wouldn't have started until the chicken pox vaccine came out. It isn't something that is just now coming about because we now can vaccinate for chicken pox, so no I don't think that stands to reason.

FWIW, I do not think that "kept from occurring in the unvaccinated population" means _universally_ kept from occurring. I think it meant more "when shingles doesn't occur in the unvaxed population, it's because of recurring exposure to the varicella virus"...or even just that re-exposure to the varicella virus reduces the odds of developing shingles.

I may be misinterpreting the poster you quoted, but that's how I read it. I'm working through this thread now, trying to decide what to do about chickenpox, since my attempts to expose the kids have been unsuccessful. I don't want to get the vax, but also don't want them to get it when they're older. I really wish I'd been able to find wild pox.

Quote:

Looking at research and being a research analyst qualified to analyze research in the medical field are two different things. I wouldn't expect a doctor to be qualified in computer science and I don't expect a man with a PHD in computer science to be an expert in medicine.
I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to here, but I don't expect a doctor to be a "research analyst qualified to analyze research in the medical field". I've seen too many instances where they clearly can't (or don't - makes no difference to me, as a patient, whether it's a lack of ability or a lack of desire) do such analysis. (I'm not claiming I can, either - but I'm not a doctor.)

Also, with respect to your earlier quote here:

Quote:

because my dd's doctor told me that people who have the vaccine are less likely to get shingles than people who don't.
How does your doctor know? How long has the varicellal vaccine been around? I first heard of it about...7-8 years ago, I think. The children who have received this vax as part of their routine immunizations aren't even close to old enough for us to have any real information about how the vax will affect the incidence of shingles.


----------



## One_Girl (Feb 8, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chamomile Girl* 
By that logic I suppose that no mama is qualified to look at the data for reasons not to vaccinate their children. 'Cause we sure don't all have PhDs (or is that MDs?). By that logic we should just turn all of our decision making power to those "who know better".

Give me a break. I am just as qualified to interpret medical data as mr. doctorman. And having a PhD _in anything_ certainly teaches you more about doing research than most medical professionals ever learn.

I don't feel as qualified as my doctor to interpret medical data. It is great that you do, but that isn't something I feel qualified to do. I feel qualified to teach and to research teaching related things, everyone has a passion though and I think it is awesome that you can use yours to make good decisions regarding your child. My dd has a doctor I trust a lot so I feel comfortable turning medical related decisions over to her because I feel she is more qualified to make those decisions. I have been lucky to have a very good doctor for my dd who keeps her comments on medical stuff, is big on alternative care methods, is very knowledgeable, and has a lot of experience so that trust comes easily. Obviously this isn't can have or even wants to have and I think you should do what feels right for your family and I will continue to do what feels right to me for mine.

Storm-Bride: I haven't seen anything commenting on being exposed to kids with chicken pox giving a booster shot in any of the stuff I have read. What I mean about the research is that people who research tend to have fields they know a lot about and those are the fields they are most qualified to research in. Knowing about research methods helps you understand what makes a good study and what doesn't but it doesn't help you understand the terms that are common to a particular field of study. A computer scientist could tell if a piece of research is good or not by looking at the general set up (as can almost anyone) but that doesn't qualify them to interpret the study. A doctor has enough knowledge about research and a knowledge base to interpret medical research a computer analyst has knowledge about research and a knowledge base to interpret computer science related studies. I go to a doctor for medical information and I ask my friends husband (a computer science expert) for information about computers. My mother does research in the disability field and recently turned down a job researching unemployment related material for the Department of Labor because it isn't her field of expertise and she knew nothing about unemployment stuff and didn't want to do it incorrectly. Medical research is an area where I would not trust someone who isn't qualified because the way it is interpreted can really change the course of someones life or end it. Also, the varicella vaccine was developed in the 1970's in Japan so I am sure research about it has been around for quite a while even though you weren't personally aware of it. I am sorry you have had so many bad instances with doctors not qualified to study the research in regards to what they prescribe. My family and I have been fortunate enough to have had knowledgeable doctors. Do you live back east by any chance? My mother is back east now and is shocked by how inept doctors are there compared to here (which really shocked me).


----------



## Tigerchild (Dec 2, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EviesMom* 
Actually, here in NYC during H1N1, we got nasty letters from the school from April until June saying that kids had to be in school unless they had fevers over 100.5 within the last 24 hours. They made it very clear that they didn't feel that parents could make the call as to how ill was ill enough to stay home. Family members being sick was not an excused absence in any way. That seemed to be the attitude of employers as well. So that's not universal.

I did not say it was universal, just relating my experience in our local area that was sucky. Our outbreak happened Octuber 2009, so it was Sept. through December 2009 that there was a lot of stressing keeping your kids home; normally the push is in the opposite direction, esp. at our school.

Our SD has the same policy (re: fevers, and attendance) due to how they get paid (daily headcount). However, our particular SD made the decision that they were not going to get draconian about attendance this year, because of the new virus and all the panic at the beginning of the school year.

I suspect that our elementary school had more stringent policies that they encouraged people to follow (very STRONGLY encouraged) because our school is one of the few elementary schools left in the SD with a full time nurse (acutally, I believe we are the ONLY one, and we have 2) so almost all of the district's medically fragile kids go to our school. Not that it helps children to institute the quarantine AFTER they come down with it, since you're contagious before being symptomatic, esp. for the flu.

However, I'm just pointing out that dealing with public health issues really sucks, especially if you are being pressed into or feel that you should comply with more conservative measures than you would like.


----------



## AutumnAir (Jun 10, 2008)

OP- In the situation you described, yes I would be upset by the manner in which I was uninvited by my friend, but I would not be upset by the reason.


----------



## jessemoon (May 31, 2004)

In terms of general illness etiquette, of course we can't know when our kids our incubating something, but if we do know, then we should try to avoid exposing other people....even if the disease is mild.

In my circle of friends, we keep each other posted about illnesses all the time....both before and after the fact. The other day ds came down with Fifth Disease. Unfortunately, it's one that is contagious long before any symptoms, so he had been to a playdate the day before. I called my friends whose children he had played with to give them a heads-up. No one blamed me for exposing their kids, but they all appreciated the warning and we cancelled a planned movie-date for the next day.

No, at that point, there was nothing that could be done about the transmission, but both of the families have working moms and money is tight. Being able to time to make a contingency plan for childcare or time off can make a huge difference in someone's budget or even job security.

I also researched Fifth Disease and called my very pregnant friend whose party we were all planning to attend at the end of the week. I told her what I had found out about contagious periods (not contagious after the rash appears), told her how long it would be since his rash started (4 days at that point) and let her make the call about whether we should stay home. She decided she was comfortable with ds attending and we had a great time. She is a very laid back mama of five, but I have a feeling she would have been pretty irritated at me if we hadn't checked in with her first.

Of course we can't plan for everything, but there are lots of reasons (safety, financial, family plans) that illness at a particular moment isn't convenient for a family. If you can give people the option, then do and respect their requests.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *One_Girl* 
Storm-Bride: <snip>
What I mean about the research is that people who research tend to have fields they know a lot about and those are the fields they are most qualified to research in. Knowing about research methods helps you understand what makes a good study and what doesn't but it doesn't help you understand the terms that are common to a particular field of study. A computer scientist could tell if a piece of research is good or not by looking at the general set up (as can almost anyone) but that doesn't qualify them to interpret the study. A doctor has enough knowledge about research and a knowledge base to interpret medical research a computer analyst has knowledge about research and a knowledge base to interpret computer science related studies. I go to a doctor for medical information and I ask my friends husband (a computer science expert) for information about computers. My mother does research in the disability field and recently turned down a job researching unemployment related material for the Department of Labor because it isn't her field of expertise and she knew nothing about unemployment stuff and didn't want to do it incorrectly. Medical research is an area where I would not trust someone who isn't qualified because the way it is interpreted can really change the course of someones life or end it.

<snip>

I am sorry you have had so many bad instances with doctors not qualified to study the research in regards to what they prescribe. My family and I have been fortunate enough to have had knowledgeable doctors. Do you live back east by any chance? My mother is back east now and is shocked by how inept doctors are there compared to here (which really shocked me).

I live in Canada (west coast), but I'm not only talking about my direct doctor-patient interactions. I'm talking about lots of things I've seen/read right from their own mouths (or keyboards) over the years.

Doctors may or may not be more qualified than non-doctors to analyse medical research. I don't actually agree that they necesarily _are_. I think it really depends on the individual. However, doctors also have their own biases and world views. In any case, a doctor saying "people who get the vaccine are less likely to get shingles" doesn't tell me whether that doctor has actually read, let alone analyzed, anything more than a statement from a drug company representative. I'm glad you have a doctor who does that, but there is no way to know if any given statement from a doctor is based on their analysis of research or on something they heard at a cocktail party, yk?

Quote:

I haven't seen anything commenting on being exposed to kids with chicken pox giving a booster shot in any of the stuff I have read.

<snip>

Also, the varicella vaccine was developed in the 1970's in Japan so I am sure research about it has been around for quite a while even though you weren't personally aware of it.
The 70s. I was born in '68, and I'm only 42. I don't know anything about the odds of someone who had the chickenpox vax getting or not getting shingles as an adult. Anybody they tested a childhood vax on in the 70s is unlikely to be much (if at all) older than I am. There _can't_ be sufficient research of the type necessary to determine that. We're not going to know one way or the other for a _long_ time.

I don't know anything about the varicella vaccine, with respect to booster shots, etc. In my previous post, I was just trying to clarify (for myself, mostly) what the other poster meant about shingles in the vaxed/unvaxed population.

I decided a long time ago not to get the varicella vaccine for my kids, unless I can't find wild pox (which is starting to look as though it may the way it goes). I'd personally much, much rather have the wild pox, for a variety of reasons. As such, it's not something I've researched very much at all. If I don't find wild pox again within about a year, I'll start doing more digging.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rejoiceinlife* 
Well I do know this: next time I expose my children to something, I will NOT be telling ANYONE.

You think that lying about infectious disease is a good idea? May you never have a loved one become immune compromised for any reason.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 
When I was a kid in school 30 + years ago, people didn't have to stay home to avoid exposure, because those who were sick knew THEY were the ones who should stay home. I think it's rude to go somewhere when you're sick. Why do people think that's okay? Just asking in general, not specifically the op...










In books of that era, there's things like a kid at school breaking out in spots and all the families of the other kids go into quarantine (meaning not leaving the house at ALL, with someone else doing the food shopping) for a couple of weeks until they either do or don't break out in spots.

Quarantine after exposure is what they did back when "everyone got it."

And then if they did catch the disease, they continued in quarantine for as many months as applicable.

With great big signs on the house.


----------



## cschick (Aug 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *earthmama369* 
I was old enough when I got the chicken pox 28 years ago to remember how it went down. I was exposed at school. I was on the early wave and was quarantined at home when I started showing symptoms. My sister was assumed to have been directly exposed through me -- she was quarantined without symptoms. She developed chicken pox a little over a week later. So yes, she did stay home for quite some time while feeling perfectly healthy.

I remember when I had chicken pox, being stuck in the house until I and all 4 of my sibs had been through the disease. I caught it from a neighborhood child, (we didn't know about the exposure) gave it to my whole 1st grade class, and missed most of the last month of school. This was in the early 1980s.

I had it first, followed by my younger sibs a while later. AFAIK, I exposed them. Once I was identified as having cp, we were all stuck at home.


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

nm...


----------



## One_Girl (Feb 8, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 

The 70s. I was born in '68, and I'm only 42. I don't know anything about the odds of someone who had the chickenpox vax getting or not getting shingles as an adult. Anybody they tested a childhood vax on in the 70s is unlikely to be much (if at all) older than I am. There _can't_ be sufficient research of the type necessary to determine that. We're not going to know one way or the other for a _long_ time.

I don't know anything about the varicella vaccine, with respect to booster shots, etc. In my previous post, I was just trying to clarify (for myself, mostly) what the other poster meant about shingles in the vaxed/unvaxed population.

I decided a long time ago not to get the varicella vaccine for my kids, unless I can't find wild pox (which is starting to look as though it may the way it goes). I'd personally much, much rather have the wild pox, for a variety of reasons. As such, it's not something I've researched very much at all. If I don't find wild pox again within about a year, I'll start doing more digging.

It may be that they are able to tell whether you have the chicken pox virus laying dormant by testing study subjects because they know that it lays dormant in a specific area of the body and sometimes reactivates. It is true that we don't know for sure if they will get shingles yet or not. I don't think my doctor is telling me something she heard while out and about, she seems very ethical. It is possible though. It is very easy to speak in a tone that conveys knowledge about everything despite just guessing and making things up (my grandpa does it all the time to win arguments). I'll have to ask her about it at our next well child visit.


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cschick* 
I remember when I had chicken pox, being stuck in the house until I and all 4 of my sibs had been through the disease. I caught it from a neighborhood child, (we didn't know about the exposure) gave it to my whole 1st grade class, and missed most of the last month of school. This was in the early 1980s.

I had it first, followed by my younger sibs a while later. AFAIK, I exposed them. Once I was identified as having cp, we were all stuck at home.

Obviously this is something that is handled differently in different places. When CP was going around when I was a kid, everyone got it. No one quarantined, except maybe staying home once you actually had spots. No one avoided everyone else...I am sure there were people who didn't particuarly want their kids to get it, but they dealt with it and didn't make a big deal of it AFAIK. DH remembers being made to sleep with his brother when he had CP so that he would get it too, so I don't think any quarantining was going on where he grew up either. I personally don't have a problem with the OP's philosophy, probably because of the way things were handled where I grew up.


----------



## brackin (Sep 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5* 
I think that the right thing for you to do is to keep your kids away from people who shouldn't get chicken pox (pregnant moms, babies, elderly people) until you're sure that they're not contagious.

This, exactly. IMO, it's important to not expose others once you've been exposed, because you can't possibly know everyone's story, and there are definitely those who could become very sick with chicken pox.


----------



## SubliminalDarkness (Sep 9, 2009)

No, I wouldn't be offended. They don't want to knowingly take a chance of their kids getting chicken pox right now. That's their choice to make. You might know that the risks are slight, but ultimately it's not your decision to make.


----------



## WifeofAnt (May 2, 2010)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *brackin* 
This, exactly. IMO, it's important to not expose others once you've been exposed, because you can't possibly know everyone's story, and there are definitely those who could become very sick with chicken pox.

Yep. Didn't read it all... but you don't know who is going where. Maybe possibly there's another kid at the party planning on visiting a pregnant relative. Its great that you can choose to expose your children to the real virus instead of vaccinating but you never know exactly how it would 'pan out' if you unintentionally passed it to someone who wasn't expecting it. I couldn't imagine how devastated I'd be if my immunity wore off and something happened to my baby because someone decided not to keep their kids at home.


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *caedmyn* 
Obviously this is something that is handled differently in different places. When CP was going around when I was a kid, everyone got it. No one quarantined, except maybe staying home once you actually had spots. No one avoided everyone else...I am sure there were people who didn't particuarly want their kids to get it, but they dealt with it and didn't make a big deal of it AFAIK. DH remembers being made to sleep with his brother when he had CP so that he would get it too, so I don't think any quarantining was going on where he grew up either. I personally don't have a problem with the OP's philosophy, probably because of the way things were handled where I grew up.

But if all your sibs and contacts were of the right age to get it safely, then that fits with how isolation policies worked.

I would confidently bet that your mother and neighbor moms would not have consciously sent infected kids or exposed sibs to play at a house where mom was pregnant, or where there was a newborn, or where there was a grandma who'd somehow never had it. People *did* try to purposely expose children in a certain age group to things like CP, measles, mumps etc -- but at the same time, there were societal expectations that you NOT heedlessly expose the very young, the already-sick, or anyone who was older and hadn't gotten it yet. That's why there were quarantine rules for those supposedly innocuous childhood diseases -- to try to limit exposure to those who would most likely suffer the most.


----------



## earthmama369 (Jul 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
No. They claimed to have quarantined healthy children if there was a reasonable suspicion that exposure of a communicable disease had occurred. If they were _really_ doing that, they'd have been closing schools on a regular basis.

As recently as 1995 (the year I graduated high school), our school was closed due to illness. It was the flu that last time around. I can think of at least four other times during my school years that the schools shut down entirely for anywhere from 1 to 4 days. They had a formula they followed -- if a certain percentage of the student and staff population was home sick or quarantined, they shut down.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *earthmama369* 
As recently as 1995 (the year I graduated high school), our school was closed due to illness. It was the flu that last time around. I can think of at least four other times during my school years that the schools shut down entirely for anywhere from 1 to 4 days. They had a formula they followed -- if a certain percentage of the student and staff population was home sick or quarantined, they shut down.

I've already addressed this (I think).

If a school requires the sibling(s) of an infected person to stay home, that's fine. They can have whatever policy they want. However, that does _not_ equate in any way to quarantining anybody who has a reasonable likelihood of having even exposed. It just doesn't. If they want to close the school, that's great - but keeping just keeping a sibling home is ineffective and borderline ridiculous.


----------



## Jugs (Mar 18, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *savithny* 
But if all your sibs and contacts were of the right age to get it safely, then that fits with how isolation policies worked.

I would confidently bet that your mother and neighbor moms would not have consciously sent infected kids or exposed sibs to play at a house where mom was pregnant, or where there was a newborn, or where there was a grandma who'd somehow never had it. People *did* try to purposely expose children in a certain age group to things like CP, measles, mumps etc -- but at the same time, there were societal expectations that you NOT heedlessly expose the very young, the already-sick, or anyone who was older and hadn't gotten it yet. That's why there were quarantine rules for those supposedly innocuous childhood diseases -- to try to limit exposure to those who would most likely suffer the most.

^^Ditto. I grew up in an area where very few people vaccinated, so these diseases were routine... but I have no recollection of anyone actually _seeking them out._ I remember if someone had the measles, anyone who hadn't had it yet was sent to stay with a neighbor or relative during the contagious period of infection. "Everyone got it" because normally they were exposed before an infected child was showing symptoms.


----------



## sahli29 (Jan 23, 2004)

I would be disappointed with the txt rather than a call,but it was probably uncomfortable for the mom to call you.A well worded email with apologies would have been better. Let her know her txt upset you and hopefully you can move on from this. If I was her I would probably set up a day to get together with your kids for a bit of fun.Not a party I know,but I would want to make up for telling you not to come.

Years ago,and I still hear it these days...people talk of suing when a parent knowingly exposes their child to a disease which caused severe complications or death of their child.Don't know if it was ever done. I would be upset if parents don't keep their sick kids home.Shoot even roseola can cause death in some kids.I think they were working on a vaccine for that one too!

I keep my kids home even with the school harping us.I am more concerned with MY kids picking up a secondary infection while they are fighting off the first one.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

If I knew my kids had a BD party to attend that was important to them, I wouldn't have made the decision to expose them to CP. Now if it was accidental exposure, can't do anything about that. Regardless I wouldn't be hurt if I was disinvited.


----------



## Angela512 (Dec 22, 2007)

^ I agree. And while I understand that the "normal" incubation period of CP is around 14 days, that doesn't mean that it can't happen earlier. I would not be upset at either the text or the request to not attend. Your friend probably felt a little hesitant to send you anything at all--hence the text, but felt she needed to at the same time.

My kids were exposed to CP once and I voluntarily kept them home from outings for a little over 2 weeks. The people who came by to visit were made aware of the situation and the choice left to them if they wanted to come or not. I have to respect that not everyone wants their kids exposed to stuff (knowingly) and go from there. I would hope that others would have the same respect for me.


----------



## Cascadian (Jan 28, 2009)

I agree with Angela - it does boil down to respect, rather than fighting for your 'cause'. It's obvious that the hostess is uncomfortable - for whatever reason, valid or not - and at that point, I would gracefully bow out rather than make an awkward situation even more uncomfortable. It wouldn't be my call to make, KWIM? Not my party, not my rules.

And I can see why she sent a text - a phonecall could have turned into an ugly debate.


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

I would not be offended at all. As a matter of fact I would not have taken my kids to a party if they had been intentionally exposed. Not everyone wants their kids to get it and when I expose my kids I know what I am under taking. Part of that is sequestering our family until we know for sure.


----------



## arb (Mar 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *baglady* 
Maybe it's more about the other kids at the party. She may be afraid that other parents will find out that she knew about the exposure and be upset that she didn't warn them. Or, maybe she's afraid others will find out before the party and not bring their kids.

That was my first thought.


----------



## KimberlyD0 (Mar 8, 2009)

I would uninvight someone to my childs party if they intentionally exposed their children to CP

Just because you want your kids to get them doesn't mean everyone else does. I also have an immunocomprimised child and would be angry if someone knowingly exposed my child to them.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rejoiceinlife* 
Well I do know this: next time I expose my children to something, I will NOT be telling ANYONE. I only told 2 people (fellow non-vaxers) that I thought might want to expose their children as well. I will not make that mistake again, next time if someone wants to expose their children, they can come to me when and if my children actually have the illness.

As far as I am concerned, it IS unreasonable for someone to completely ignore the time frame during which my children could be contagious. I have no problem with asking us not to attend an event if we were in the contagious window, or others choosing not to be around us in that time frame. When people just ignore the facts, I guess I do have a problem with that. There is not an issue of anyone who is immune compromised or adults who haven't had CP here, either with the party or anything else that has come up (it's a small community and I do know). I don't have a problem avoiding people who perhaps shouldn't be exposed, like someone who is due very soon and her 1 year old, or a baby who was born premature, or a newborn...during the contagious period, as a common courtesy. I do not see the need to avoid healthy vaccinated children, adults who have had CP, or the general public.

And I feel like all this becomes a bigger issue when I now have the choice of avoiding every situation where I'd normally come in contact with any of these people for several weeks (and there are quite a few, church 2x/week, a volunteer thing this weekend, playgroups, etc), or simply going about my business as usual and letting people choose to absent themselves and their entire families (including adult males who have already had CP, which is ridiculous IMO) because we are there when they know my kids could not be contagious. Perhaps from the middle of next week on when they could be contagious I'll choose differently, but not right now. It's chicken pox, not small pox, and really, would people have been acting this way 10 years ago (or however long ago it was) before the CP vaccine? I cannot imagine people simply stopped sending their children to school and doing anything socially for months out of fear of contracting CP when it was going around unless there were some extremely compelling reason like a immune suppressed individual.

I'll be honest, I think you are being selfish. You can decided what you want to do with your family, but at least have the decency to let others make an informed decision with theirs. As someone who has had cancer and had chemo for 6 months and had to avoid anyone recently vaxed or sick or exposed I'd have been livid if I found out you withheld such info.

Oh and just so you know, I am a non vaxer. My dd was exposed to CP but never got them.


----------



## Angela512 (Dec 22, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rejoiceinlife* 
It's chicken pox, not small pox, and really, would people have been acting this way 10 years ago (or however long ago it was) before the CP vaccine? I cannot imagine people simply stopped sending their children to school and doing anything socially for months out of fear of contracting CP when it was going around unless there were some extremely compelling reason like a immune suppressed individual.

It was still common courtesy to let others know when your kids could be contagious or were exposed. I knew plenty of people, even before vaccines were introduced for CP who wanted to know this. It's not a new phenomenon that just came up recently. Just like at school, they send a sheet home that says, "a student in the class has a brother who has come down with ___________. We are sending this home for informational purposes." This is usually sent so people can be aware of the symptoms to look for to keep cross-contamination in the schools down. Most people will not care too much...but maybe this family was going to go out of town the week after. Maybe she just didn't want her kids contracting CP right now.

And, just for informational sake, CP has an incubation period of 10-20 days. There are cases where someone becomes contagious (breaks out in the pox) in less than the "average incubation period". And the person becomes contagious 48 hours before any symptoms are seen. So, it's very possible that this other parent did make an informed decision and decided that this was not something she wanted to chance at her child's birthday, etc.

Either way, I think it very rude to expect someone to be completely accommodating to your choice to expose your children. They may not be ready to expose their children and you need to be respectful of that, as well.


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

It was common to alert everyone when a child had been exposed and exposed their child when I was doing daycare. that was bout 12 years ago.


----------



## Kirsten (Mar 19, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jennifer3141* 
I wouldn't be offended in the least. Just as it was YOUR choice to expose your kids to CP at this time, it's HER choice not to.

I see no reason to be upset. It's simply natural consequences.

I agree with this. It isn't personal; the hosting mom doesn't want to be responsible for making that call for all her guests. And if I was her guest, I'd be VERY appreciative of that. I took my dd to a sleepover where the mom said another invited child had pink eye, the mom had called to ask if she could still come, and the host mom was asking moms as they dropped off if it was ok. I said not with me. If the infected child was coming, mine couldn't stay. Infected child didn't come. It sucks to miss a party, but I don't want pink eye running through my house. Or lice. Or chicken pox. Or the flu. A cold I am fine with and don't bat an eye except when my dear friend was in end stage cancer and I couldn't have taken her to her doctor appts if we were sick.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DragonflyBlue* 
Choosing to expose your children to illness/disease means that you have to miss out on things like birthday parties and such. I think it's pretty crappy when parents decide what is okay for other kids to be exposed to.

Exactly. It is the parent's choice to knowingly expose, and I actually understand doing it although I personally didn't. But with that choice comes consequences - one of which is missing out on stuff for a couple weeks.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rejoiceinlife* 
Well I do know this: next time I expose my children to something, I will NOT be telling ANYONE.

That is really hard to accept. Trying to express myself without violating the user agreement.... I hope you and I live far apart. I would not be friends with someone who had that attitude and lack of respect for my family's health, not to mention our ability to see the kids' 85 year old gramma with dementia or several friends with cancer. Taking a couple weeks of "it's no big deal; it's just CP" for us may mean my family doesn't see some of their loved ones while they are still here and/or still remember us.









Quote:


Originally Posted by *number572* 
As far as chicken pox, I won't be vax'ing unless my kids don't get it naturally before age 11-12ish, and would be really disappointed in someone if they exposed my kids knowingly without asking me first. Its one thing to walk into an illness accidently, but quite another if the illness is brought knowingly by a sneaky person.

I also wait til my kids are 12 then vax if they don't get them naturally, though we don't actively seek it out. Dd1 got CP (never did find out how - no one else had them that we'd heard of) when she was 2. It was a pretty easy case, and back then she was an only child and wasn't in school and I was a SAHM. But some cases (as someone mentioned on this thread already) are really tough. Don't you DARE choose that for me!


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

OP - Please condsider carefully other people's situations. I hope you aren't serious about not telling people when you are possible contagious with a a somewhat serious illness. You really can't know others' personal situations, and it would have been really devastating for my older shildren to be exposed to CP right before their sister was born.


----------



## chaoticzenmom (May 21, 2005)

When I exposed my kids to chicken pox, I just heard that it was "up to" two weeks for the pox to show up. So, I checked every day for pox. On day 6, two of my kids had flat red spots all over their abdomen that went away in 24hours. Then it was another 8 days before the blisters showed up. So, I don't know about contagious, but it was definitely in there on day 6.

We warned everyone that was around the kids. I'm always afraid that my kids will somehow hurt old people. They can't run in certain places because "you'll knock over an old person and break their hip." Even the kids that came into my yard to play with mine got asked if they'd have the vaccine or the illness and if not, they had to ask their parents if it was ok.

Also, having 4 children, I'm VERY careful about contracting illnesses. Not so much with runny nose type things, but coughs, tummy aches, etc. I want warnings if anyone has been sick in the house for the previous week. One illness running through my house can keep us cooped up for over a month.

So, for the other parents, I think it was considerate of her to uninvite you, although the text did sound very impersonal. I don't think you said if she was a close friend or not. If you're texting each other, I'd think it's a fairly close friend.


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MommatoAandA* 
Mekat- I'm sorry for what you are going through.

I wanted to add, I did not mean to sound harsh about the immunocompromised, I work with them daily. I was just saying kids at this party could be exposed to something and the parent not even know it yet. My daughter currently has Step throat and I still have to go to work, even though I have made my employer aware of the situation. She played with her cousins and friends at a BBQ too last weekend and a few of them are no running fevers. I had NO idea until Saturday night when she had a fever that something was going on. Point is, having an immunocompromised loved one is frustrating and very hard, but they could be exposed to a lot of things a lot of places.

I think the OP is hurt. I do think there was a better way for her friend to uninvite her, like verbally, on the phone. I think it just sucks to have people run in every direction when they see you and your kids.

No, I think the point it *intentional* exposure. Of course illnesses are floating around out there, but we are talking about knowing you (or your kid) is sick (or could be) and bringing your illness to a party full of kids.


----------



## grumpybear (Oct 5, 2006)

I would not be offended at all.
OTOH, I might be a bit embarassed for not uninviting my child first.
And that whole bit about next time not telling anyone when you expose your child to illness- wow. Just wow. I never realized that some people could be THAT inconsiderate. And a parent for that matter. We all know how worrisome it is to have your baby be sick. To knowingly expose another family to an illness is just low.


----------

