Why should I go looking for chicken pox?

[naismama]

Mods, please move if this is in the wrong place...

I see lots of threads about chicken pox parties and trying to expose kids to the chicken pox. Can someone please explain to me why? I am asking this question in earnest, as my husband and I have been discussing this.

Both my kids (2, 4.5) are unvaxed. We researched so much before my first was born, that I probably knew the answer to my own question at some point, but now have just forgotten

I got chicken px at 14, and it was awful, but I really have nothing to compare it to. My daughter is starting kindy in the fall, and I kind of feel like it would be nice for her to have a natural immunity having gotten the disease young and with her mother home to take care of her. But my husband makes this argument: why go looking for trouble? Should I go looking for measles and mumps too? Why not just trust in their immune systems to protect them from any chicken pox they may encounter later on? Could someone please explain to me why so many parents of unvaxed kids go looking for chicken pox? I feel kind of silly asking this, so don't be afraid to use small words and simple language

thanks in advance,
naismama

[zinemama]

Because - as you yourself have experienced - chickenpox is very often more severe in adolescents and adults than in young kids. That's why folks want their kids to get it early, when it's more of a nuisance than anything else.

I didn't go looking for it specifically, but I'm glad my kids got it at 3yo and 7mo respectively.

[JessicaS]

It would be awful at fourteen.

When you are younger it is usually pretty mild.

I remember my sister and I running around in my grandmother's front yard in our nightgowns with the garden hose when I had CP (she did NOT approve! )

[vbactivist]

Wouldn't it also be dangerous to a pregnant woman's unborn baby if contracted during pregnancy?

[lotusdebi]

If chicken pox is so hard to find, then how likely is it that my children will contract it at any point in their lives?

After looking for chicken pox for years, I was finally able to expose my children a few months ago. It didn't take. Neither of them ended up with a rash. So, I figure I can keep looking, though at this rate my older child will be a teenager before he's exposed again, or I can forget about it and accept that it's so rare that my kids won't ever be accidentally exposed so it doesn't matter.

[naismama]

So then, is that pretty much it? That it would be better to have it now than later? Would it make more sense, then, to just get the vaccine? Lotusdebi--this is one of my husband's points:

Originally Posted by lotusdebi

If chicken pox is so hard to find, then how likely is it that my children will contract it at any point in their lives?

Any other wisdom is greatly appreciated!

[rachelsmama]

I had it when I was 13, my kids got it when they were 1 and almost 4. All three of us had hundreds and hundreds of spots. My kids were only miserable for about 36 hours each, and the rest of the time they just looked funny and took more naps than usual, but I was miserable for a week, and spend most of that time lying in bed. I'm very glad they got it as children.

It's not as common as it used to be, so yes, they would have been less likely to get it as teens or adults, but mumps is pretty rare too and there are occasional outbreaks at universities. If the kids hadn't gotten natural chickenpox as children I wouldn't have freaked out about it, but I would have discussed with them the pros and cons of getting vaccinated as teens or adults, which I consider to be slightly different than vaccinating a one year old.

[laohaire]

It's not as common, thus you do have to seek it out. Yet it's hardly eridicated. So you certainly run the risk of having your child contract it when they are older - adolescence, adulthood, or even old age.

Why not just do the vaccine? That's an easy one. Because natural immunity is safer and more effective.

Based on how the disease acts under different circumstances, it appears that we have evolved to ideally contract the chicken pox at least twice, spaced out over maybe 20 years: once as a child, and once as the parent of a child who has it. When it is done like this, you have the least chance of complications.

Some diseases are termed "childhood diseases" and appear to actually be beneficial diseases in a way, that help our immune systems when exposed at the expected stages of life.

Why don't people seek out measles and mumps and rubella? I can only answer for myself but it's reasonable that my answer might be the answer for many others as well. I would actually prefer my DD to be exposed to rubella as a child too, but it's not frequently recognized. Tell me, what does rubella look like? Hm, I don't really know either. And I'm sure the parents of the afflicted child doesn't know either, and aren't going around saying "oh, my child has rubella." And, no, it's not likely being diagnosed by the doctor either - its incidence has dropped but it's also a mild disease, so most kids aren't even being brought to the doc, much less being accurately diagnosed by doctors who have been taught something other than evidence-based medicine for childhood disesases. So, I really don't have a realistic way of finding a kid with rubella to expose my DD to.

Mumps, I don't know enough about to have decided I would like DD to have, but I haven't bothered researching the question for the above reason - how likely am I going to find mumps anyway? I'm not afraid of it, but spending effort seeking it out seems kind of wasted. Same with measles. Previous generations knew exactly what measles looked like but our social memory of it has faded, and my generation doesn't have a clue (I certainly never had measles or saw anyone who did, so what do I know about it?).

But chicken pox is still in our social memory. I had it. You probably had it. We know about it. We know what it looks like. We know not to be afraid of it, at least in children. So people have chicken pox parties, and thus it's a realistic option whereas a rubella party just isn't.

[laohaire]

I forgot to mention that shingles infections is apparently on the rise because people aren't being exposed at the traditional times (particularly, at this time, it's parents of kids who weren't exposed are sometimes being exposed later, to their detriment). Ideally, you get a dose in childhood and in early adulthood as a parent. If you get a dose in childhood and then not again until you're 60, that can obviously be more complicated. So I'd rather follow the expected and optimal pattern that our species and the disease seem to have worked out.

The vaccine is not as effective as natural exposure, neither at the time of the vaccination nor in terms of how long immunity lasts. I think immunity is about 5 years? Do you want your kids to have to take the vaccine and all its known and unknown risks every 5 years for the rest of their lives? (And how likely is that?) And even then hope that they are not among the, what, 20%? - for whom the vaccine is ineffective in the first place? For a disease that is mild and apparently beneficial to humans? Anyway, those are just my thoughts on it.

[naismama]

Thanks for your response, laohaire. But you mentioned this:

Originally Posted by laohaire

For a disease that is mild and apparently beneficial to humans?

in both of your posts. Do you have a link for this? Beneficial how? Do you just mean in general "strengthening the immune system terms"? Or are there some specific benefits related to that disease (or any/ all of the "childhood diseases) in particular. I do know that there is now a recommendation for varicella vaccines at 1yo and then again at kindergarten or 7th grade. I had forgotten about that.

[laohaire]

Originally Posted by naismama

Do you have a link for this? Beneficial how? Do you just mean in general "strengthening the immune system terms"? Or are there some specific benefits related to that disease (or any/ all of the "childhood diseases) in particular.

I mean immune system benefits.

Sorry, I don't have any links - I did my research 4 years ago. Also, most of my research was in books or looking at raw data from the CDC (who seem to move those links with the data around to confound us).

[zinemama]

Although it's not as prevalent as it was, you don't necessarily have to seek out chicken pox. I have no idea where my kids picked it up.

[mbravebird]

The vaccine is one of the least effective, and is leaving kids with the shingles, which is unprecedented. Also, in order to avoid endangering her unborn baby, your adult daughter would have to be really up on her boosters. If it worked for her in the first place.

Much simpler to get really good immunity from the actual illness. Any illness can have complications, but in this case a young woman who has no immunity to chickenpox can also have complications.

I exposed my son and he didn't get it. Then he got it by accident, and it was a really mild case. It could be it was mild because of his previous exposure. Anyway, it was long, with a couple of fevers and a handful of spots, only one of two of which were itchy.

This is one of those cases where you can't know the "right" answer. You just have to make the best decision you can. Good luck!

[cheryllynn]

I had chicken pox between 7 & 8th grade, my sister and brother did too. I was the oldest and sickest.

Problem with the vaccine is all the other chemicals in it like mercury, aluminum, etc. in addition to it not being as effective.

Chicken Pox can be serious though. I would purchase the book Raising a Vaccine-Free Child and read on the different childhood illnesses and also how to take care of your child if/when they do contract a disease like chicken pox. I too would frown upon any sick child running through a sprinkler. I think they should be kept quiet, warm but not too warm and resting.

To me, any vaccine is risking all sorts of disorders from asthma, allergies, autism, etc as no vaccine has been tested in conjunction with all other vaccines and I don't believe any vaccine has been watched for 10 to 80 years to see what effects there might be in the future.

However, diseases are also serious and can be life-threatening, so I don't take this decision lightly.