would you be upset? uninvited from BD party after exposure to chicken pox - Page 9

[caedmyn]

nm...

[One_Girl]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[mattemma04]

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]

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]

^ 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.