or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › would you be upset? uninvited from BD party after exposure to chicken pox
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

would you be upset? uninvited from BD party after exposure to chicken pox - Page 5

post #81 of 185


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.
post #82 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by vbactivist View Post
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-
post #83 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post
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!
post #84 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post
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.
post #85 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbie64g View Post
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.
post #86 of 185
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.
post #87 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post
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 View Post
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.
post #88 of 185
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?
post #89 of 185
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.
post #90 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer3141 View Post
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.
post #91 of 185
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.)
post #92 of 185
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"
post #93 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by ameliabedelia View Post
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.
post #94 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by ameliabedelia View Post
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.
post #95 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by earthmama369 View Post
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.
post #96 of 185
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.
post #97 of 185
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.
post #98 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by earthmama369 View Post
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.
post #99 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post
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.
post #100 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by savithny View Post
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......
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › would you be upset? uninvited from BD party after exposure to chicken pox