U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-19-2012, 10:02 AM
 
Location: Wherever life takes me.
5,970 posts, read 6,410,015 times
Reputation: 3034

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead View Post
Well, it's not really like that. My niece went over the 18 days when her dad passed away, he was a solider in Iraq. She was having a lot of problems dealing with it, got panic attacks, that kind of thing. Her absences although the mom called the school were treated as unexcused because they weren't medical. The truant officer came to her home, they got a court date and went to court. My sister in law thought for sure they would be understanding but instead she ended up paying a large fine, going to truancy classes, and was told if she missed anymore days she would (the mom) have to do some jail time. So, you really don't have the room for standing up for yourself. You will be in jail by that time. They make few exceptions. A doctor can appear in court with you if the child is deemed a health hazard.
Let me add, this has to be serious enough for you to apply for special ed. That is usually what you do if the mental illness is serious enough for them to let it slide. That way there are exceptions in place for you. We probably have more special ed kids out here that just have panic issues than other states. This is the reason.
That's such a shame, this month is not a good month for my faith in the legal system, its really disappointing me, what cold heartless bastards, the whole court. I would appeal if I was your neices mom, that is just backasswards.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-19-2012, 04:29 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
16,529 posts, read 16,055,425 times
Reputation: 39022
Many years ago I worked at a school for Birth through Three Year Old Handicapped Children. Their policy was that you must be symptom free for 24 hours before returning to school. If any child went home sick (fever, vomiting, diarrhea) the van driver was notified so that they didn’t need to make “a unnecessary stop” at the child’s home the next morning. If the parent brought the child in to school the school secretary or teacher just reminded them of the policy and immediately sent them home. I often thought that was a very effective way to keep the rate of illness as low as possible (especially since some of the students had impaired immune systems).

The following years I taught in public schools. You would be shocked at how often I would get notes from parents saying things like “Johnny was throwing but I’m sure he is fine now”, “George may be grumpy as he was awake all night with a fever” and “Here are spare clothes in case Mary’s diarrhea returns”. Of course many times Johnny threw up, George had a fever or Mary had diarrhea sometime after class started. Why didn’t the parents keep them home in the first place? Not only was it contagious but imagine the embarrassment for the child. I still feel bad for “Mary” when I remember her crying when the diarrhea suddenly soaked through her underwear and pants in the classroom before she could get to the bathroom.

When my children were young I did not have any relatives in town but I had back-up care for when they were sick and I couldn’t take off of work. I also had back-up care in case the back-up care didn’t work out AND I even had back-up care in case the back-up care for the back-up care didn’t work out (emergency sick care in a hospital pediatrics ward that cost much more than I made in salary but it was the last day of school and I absolutely couldn't be absent). I kept wishing that these parents would have arranged back-up child care rather than just sending their sick children to school.

Last edited by germaine2626; 02-19-2012 at 05:04 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2012, 07:47 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,618 posts, read 26,294,002 times
Reputation: 26706
I have a cold right now. Sneezing, stuffy runny nose, achy, the whole bit. It's the first cold I've had in years.

I have not been out of the house for 3 days except for brief walks with the dog, whose nose is out of joint because the walks have not been longer.

Since I loved school, I went when I was sick. I would take a stack of tissues and make my way through the day.

I shudder to think how many classmates and teachers may have gotten sick because of me.

I had an example, though. My dad went to work sick, too.

Now I think sick folks --- kids and adults --- should stay home.

Just because some classmates or coworkers may have already been exposed to what you have before you started having symptoms does not mean that all of them were.

Children do not have to get sick to make their immune systems stronger. While it is not necessary to try to sterilize their environment by spraying disinfectant on every surface, it is also not necessary to deliberately expose them to someone who is sick. I would be very upset if my kid got sick before a special occasion because someone else sent her sick child to school.

I do think some school systems should have more flexibility in dealing with children who are missing more than the allowed days but do have a legitimate reason to do so.

In my day, there would have been a visiting teacher who came to the home and dropped off assignments. Is that not an option any more? My own child with leukemia graduated with his original high school class. He did a lot of work at home. His private school worked with us to keep him caught up,even though he was in the hospital a lot. It would have been much more difficult with a public school, I'm sure. It should not be that difficult to tell whether a child has a legitimate reason to miss school or is really truant.

And about hand sanitizers:

Hand Sanitizer: Myths and Facts - Hand Sanitizers Reviews

Bacteria do not become resistant to them if they contain 60% alcohol. They kill bacteria, so there is no way for the bacteria to multiply and mutate. They may actually be gentler on the hands than washing multiple times with soap and water, since most have moisturizers added. They are better germ killers than soap and water.

So if hands are not visibly soiled but you have handled something germy, a sanitizer is a good choice. Obviously, if you appear to be allergic to something in a sanitizer, I would not use it. Just soap and water. Hospitals actually prefer hand sanitizes for staff to use before caring for patients because it is easier and more effective.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2012, 08:09 PM
 
Location: The Hall of Justice
25,907 posts, read 35,102,554 times
Reputation: 42377
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
And about hand sanitizers:

Hand Sanitizer: Myths and Facts - Hand Sanitizers Reviews

Bacteria do not become resistant to them if they contain 60% alcohol. They kill bacteria, so there is no way for the bacteria to multiply and mutate. They may actually be gentler on the hands than washing multiple times with soap and water, since most have moisturizers added. They are better germ killers than soap and water.

So if hands are not visibly soiled but you have handled something germy, a sanitizer is a good choice. Obviously, if you appear to be allergic to something in a sanitizer, I would not use it. Just soap and water. Hospitals actually prefer hand sanitizes for staff to use before caring for patients because it is easier and more effective.
It's my understanding that washing your hands with soap and water is typically preferable to using hand sanitizer.

CDC - Handwashing: Clean Hands Save Lives

Quote:
Washing hands with soap and water is the best way to reduce the number of germs on them. If soap and water are not available, use an alcohol-based hand sanitizer that contains at least 60% alcohol. Alcohol-based hand sanitizers can quickly reduce the number of germs on hands in some situations, but sanitizers do not eliminate all types of germs.
Hand washing: Do's and don'ts - MayoClinic.com

Quote:
It's generally best to wash your hands with soap and water.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2012, 08:39 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
85,082 posts, read 99,155,665 times
Reputation: 31559
First 30 posts (if any of this has already been responded to, I apologize):[

QUOTE=golfgal;23006030]Exposing kids to germs at a young age actually boosts their immune system. If a child just has a cold, I don't see the need to isolate them, for something worse than that, yes, stay home. Your hand sanitizer is actually harming your child more than it is helping and "keeping your child healthy" will backfire down the road when he is in school.[/quote]

The "dirt theory" has been way misunderstood by laypeople. Keeping sick kids away from well kids is the best way to stop the spread of illnesses. Hand sanitizer/hand washing certainly IS important, either one will work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohiogirl22 View Post
I NEVER use hand sanitizer. The only times I will do it is if we are going to eat and I'm not going to be able to wash my hands before. I try to wash my hands when I get home from work, after the bathroom, and before I eat. That's it. Of course if I'm cooking and handling meat I wash too.

Everyone at my work is sick this week. EVERYONE. They are coming to disinfect our whole floor because everyone comes in sick. It's not just a school problem.
They're not sick at your work due to lack of exposure to germs. This theory has been so twisted that people have gotten the idea it's just fine to run around in public sick, to not wash hands frequently, etc. Do some research.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wmsn4Life View Post
I see it all the time when I fill in at the church nursery. One time I had a 4-year-old throw up while his parents were in church. When I was cleaning him up, he said, "I threw up on the bed this morning, too, but Mom said it would make me feel better and I was probably fine."

And no, bringing a sick kid to group activities is not like naturally inoculating them against future illnesses. I agree with the late great George Carlin that we could all use a little more dirt in our lives, but keep your germs at home.
Yes, my daughter worked at the church nursery while in high school, and she frequently got sick from the kids. Then she worked at a day care, same issues. Parents will bring kids in and say, for example, "He had a fever of 103 last night (this is at 7 AM), but he's fine now". By 10 AM, the day care staff is calling the parents to get the kid b/c he's spiked another fever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgal View Post
It means exactly that....there are 1000's of different viruses that cause colds. One you have been exposed to those viruses your body develops an immunity to those bugs. Kids get sick more often than adults because they don't have that immunity. If you prevent your 3, 4, 5 year old from getting sick, they will have more colds, catch everything once they start school.
Perhpas, but at that point they'll be more able to handle the illnesses. Little babies and toddlers were not meant to be around so many germs. I'm not opposed to day care; I'm saying people need to use their heads and keep kids home when sick.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucidkitty View Post
Babies also tend to more isolated than older kids so that might factor into why. Also if you breastfeed then they works stimulates your childs immune system. It's also possible your kid has a very strong immune system to .
You don't get much immunity from breast feeding after the first few days of life. The immunity a newborn gets is "passive immunity" and it wears off quickly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYMD67 View Post
I am currently home with a sick child as well... She has been home for 3 days now. I don't undserstand the parents who send their children to school sick, but if it is just a cold, they can go.

Here's a ? My daughter had strep a few months ago, I didn't send her to school for 2 days. I waited for a full 2 days with the antibiotic. A mon I k own said her son gets step often and she sends him right after they get the antibiotic, she sometimes doesn't wait out a 24 hour period...
What is the "protocol"? For something like that?
I know they are usually more contagious prior to getting treatment....
I'm surprised your doctor didn't tell you this. The general rule of thumb for strep is 24 hours on the antibiotic. If a child starts their AB say by noon, I'll tell the parents they can send the child back to school in the morning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2012, 08:49 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
85,082 posts, read 99,155,665 times
Reputation: 31559
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgal View Post
When my kids were little and got strep, if they were into the dr first thing in the morning and had their first dose of antibiotic say at 9 or 10 am, I would send them the next day if they were feeling ok. If they didn't get the antibiotic until late in the day, say 3-4 PM, I would keep them home. The thing people forget is that they were just as contagious the day before you took them to the doctor too.
I agree with your approach, and that's what I tell parents, too. Re: the bold, it's true, but nevertheless, reducing the exposure is important. Most kids are glad to get that day off school.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sas0814 View Post
This is silly. If people, especially kids weren't exposed to germs we'd all die. I hate the fact that schools make kids stay home when sick with common colds.
Bet you won't feel this way when your kid grows up and has no immune system due to too much santizer.
This is incorrect (to say the least). We are all exposed to many germs every day. Your immune system has no problem developing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by southshorelady View Post
I was under the impression that viruses are most contagious the 2 days BEFORE symptoms appear. That means you are infecting all the other children in the school before you even realize your child is sick. Add the fact that some children will have a runny nose for 2 weeks even though they've been feeling fine for days. Should we keep first graders home from school for 2 weeks every time they get a cold even though they probably already spread the germs to their classmates prior to becoming symptomatic. For some reason, I think it's more important for the child to go to school when s/he is feeling well enough to attend rather than worrying about all the germs. Germs are everywhere and kids are gross. You do your best to teach good practices to limit the spread of germs, but you can't keep them in a bubble.

The whole green snot thing is overblown too. That does not mean there is an infection, it just means it's been hanging around for awhile. That's why children have it more often because they are poor nose-blowers.
Some diseases are contagious before symptoms develop. Influenza is contagious about 24 hrs before symptoms. Colds are most contagious the first few days of illness, when symptoms are most severe. Complicating the situation is that young kids don't have the greatest of hygiene. They cough, sneeze, pick their noses and then touch things, etc.

The "green snot" issue may be just because the child has had the cold a while, or it may be the sign of a sinus infection. As someone pointed out, sinus infections are not contagious per se.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2012, 09:24 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,618 posts, read 26,294,002 times
Reputation: 26706
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJulia View Post
It's my understanding that washing your hands with soap and water is typically preferable to using hand sanitizer.
I did not intend to minimize the importance of hand washing. I've done it a lot the last few days! The problem is that most of the time we do not do it long enough.

Thirty seconds worth of a hand sanitizer works better than thirty seconds of hand washing. This study did actual bacterial counts before and after washing or using sanitizer.

Efficacy of handrubbing with alcohol based solution versus standard handwashing with antiseptic soap: randomised clinical trial

If I were in a hospital, I would rather watch someone use the foam sanitizer next to the door than trust them to wash their hands long enough to do some good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2012, 09:57 PM
 
Location: 89074
495 posts, read 589,840 times
Reputation: 838
My complaint about schools and sick kids is the 24-hour rule of not allowing them to return to school unless they were fever-free for that long. Sometimes, my dd would run a slight fever and not feel well because of allergies. She'd spend the next day at home feeling perfectly fine and have to wait until the afternoon to try and cram in all the make-up work.

Same thing if she threw up because she ate something that didn't agree and then was otherwise fine. I guess these rules are for people who can't/won't recognize the difference between mild illness and being sick but it drove me crazy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2012, 12:58 AM
 
Location: Hyrule
8,401 posts, read 9,579,621 times
Reputation: 7421
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJulia View Post
It's my understanding that washing your hands with soap and water is typically preferable to using hand sanitizer.

CDC - Handwashing: Clean Hands Save Lives



Hand washing: Do's and don'ts - MayoClinic.com
Since you seem to know a little about this I'll ask you a question I've had for a while. Does hand sanitizer just work on bacteria or viruses as well? It says anti bacterial on it but I imagine it kills viruses as well, right? This always confuses me. I always wash my hands when worried I've come in contact with a virus because I'm not positive that the anti bacterial gel kills anything but bacteria. Do you know anything about this?
I googled it but all I came up with was anti bacterial gel only kills bacteria. Some said maybe it would kill some virus, about 40% but only soap and water will remove most of the virus, something like 96% but not the hand sanitizer. Do you know if this is correct?
I rarely need to kill bacteria, it's the viruses I use it for if I'm out so I'd like to know if I'm doing any good by using it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2012, 03:43 AM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,618 posts, read 26,294,002 times
Reputation: 26706
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead View Post
Since you seem to know a little about this I'll ask you a question I've had for a while. Does hand sanitizer just work on bacteria or viruses as well? It says anti bacterial on it but I imagine it kills viruses as well, right? This always confuses me. I always wash my hands when worried I've come in contact with a virus because I'm not positive that the anti bacterial gel kills anything but bacteria. Do you know anything about this?
I googled it but all I came up with was anti bacterial gel only kills bacteria. Some said maybe it would kill some virus, about 40% but only soap and water will remove most of the virus, something like 96% but not the hand sanitizer. Do you know if this is correct?
I rarely need to kill bacteria, it's the viruses I use it for if I'm out so I'd like to know if I'm doing any good by using it.
It's late and Wiki was the fastest:

Hand sanitizer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Alcohol rubs kill many different kinds of bacteria, including antibiotic resistant bacteria and TB bacteria. It also has high viricidal activity against many different kinds of viruses, including enveloped viruses such as the flu virus, the common cold virus, and HIV, though is notably ineffective against the rabies virus.[18] [19] [20] Alcohol rub sanitizers are not very effective against Norovirus (winter vomiting virus) unless they are combined with benzalkonium chloride in a hand sanitizer.[21] Alcohol rubs also kill fungi.[22] University of Virginia Medical School researchers concluded that hand sanitizing is more effective against fighting the common cold than hand washing.[23] Alcohol kills both pathogenic (disease causing) microorganisms as well as resident bacterial flora, which generally do not cause illness. [24] Research shows that alcohol hand sanitizers do not pose any risk by eliminating "good" germs that are naturally present on the skin. The body quickly replenishes the good germs on the hands, often moving them in from just up the arms where there are fewer harmful germs."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top