Precautions When Unvaccinated Child Is Enrolled

[Controlled Chaos]

The ONLY reason I don't take un-vaccinated kiddos is (ok there are 2) 1. I try to enroll children with similar views as me on all aspects of parenting whenever possible 2. Because I don't want to be on the 6oclock news as the home daycare who had a measles outbreak. I don't actually think having a un vaccinated child puts me at greater risk of an outbreak of some kind, BUT it sounds worse on the news that way...We had a local center go through that and they never recovered. My goal everyday is DON'T be on the evening news...that's the goal

[nothingwithoutjoy]

My goal everyday is DON'T be on the evening news...that's the goal

yep, that's a good goal!

[nothingwithoutjoy]

I would just send a friendly email to your licensor to see if there are any requirements you aren't currently aware of...

I also find it a little sneaky that you are just now finding this out. This is a controversial issue and although they have every right to choose what they do or don't do in terms of health for their child; that is not something that shouldn't have been asked or discussed during the interview process (on their part).
Maybe that's just me.

Thank you. I did check with licensing; they have no requirements/concerns.

I don't think it was intended to be sneaky. I live in a pretty "crunchy" area and I bet it's not that unusual. The mom was upfront with other stuff that she could have kept private, so I think it was more that she didn't think it would be a problem.

[Angelsj]

The flippant attitude came when OP stated "If they don't vaccinate, what other risks do they take? Drive with the child in the front seat of the car with no seat belt?".

That came across wrong to me & a few others... everyone has their own reasons for doing what they do, but don't assume just because they do one thing you don't, does it mean they are reckless elsewhere in their life which is how it comes out

Exactly. There was no reason for that attitude. I was pretty clear. If you want to work with others who feel as you do, that is fine. But saying that if I choose not to vaccinate, I must risk my child's life by letting them ride in front without a seatbelt is just rude.

[NoMoreJuice!]

Exactly. There was no reason for that attitude. I was pretty clear. If you want to work with others who feel as you do, that is fine. But saying that if I choose not to vaccinate, I must risk my child's life by letting them ride in front without a seatbelt is just rude.

Perhaps I was a bit rude with my metaphor. Let me rephrase. It's like putting your potentially measles-infected child on a bus with a hundred cancer stricken children who absolutely can not have vaccines. Now THAT is rude.

[Angelsj]

Perhaps I was a bit rude with my metaphor. Let me rephrase. It's like putting your potentially measles-infected child on a bus with a hundred cancer stricken children who absolutely can not have vaccines. Now THAT is rude.

What you are not realizing here is that any one of those 'cancer stricken' kids as well as any child who HAS been vaccinated can also carry those measles germs. It is actually MORE likely that my "measles infected" kid will be kept home because I will actually know they have measles, whereas your vaccinated kid will not show symptoms but will still be able to infect others.

[LysesKids]

What you are not realizing here is that any one of those 'cancer stricken' kids as well as any child who HAS been vaccinated can also carry those measles germs. It is actually MORE likely that my "measles infected" kid will be kept home because I will actually know they have measles, whereas your vaccinated kid will not show symptoms but will still be able to infect others.

Same thing with the chicken pox vax... heck when the polio vaccine was oral, ALL my kids had to get a waiver because of cancer in the family (I was the live in caretaker); we found a way to get the dead vax after awhile (5 shots), but people don't understand that it's the vaccinated children who can spread stuff just as much if not more because they don't realize they are "shedding". I can't get the MMR due to allergies to the measles Vax - already had mumps so I'm good there, but I'm at risk every time one of my babies does get vaccinated (most of mine are alternate schedule)

[Willow]

I had a parent be sneaky about this intentionally. She interviewed with other daycares (found out after enrollment) and was upfront with them - they declined her the spots over it (against the law). When she interviewed with me mum was the word until drop off on the first day.

In MN I was required by licensing to post a notice on my front board that an unvaccinated child was in care in my home. It did cause a stir and I almost lost other parents for it. I let new kiddo's parents know via email that if/when other parents did vaccinate their children that I would not be responsible if her child contracted a preventable illness via their live attenuated regularly scheduled vaccines.

This is a very big reason why I'm delaying reopening at this point. I had my twin boys (prematurely) and one of them had a local reaction to 3 month vaccines, then a systemic reaction to 6 month vaccines. We live in a state with a large refugee population, in an area where the unvaccination rate is skyrocketing, and as a parent that is a concern to me. We are currently working extensively with an immunologist to sort out what caused my sons reactions. He will (hopefully) get the remainder of his vaccines in small steps and staggered. Since I can't depend on herd immunity to keep him well (which is INSANELY sad) I need to do what I need to do to get as many in as I can regardless of the risks involved with pushing his immunological response.

It's unfortunate, and absolutely INFURIATING that the law protects other children more than it allows me to protect my own in my own home. Since I legally can't say no to one, I have to say no to all at this time.

[Willow]

What you are not realizing here is that any one of those 'cancer stricken' kids as well as any child who HAS been vaccinated can also carry those measles germs. It is actually MORE likely that my "measles infected" kid will be kept home because I will actually know they have measles, whereas your vaccinated kid will not show symptoms but will still be able to infect others.

Or, that's not at all how immunology works or how the recent giant outbreak went.

Because it was nearly eradicated due to previously high vaccination rates, no one recognizes the actual symptoms anymore. period....your post exemplifies that incomprehension and is exactly how the most recent outbreak ended up spreading at Disney to nearly 200 people across 24 states.

Regardless of whether one is vaccinated or not, you can become infected and not show any visible symptoms for 8-10 days. You can infect others up to 4 days before the tell tale rash appears. Before then it merely presents as the common cold. This is exactly why it's so insanely contagious.

Unless you're going to quarantine your child for every single minor cold, no, you absolutely cannot prevent transmission to others just by seeing the rash.



Those vaccinated can contract measles but will typically not become as ill. Less coughing equates to less spreading. So no, those vaccinated are definitely not more of a risk to the general population than the unvaccinated are.

[Unregistered]

I had a parent be sneaky about this intentionally. She interviewed with other daycares (found out after enrollment) and was upfront with them - they declined her the spots over it (against the law). When she interviewed with me mum was the word until drop off on the first day.

In MN I was required by licensing to post a notice on my front board that an unvaccinated child was in care in my home. It did cause a stir and I almost lost other parents for it. I let new kiddo's parents know via email that if/when other parents did vaccinate their children that I would not be responsible if her child contracted a preventable illness via their live attenuated regularly scheduled vaccines.

This is a very big reason why I'm delaying reopening at this point. I had my twin boys (prematurely) and one of them had a local reaction to 3 month vaccines, then a systemic reaction to 6 month vaccines. We live in a state with a large refugee population, in an area where the unvaccination rate is skyrocketing, and as a parent that is a concern to me. We are currently working extensively with an immunologist to sort out what caused my sons reactions. He will (hopefully) get the remainder of his vaccines in small steps and staggered. Since I can't depend on herd immunity to keep him well (which is INSANELY sad) I need to do what I need to do to get as many in as I can regardless of the risks involved with pushing his immunological response.

It's unfortunate, and absolutely INFURIATING that the law protects other children more than it allows me to protect my own in my own home. Since I legally can't say no to one, I have to say no to all at this time.

I am also in MN. It is NOT against the law in our state to decline care based on not being vaccinated. Providers in MN CAN deny care to a child not vaccinated and vice versa. ESPECIALLY if you, the provider have valid reason to. Your kids' medical conditions.
Also wondering about licensing telling you that you need to post notice that you have an unvaccinated child in care. ?
Can you post the licensing regulation that state's that as I do not believe that to be true.
I just called my licensor and she said she would think doing that would be illegal since it's confidential information. Not just about the child but about your facility as well since you aren't required to notify anyone (parents) of anything other than licensing citations and/or correction orders that specifically state that you must post for 2 years.

[Unregistered]

.

It's unfortunate, and absolutely INFURIATING that the law protects other children more than it allows me to protect my own in my own home. Since I legally can't say no to one, I have to say no to all at this time.

Tom Copeland also reiterates that non-vaccinated children are not a protected class therefore you CAN deny care to them.

http://tomcopelandblog.com/may-i-refuse-care-to-a-child-who-is-not-immunized

Also here is the state licensing rule. The ONLY person you need to tell if you have non vaccinated kids is the state health board or state commissioner or health. I don't know what they are called. but here is the link to the state rules

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=121A.15

[Angelsj]

Regardless of whether one is vaccinated or not, you can become infected and not show any visible symptoms for 8-10 days. You can infect others up to 4 days before the tell tale rash appears. Before then it merely presents as the common cold. This is exactly why it's so insanely contagious.

Unless you're going to quarantine your child for every single minor cold, no, you absolutely cannot prevent transmission to others just by seeing the rash.



.

Pretty sure that was my exact point. A vaccinated child CAN spread the illness.

[Angelsj]

I had a parent be sneaky about this intentionally. She interviewed with other daycares (found out after enrollment) and was upfront with them - they declined her the spots over it (against the law). When she interviewed with me mum was the word until drop off on the first day.

Sneaky is not acceptable, and you do have a right to decline spots based on the safety of your children or simply by "not having a good fit" for your daycare. In this case, you choose to work with those who feel the same as you do philosophically.

In MN I was required by licensing to post a notice on my front board that an unvaccinated child was in care in my home. It did cause a stir and I almost lost other parents for it. I let new kiddo's parents know via email that if/when other parents did vaccinate their children that I would not be responsible if her child contracted a preventable illness via their live attenuated regularly scheduled vaccines.

I live in MN and have never been asked to post about non vaccinated kiddos. My licensor is fully aware I have non vaccinated kids, including my own.

This is a very big reason why I'm delaying reopening at this point. I had my twin boys (prematurely) and one of them had a local reaction to 3 month vaccines, then a systemic reaction to 6 month vaccines. We live in a state with a large refugee population, in an area where the unvaccination rate is skyrocketing, and as a parent that is a concern to me. We are currently working extensively with an immunologist to sort out what caused my sons reactions. He will (hopefully) get the remainder of his vaccines in small steps and staggered. Since I can't depend on herd immunity to keep him well (which is INSANELY sad) I need to do what I need to do to get as many in as I can regardless of the risks involved with pushing his immunological response.

This irritates me to no end. You need to do what you need to do to protect your kids. Why do you want to deny ME the right to do the same? You want the right to not vaccinate your child because you feel it is harmful, but want me to vaccinate mine, despite the fact that I feel it is harmful, to keep yours safe????

I realize you are saying you want to continue, which just floors me, but that is your right, and as a parent you must weigh and calculate the risks as well as be willing to live with the results. I must do the same.

It's unfortunate, and absolutely INFURIATING that the law protects other children more than it allows me to protect my own in my own home. Since I legally can't say no to one, I have to say no to all at this time.

Again, double check. This is not true for me in MN, so I see no reason it would be true for you.

[Willow]

Pretty sure that was my exact point. A vaccinated child CAN spread the illness.

Who in the heck argued otherwise and why does that matter so much to you?

Fact is, an infected vaccinated children will not spread measles as easily as an unvaccinated child will. That's simple biology. Exposure equates to better t-cell memory - equates to a stronger immune system - equates to a non or lessened symptomatic response to subsequent exposures. Less coughing equals less spreading. If one develops the cough that spreads the illness at all.

Fact is, your assertion was that you can prevent a non-vaccinated child from spreading measles simply by recognizing the symptoms and keeping them home.

On that front, you're wrong. Period.

I'm not here to argue whether your choice to vaccinate your child(ren) is wrong or not, only that the points you tried to make are.

[Willow]

I am also in MN. It is NOT against the law in our state to decline care based on not being vaccinated. Providers in MN CAN deny care to a child not vaccinated and vice versa. ESPECIALLY if you, the provider have valid reason to. Your kids' medical conditions.
Also wondering about licensing telling you that you need to post notice that you have an unvaccinated child in care. ?
Can you post the licensing regulation that state's that as I do not believe that to be true.
I just called my licensor and she said she would think doing that would be illegal since it's confidential information. Not just about the child but about your facility as well since you aren't required to notify anyone (parents) of anything other than licensing citations and/or correction orders that specifically state that you must post for 2 years.

It was Otter Tail County licensing. I was told I cannot deny care in the same way schools cannot deny care to those who are exempt (for any reason).

I was threatened with a write up at an inspection because I didn't have the notice posted. I expected the licensor knew regs better than I did and didn't question it.

The notice posted was generic (although I'm sure it wasn't hard to figure out who's kids they were). I'm not arguing that it was right or wrong, illegal or not, I was just doing what I was told I had to do to stay compliant.