Do you think it is better to expose children to germs when they are infants or try to protect them as long as possible?

DH doesn't want DS to go gymboree type classes because he thinks DS will get sick from germs. DS had a rough start in life (had surgery) but is a totally normal healthy 5 month old baby now. DH and my mom think we should wait until DS is at least 1 year old.

Do you think it is better to expose little ones to germs early or would you try to shelter them as long as possible?

Re: Do you think it is better to expose children to germs when they are infants or try to protect them as long as possible?

Well no surprise here, I'm all about getting my DS out and about. In fact, he had some peanut butter to try on Thursday for the first time, so far so good. I know many wouldn't agree with my beliefs, but I'm a firm believer in exposing a lot to my DS early on. I truely believe it prevents allergies and makes their immune systems stronger. JMO though. My DS is 7 mos old, so far, so good.

Message edited 8/17/2009 3:23:32 PM.

Re: Do you think it is better to expose children to germs when they are infants or try to protect them as long as possible?

That's hard to say. I have no choice but to send DS to daycare next month and he'll only be 3 and a half months when he goes. I don't see anything wrong with the gymboree classes though. You'll be right there and it's not an all day thing. Your DC will have fun and keep wipes with you just to wash his hands and face after then go home and give him a bath.

Re: Do you think it is better to expose children to germs when they are infants or try to protect them as long as possible?

I think its better for mommy to stay sane. I think going or not going is of no importance. You being bored out of your mind is important.

Re: Do you think it is better to expose children to germs when they are infants or try to protect them as long as possible?

Re: Do you think it is better to expose children to germs when they are infants or try to protect them as long as possible?

i 100% believe in exposing kids to the world. i've been taking DS out from the very beginning and don't want to keep him in a bubble

Re: Do you think it is better to expose children to germs when they are infants or try to protect them as long as possible?

Message edited 8/17/2009 3:34:24 PM.

Re: Do you think it is better to expose children to germs when they are infants or try to protect them as long as possible?

for me, i rather expose my dd to daycare and gymboree type things when she is one.
right now, i feel i need to keep her from getting sick at such a young age. once she is 1 and anytime after that, it is fair game and i cant really keep her in a bubble.

Re: Do you think it is better to expose children to germs when they are infants or try to protect them as long as possible?

If the child was going to be exposed to germs regardless and I HAD to choose, I'd ratther it be now. I've had Abby out of day care for one week here and there because she was sick. As inconvenient as it was, she wasn't missing a day of school when she would have been learning how to read, write or count. In other words, Id rather her miss a day of fingerpainting in day care, than academics once she hits school age.

Re: Do you think it is better to expose children to germs when they are infants or try to protect them as long as possible?

I believe there is a middle ground. When my DD was a newborn, I was all about protecting her because she was defenseless against germs at that point. Until around 6-10 weeks, I was very protective of her, didn't go out much, and insisted anyone who touched her washed their hands first. Then I slowly started to expose her to more things. I am in no way a germ-o-phobe, but I still am a little protective. I don't like strangers touching her and wouldn't bring her around someone I knew was sick. At the same time, I let her touch everything, am not afraid of dirt or general germs in the air. I don't purell my own hands, but I wash them appropriately. I do believe in exposure to build up defenses, but when they are little, I also believe in protecting them and never agree with over-exposure. (eg, i wouldn't bring her around people/kids I knew were sick. she will have plenty of that in school as she grows up.)

Re: Do you think it is better to expose children to germs when they are infants or try to protect them as long as possible?

I went against a lot of my family and my DH actually and wanted to expose her earlier rather than later, bc my mom basicaly kept me in a bubble and the second I went to school I was getting sick non stop, so I would rather expose DD earlier. On the other hand I think if I had a DD that went through surgery etc, I would be more anal, even though he's fine now, I know I would just still be that way, just bc of what I had gone through...KWIM?

Re: Do you think it is better to expose children to germs when they are infants or try to protect them as long as possible?

Posted by kerrycec03

Posted by Calla

I think its better for mommy to stay sane. I think going or not going is of no importance. You being bored out of your mind is important.

Re: Do you think it is better to expose children to germs when they are infants or try to protect them as long as possible?

Re: Do you think it is better to expose children to germs when they are infants or try to protect them as long as possible?

I have never worried about germs excessively. I took my kids out pretty early, let other people hold them, have done classes with them. Knock on wood, they have all been very healthy, very few colds, and I think DS1 had one stomach virus ever (DS2 and DD haven't had any at all). I think exposing them in small doses is good for them.

Re: Do you think it is better to expose children to germs when they are infants or try to protect them as long as possible?

I am a fan of waiting until the age of 1. That's my plan. I think it matters more if youare a SAHM and you have that choice. People who use daycare obviously don't have a choice in waiting to expose the child to germs. So since I am a SAHM, yes, I will be holding off on group setting things until after one year old.

When we grew up, we had SAHMs, no gymboree, etc and we were no sicker than any other children once we hit school. So I go by that. For me, I rather have a stronger, larger one year old fighting off Rotovirus than a 5 mth old. Or a child that can tell me more when they are feeling ill, than an infant. Or a child eating solids who gets sick, than a child just on formula.

I think MOST of those classes are more for the moms than the kids. So I will deal with the boredom for a while longer.

JMO

Message edited 8/17/2009 4:30:48 PM.

Re: Do you think it is better to expose children to germs when they are infants or try to protect them as long as possible?

Re: Do you think it is better to expose children to germs when they are infants or try to protect them as long as possible?

Honestly I would wait, while it is good to expose them to things why under a year when they are still so fragile and tiny- they have the next 80-90 years to get sick and once they get mobile and you are going out more they will have that chance why push it? And just b/c your friend's child has a cold doesn't mean you child wont end up w/ pneumonia kwim each child is different. If you child already has had a rough start why push it, you don't have to live in a bubble but you can still be a little cautious. I don't think that a child who was sick more often before one is any better off than a child who gets sick more often at one or two.

Re: Do you think it is better to expose children to germs when they are infants or try to protect them as long as possible?

Re: Do you think it is better to expose children to germs when they are infants or try to protect them as long as possible?

My answer to your question is no and yes. I don't think you necessarily have to keep your child out of gymboree type activities to keep them healthy. My DS went to gymboree and music together b/f he was one and was only sick once (when he was 10 months old). You can bring your child to play groups etc. and still keep them away from germs if you are there - just be aware - keep him away from sick kids, keep him away from toys and things that have been mouthed and chewed on, keep him from doing the same and be vigilant about wiping down hands after. I do think 5 mos may be early though and somewhat unnecessary - maybe 8-9 months?

That said - I DO NOT think it is better to expose children to germs younger or that it is better for them to get sick alot when they are younger. In my own life I have never seen any evidence of this being the case. All of my family/friends kids that were sick all the time from daycare STILL get sick all the time. They have tubes in their ears b/c they got so many infections from daycare and now one of them in the house is ALWAYS sick with strep or a virus or the flu or the other one with an ear infection. Yet, the kids I know that never get sick (myself and my DS included) continue to never get sick.

I was teased to no end when DS was a newbron and an infant and even now about how cautious I am with germs - keeping away from sick family/friends, making everyone wash their hands, not sharing food/drink, wiping down/washing DS's hands. But, you know what - he's been sick three times in his entire two years and - even living with someone with the flu for a week and being exposed to the swine flu an a few occassions and going to classes, play dates and play groups he still never gets sick.

Re: Do you think it is better to expose children to germs when they are infants or try to protect them as long as possible?

By five months, I say expose! My DD was in daycare by month 7 and had a zillion colds, virus etc. She rarely gets sick now. As a result, my baby doesn't get as sick either.

Re: Do you think it is better to expose children to germs when they are infants or try to protect them as long as possible?

I consider myself to be very protective regarding germs and such but I did enroll my son in Music Together classes. He started day care part time when he was between 8-9 months old. One major rule for me is not to take risks when his immunity is low. When he already has a cold or anything minor, he does not attend anything until he is well. That is not fair to him or the other children. The classes were important to me and I truly believe that we both benefited.

Re: Do you think it is better to expose children to germs when they are infants or try to protect them as long as possible?

Re: Do you think it is better to expose children to germs when they are infants or try to protect them as long as possible?

I would wait. my DS has NEVER been sick. once he turned 11 months I took him to my gym and of course now he has a cold and he is miserable!!!!! at least now he is a little older so I feel lucky to have gotten this far with no colds, I would wait till he is a year or more if you can. Kids will be exposed sooner or later, but its better if a one year old gets sick over a 5 month old.


ETS my DS has been out and about even w/ other children since he was 2 months old. I just KNEW he would get sick once I brought him to one of these classes, so it's not like i've been sheltering him.

Message edited 8/17/2009 5:01:39 PM.

Re: Do you think it is better to expose children to germs when they are infants or try to protect them as long as possible?

I am someone who waited weeks before bringing baby out to stores. Dr scared me about flu season and how baby would need a spinal. so not worth it.

we walked right away.

I don't really believe in sick years and all that. I think you are either a sick person or not.

I am barely sick. never had ear infections or strep or the flu. some of my siblings are always sick. same enviroment.

Re: Do you think it is better to expose children to germs when they are infants or try to protect them as long as possible?

I'd take Sean - I kept him away from small kids until he was about 8 - 10 weeks ........after that, fair game.

But everyone is different. You have to do what you and DH are comfortable with -