it is proven that during chickenpox outbreaks, there is an increase in
shingles cases. anyone hazard a  guess why?

>From: paul bromley <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: GP-UK <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Shingles and Chicken Pox
>Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:34:47 +0000
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>X-Originating-IP: 213.121.212.121
>Received: from smtp.jiscmail.ac.uk ([130.246.192.55]) by
>mc3-f31.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 23 Feb 2005
>08:35:30 -0800
>Received: from LISTSERV.JISCMAIL.AC.UK (jiscmail.ac.uk) by
>smtp.jiscmail.ac.uk (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id
><[log in to unmask]>; Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:34:54 +0000
>Received: from JISCMAIL.AC.UK by JISCMAIL.AC.UK (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
>1.8e)          with spool id 51646971 for [log in to unmask]; Wed, 23 Feb
>2005          16:34:53 +0000
>Received: from 130.246.192.52 by JISCMAIL.AC.UK (SMTPL release 1.0i) with
>TCP;          Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:34:53 GMT
>Received: from nmail1.systems.pipex.net (nmail1.systems.pipex.net
>[62.241.160.130]) by kili.jiscmail.ac.uk (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP
>  id j1NGYqcO024260 for <[log in to unmask]>; Wed, 23 Feb 2005
>16:34:52 GMT
>Received: from nmail1.systems.pipex.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by
>nmail1.systems.pipex.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id
>j1NGYliX020575 for <[log in to unmask]>; Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:34:47
>   GMT
>Received: (from nobody@localhost) by nmail1.systems.pipex.net
>(8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id j1NGYlbY020574 for [log in to unmask];
>   Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:34:47 GMT
>Received: from 213.121.212.121 ( [213.121.212.121]) as user
>[log in to unmask] by netmail.pipex.net with HTTP; Wed, 23 Feb
>  2005 16:34:47 +0000
>X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jF60loMyfiZGjRySoy4H7g2603c7xYh1hw=
>X-RAL-MFrom: <[log in to unmask]>
>X-RAL-Connect: <nmail1.systems.pipex.net [62.241.160.130]>
>References:
><20050223145423.UIXX3971.aamta07-winn.mailhost.ntl.com@[62.253.162.68]>
>        <[log in to unmask]>
>User-Agent: PIPEX NetMail (IMP3.1)
>X-PIPEX-Username: flyfisher%dsl.pipex.com
>X-Usage: PIPEX NetMail is subject to the standard PIPEX terms and
>conditions of         use
>X-CCLRC-SPAM-report: 0 :
>X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39
>Precedence: list
>Return-Path: [log in to unmask]
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Feb 2005 16:35:30.0377 (UTC)
>FILETIME=[B01B7B90:01C519C5]
>
> > This is not altogether surprising. GPs have a lot of "nous", and we see
> > a lot of stuff which hospital specialists don't see because we
> > recognise it must be a mild version of some disease, which does not
> > merit referral. We are the experts in minor illness.
>
>Agree with the above completely. There are many instances of fallacies in
>the
>textbooks written by consultants on subject material that they never see
>that
>we know are not true. We were always taught that you do not tend to get
>unilateral red eye due to conjunctivitis - certainly not true?
>
>It is comforting from this list to hear from everyione else that they are
>in
>the dark about a number of things relating to Zoster and Chicken Pox.
>Before
>this thread closes what advice do you all give re Zoster and infectivity if
>asked?? Do you advise exclusion for 7-10 days, or OK if the lsions are
>covered
>or not in an exposed area?? If nothing else I'd love to have a consensus on
>this one, if it is only that you have no better idea than me?
>
>
>--
>Best wishes
>
>
>Paul Bromley