Kids love going around places, playing, and exploring new things. While all of this is fun, it can expose them to diseases. When they come from school, they are exposed to various germs through air and transmission or direct contact. They also touch surfaces a lot, then their face, then their mouths. This makes it easy for illness to spread. While it is impossible to prevent illness completely, there could be several measures that can reduce the risk and support recovery.

Vaccination

Vaccination is a critical step in preventing severe illnesses. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommend following an established vaccine schedule. Vaccines protect against life-threatening infections, including those that disproportionately affect infants and young children.

Good Hygiene

While no vaccine can prevent one from common cold, good hygiene practices can significantly reduce germ transmission. Parents must therefore encourage their children to wash their hands after touching toys, hard surfaces, and other people. What is more important is proper hand hygiene, as handwashing with soap and water is the most effective way to eliminate germs.

ALSO READ: This Spring, Make Hand Hygiene A Priority, Says Expert

The Hygiene Hypothesis: Does Exposure to Germs Strengthen Immunity?

There are several research that suggests that early exposure to germs may help develop a child’s immune system, a concept known as the "hygiene hypothesis." However, many immunologists argue against this theory, noting that children naturally encounter enough germs to build immunity without unnecessary exposure to unsanitary conditions. A balanced approach ensures children develop a strong immune response without increased risk of illness.

Cleaning and Sanitizing Children’s Belongings

Regular cleaning of toys, school supplies, and frequently touched objects is essential. Understanding the difference between cleaning, sanitizing, and disinfecting can help:

• Cleaning removes visible dirt and debris.
• Sanitizing reduces germs to safer levels.
• Disinfecting kills germs completely, offering the highest level of protection.

It is important to read product labels carefully, use child-safe cleaning products, and rinse toys thoroughly after disinfection, especially those that go into a child’s mouth.

Choosing Effective Sanitizing Products

To minimize germ exposure, parents should clean objects with soap and water first and then use a sanitizer for everyday items. Disinfectants, which are stronger, should be used on objects that a sick person has touched. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides a list of approved sanitizers and disinfectants that effectively kill germs.

Encouraging Good Hygiene Without Causing Anxiety

Teaching children proper hygiene without creating fear is essential. Make handwashing engaging by incorporating songs or counting games. Explaining the benefits of hygiene in a positive way helps children understand that washing hands protects them and others. Parents can reinforce these habits by leading by example.

Boosting Immunity Through Nutrition

A strong immune system helps children fight infections more effectively. Proper nutrition plays a crucial role in immune support. A balanced diet should include:

• Proteins
• Vegetables
• Fruits
• Healthy fats
• Carbohydrates
• Adequate hydration

Multivitamins are generally unnecessary for well-nourished children, but if supplements are used, they should be free of added sugars and taken under supervision to prevent choking hazards.

Teaching Respiratory Etiquette

Proper respiratory hygiene reduces the spread of illness. Parents should model behaviors such as covering their mouths with an elbow when coughing or sneezing. Using tissues and disposing of them immediately is also a good practice. Reinforcing these habits through positive encouragement makes children more likely to adopt them.

"Indian parenting is pressure cooker parenting. One of the worst models globally. Not because parents are evil. But because the system is broken and no one questions it," wrote co-founder and CEO of Knot Dating Jasveer Singh on X.

He further wrote: "Most Indian parents didn't raise children. They raised outcomes. Children are treated like owned assets."

Netizens reacting to his X post acknowledged the truth behind the statements he made. One of the users wrote: "This hit hard. Every line feels personal! You just described half of middle class India in one post."

While another wrote: "Oh my god! I love this post!! I'm sharing it -- it's brilliant. And so true. Hard feel!! I don't know who you are. But bless you".

What Is Pressure Cooker Parenting And Why Is It Being Discussed?

Singh's statement was not centered on parental intent, but on a system that leaves limited space for emotional expression for children and parents alike.

Pressure Cooker parenting comes from the utensil popularly used in Indian households called pressure cooker. It is a sealed pot that cooks food faster by using high pressure steam. It is compared to parenting because children are often under high pressure form their parents and society where they are expected to do certain thing and to become what their parents want.

While 2026 is switching away from gentle parenting, this way of parenting could do more harm to the child.

Pressuring the child could impact their confidence. Furthermore, when Singh wrote: "Children are raised like owned assets". It refers to the norm of how parents raise their kids to become something so they could be used as a social currency.

More often than not, a child's status, in terms of the work he or she does, and the salary he or she earns, the status of a family is decided. While it is an unsaid rule, it does pressurizes children into it.

What Is Wrong With Indian Parenting?

In a 2022 Facebook post shared by entrepreneur Ankur Warikoo, he noted things that are wrong with Indian way of parenting, which included:

• Comparison between children with others' children.
• Killing curiosity by not responding to their questions or saying that they are dumb and silly.
• Focusing more on society, especially on who to marry, how to dress, where to work.
• Looking at the world through their own experiences.
• Emotional blackmail.
• Dismissing mental health.
• Lack of trust in their own kids.
• Not teaching them about financial independence.

This common pregnancy drug could be linked to cancer. Wes Streeting has been urged to launch a public inquiry into a miscarriage drug called Diethylstilbestrol, which, reports say has "ruined and devastated" the lives of countless women. On Monday, the Health Secretary Streeting met victims of the pregnancy drugs, which has been linked to cancer, early menopause and infertility.

What Is Diethylstilbestrol?

Diethylstilbestrol, commonly known as DES, is a synthetic form of female hormone estrogen, which was prescribed to thousands of pregnant women from 1940 to 1970s.

The drug was used to prevent miscarriage, premature labor and complications of pregnancy. This was also used to suppress breast milk production, as an emergency contraception and to treat symptoms of menopause.

What Is The DES Controversy?

In 1971, Diethylstilbestrol (DES) was linked to a rare cancer of the cervix and vagina known as clear cell adenocarcinoma, prompting US regulators to advise that it should no longer be prescribed to pregnant women. Despite this, the drug continued to be given to expectant mothers across parts of Europe until 1978. DES has also since been associated with other cancers, including breast, pancreatic and cervical cancers, The Telegraph reported.

Campaign group DES Justice UK (DJUK) is now urging Health Secretary Wes Streeting to order a public inquiry and introduce an NHS screening programme to identify people who may have been exposed to the drug before birth.

Victims described DES as “one of the biggest pharmaceutical scandals this country has ever seen,” warning that “the impact of this terrible drug cannot be underestimated as it has ruined and devastated so many lives,” according to The Telegraph.

In November, Streeting acknowledged that the “state got it wrong” and issued an apology to those affected. He also advised anyone who believes they may have been exposed to DES to speak to their GP.

Susie Martin, 55, from Manchester, whose mother was prescribed DES during pregnancy, told The Telegraph she has undergone between 20 and 30 operations as a result of the drug’s effects.

“The impact of this terrible drug cannot be underestimated as it has ruined and devastated so many lives, including my own,” she said. “The physical and emotional pain has been unbearable. I live with a constant fear that I will need more surgery or develop cancer—and I am far from the only one.”

Calling DES a “silent scandal,” Martin said she hopes the government’s engagement will lead to concrete action. “While I welcome Mr Streeting meeting us, it will only matter if he commits to meaningful steps for victims of this shameful chapter in British medical history, including a screening programme and a full statutory public inquiry,” she added.

What Is Happening With The DES Victims?

The Telegraph reported that compensation schemes have been set up for DES victims in the US and Netherlands, however, UK does not have one yet.

"There are harrowing accounts of harm caused by the historic use of Diethylstilbestrol (DES). Some women and their relatives are still suffering from the associated risks of this medicine which have been passed down a generation, and haven’t been supported. The Secretary of State has been looking seriously at this legacy issue and carefully considering what more the government can do to better support women and their families who have been impacted. NHS England has alerted all cancer alliances to this issue so that healthcare professionals are aware of the impacts of DES and the existing NHS screening guidance which sets out the arrangements for those who show signs and symptoms of exposure,” said a Department of Health and Social Care spokesman to The Telegraph.

A large population-based study from Linköping University in Sweden has found no evidence that COVID-19 vaccination caused a decline in childbirth during the pandemic, countering persistent rumors that mRNA vaccines affect fertility. The findings have been published in the peer-reviewed journal Communications Medicine.

The study was conducted amid widespread misinformation, particularly on social media, suggesting that COVID-19 vaccines reduce the chances of becoming pregnant. These claims gained traction as several countries, including Sweden, recorded a drop in birth rates during the later stages of the pandemic, prompting questions about a possible link to vaccination.

“Our conclusion is that it’s highly unlikely that the mRNA vaccine against COVID-19 was behind the decrease in childbirth during the pandemic,” said Toomas Timpka, professor of social medicine at Linköping University and one of the study’s authors.

Why Researchers Investigated the Claim

Since the early months of the pandemic, unverified claims about vaccines and fertility have circulated widely online. When official data later showed fewer babies being born in some regions, researchers decided to examine whether vaccination could plausibly explain the trend or whether other social and demographic factors were at play.

Read: Ahmedabad Toddler Swallows Hulk Toy, Showed X-Ray, Doctors Remove It Via Endoscopy

To address the issue, the research team carried out an extensive analysis using real-world healthcare data rather than surveys or self-reported outcomes.

Study Looks at Nearly 60,000 Women

The study analyzed health records of all women aged 18 to 45 years living in Region Jönköping County, a region with a total population of around 369,000 people. This amounted to nearly 60,000 women included in the analysis.

Between 2021 and 2024, about 75 per cent of these women received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Researchers examined data on childbirths, registered miscarriages, vaccination status and deaths using official healthcare records, allowing for a comprehensive comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.

Importantly, the researchers adjusted their analysis for age, recognizing that age is one of the most significant factors influencing fertility and pregnancy outcomes.

No Difference in Births or Miscarriages

When childbirth rates were compared between vaccinated and unvaccinated women, the researchers found no statistically significant difference. The same held true for miscarriage rates among women who became pregnant during the study period.

“We see no difference in childbirth rates between those who have taken the vaccine and those who haven’t,” said Timpka. “We’ve also looked at all registered miscarriages among those who became pregnant, and we see no difference between the groups there either.”

These findings align with several earlier international studies that have similarly found no association between COVID-19 vaccination and reduced fertility.

Other Factors Likely Behind Falling Birth Rates

According to the researchers, the decline in childbirth observed during the pandemic is more plausibly explained by broader demographic and social trends.

People currently in their 30s, the age group most likely to have children, were born in the second half of the 1990s. That period was marked by economic challenges and lower birth rates in Sweden, meaning today’s pool of potential parents is smaller than in previous generations.

In addition, pandemic-related factors such as health concerns, economic uncertainty, delayed family planning and lifestyle changes during lockdowns may have contributed to fewer pregnancies.

One of the study’s key strengths is its large, representative sample drawn from an entire region rather than a selected group. By using verified healthcare records and accounting for age-related effects, the researchers aimed to minimize bias and improve reliability.

The study received financial support from several sources, including the Swedish Research Council.