100.4?

I've read different things...
1) 100.4 is when a 2 month old is considered feverish
2) when a 2 month old reaches 100.4 they should be seen by a doctor immediately

so...which is it? at what temp is he considered to be feverish???

Both. They are feverish and need to be seen by a doctor.

Quoting Nathaniel'sMom:" Both. They are feverish and need to be seen by a doctor."

well I know that...but what is the temp that's considered the "beginning point" of being feverish?? 99 degrees or what?

100.4 is a fever.
Under 3 months that means a Dr visit within 24 hrs. Under 1 month that means go to the ER. After 3 months keep an eye & let your Dr know the baby has a fever....when they are open, no need to call at 2am.

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/crying-colic-9/temperature-fever

<blockquote><b>Quoting Kristin B. +down.45+:</b>" well I know that...but what is the temp that's considered the "beginning point" of being feverish?? 99 degrees or what?"</blockquote>




I took my LO in when he was at 99. Turns out he had a UTI and needed to be admitted for a week.

Quoting Kristin B. +down.45+:" well I know that...but what is the temp that's considered the "beginning point" of being feverish?? 99 degrees or what?"

The "beginning point' of a fever is 100.4. Anything under that is simply an elevated body temp & may or may not indicate anything is going on with their health. You can get 100 just from wearing too many layers. I used to check my 1st's temp regularly just to see how much it fluctuated & over a day he'd range from 97-100 regularly & that is totally normal. It is lowest in the morning & highest at evening/night for babies, children and adults whether they are healthy or ill. It is just part of our circadian rhythm.

Quoting Nathaniel'sMom:" <blockquote><b>Quoting Kristin B. +down.45+:</b>" well I know that...but what is the ... [snip!] ... what?"</blockquote> I took my LO in when he was at 99. Turns out he had a UTI and needed to be admitted for a week."

Was that your ONLY indication? Did he act fussy or unwell in any other way?

<blockquote><b>Quoting justanothamotha:</b>" Was that your ONLY indication? Did he act fussy or unwell in any other way?"</blockquote>




That was the only indication. All the nurses and doctors said he acted like a happy healthy baby. A day after bring in the hospital he finally got cranky. I just caught it a couple days before most moms would apparently.

Quoting Nathaniel'sMom:" <blockquote><b>Quoting justanothamotha:</b>" Was that your ONLY indication? Did he ... [snip!] ... A day after bring in the hospital he finally got cranky. I just caught it a couple days before most moms would apparently."

IDK. My kids both were on & off at 99 constantly when small & I never took them anywhere to be evaluated for it since it wasn't a fever & they acted fine & they never go till. Maybe he would have gotten crankier in the days to come. Interesting.

How did they confirm it? I assume they must have done a supra pubic aspiration? Other urine catches are notorious for false positives.  

<blockquote><b>Quoting justanothamotha:</b>" IDK. My kids both were on & off at 99 constantly when small & I never took them anywhere to ... [snip!] ... it? I assume they must have done a supra pubic aspiration? Other urine catches are notorious for false positives.  "</blockquote>




They used a catheter to get a urine sample. I'm sure he would have gotten cranky in the day or two to follow since he did at the hospital.

I would take him in to the ER my 2 month old started with a fever that wouldn't go away turns out he has the flu its really bad this year :p good thing i went in though because he got to be put on this med that they could only be put on within 48hrs of symptoms.

It always makes me leery when a baby is confirmed a UTI via catheter. Is your son intact? If so, he may or may not have had a UTI when they cathed him, but caths can certainly cause UTI's in infants easily & intact males are at greatest risks of that occurring. :/

One study suggested that the method used to obtain urine for culture may influence the rate of infection,64 with the greatest risk for infection noted in uncircumcised male infants who had samples obtained by catheterization, compared with those who had samples obtained by suprapubic aspiration.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/103/3/686.full

I am probably a bit paranoid though because I have 2 intact boys in a high circ rate area & they are CONSTANTLY trying to say intact boys have UTI's here. My 2nd son had a minor yeast infection & I took him in (I treated him before we left with just probiotic powder & was embarrassed once we saw the Dr because by the time we saw her his penis looked normal - figures) anyway...despite her agreeing with me that it was yeast (based on what I said it looked like before & how it all went back to normal using probiotic powder), she wanted to do a urine capture with a cath. I declined. Then she wanted him on an antibiotic in case it was e-coli related (she couldn't tell em WHY she would think that, I asked) and then went about how it could be a UTI even though he had NO symptoms, acted fine, was urinating great (had spent most of the day diaperless, etc) and the irrational he did have was now gone.

So SORRY for the 20 questions. I am a tad paranoid for good reason where I am from. I am hoping it is different there.

<blockquote><b>Quoting justanothamotha:</b>" It always makes me leery when a baby is confirmed a UTI via catheter. Is your son intact? If so, he may ... [snip!] ... gone. So SORRY for the 20 questions. I am a tad paranoid for good reason where I am from. I am hoping it is different there."</blockquote>




We have good doctors here and I brought him to bc children's hospital. No need to apologize. Oh and they took a urine sample on two seperate days, so I'm pretty sure it was accurate.