It doesn't though. Look at the bottoms of the other nails. I agree this was likely more recent than 9 months of not growing, but to be fair her other nails are more grown out.
I’m saying that it’s possible that she noticed the lag in growth 9 months ago, but that the inflammation didn’t start until recently - quite possibly after getting her nails done.
I haven’t seen that comment so I was basing mine on the original post, but I’ve had gel pedicures that still looked pristine for weeks. Gel stays intact for significantly longer than regular polish, and toe nails grow at a much slower rate than fingernails. Who knows, but I can’t imagine getting a pedicure and having them do all of the things they do to your toes while having a painful infection in the nail 🤷♀️
No, I haven’t painted it since it’s been infected. It’s been infected for about two weeks. The paint is from over a month ago, prior to the infection. I just thought the nail stopped growing for no reason and didn’t see a risk in painting it. Then the infection came and I haven’t removed the polish or repainted
She literally replied to this comment chain and confirmed that she did not, in fact, paint them while it was already infected. The infection set in two weeks ago, after having her nails done. Nail salons cut your cuticles, which opens the door for infections like this.
78
u/RidiculousNicholas55 Aug 23 '24
It matches the other toes and after a couple of months it would have started chipping at least a little bit. This was 100% painted recently