London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London

London County Council 1899

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for London County Council]

This page requires JavaScript

Text

Copy text to clipboard

15
Principal Zymotic Diseases.
The number of deaths in the Administrative County of London from the principal zymotic
diseases, viz., small-pox, measles, scarlet fever, diphtheria, typhus, enteric, and ill-defined fevers,
and diarrhoea during 1899 (52 weeks) was 11,174, giving an annual death rate of 2.46 per 1,000
living. The death rates in each year since 1890 have been as follows—
Year.
Death rate from principal
zymotic diseases.
1891 2.271
1892 2.801
1893 3.041
1894 2.651
1895 2.621
1896 3.ll1
1897 2.561
1898 2.771
1899 2.461
It will be seen from the following table that London in the period 1889-98 had a lower
death rate from these diseases than any of the undermentioned towns except Leeds, Bristol,
Nottingham and Bradford, and in 1899 a lower death rate than any except Bristol and Bradford.

Table: Principal zymotic diseases—Death rates per1,000living.

Principal zymotic diseases—Death rates per1,000living.

Towns.1889-98.1899.Towns.1889-98.1899.
London2.7322.482Bristol1.991.86
Manchester3.413.92Nottingham2.383.33
Liverpool3.513.77Bradford2.322.33
Birmingham2.902.96Hull2.853.66
Leeds2.682.79Salford4.424.32
Sheffield3.194.39West Ham2.883.50

Table: The following table shows that the London death rate from the first six of these principal zymotic diseases, viz., small-pox, measles, scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping-cough, and fever was in 1889-98 higher than that of any of these towns except St. Petersburg, and in 1899 was only exceeded by the rates of St. Petersburg and Stockholm—Six principal zymotic diseases—Death rates per1,000living.

The following table shows that the London death rate from the first six of these principal zymotic diseases, viz., small-pox, measles, scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping-cough, and fever was in 1889-98 higher than that of any of these towns except St. Petersburg, and in 1899 was only exceeded by the rates of St. Petersburg and Stockholm—

Six principal zymotic diseases—Death rates per1,000living.

Towns.1889-98.1899.Towns.1889-98.1899.
London2.1221552St. Petersburg3.353.17
Paris1.271.03Berlin...1.381.35
Brussels0.990.99Vienna1.661.03
Amsterdam1.070.44Rome ...1.490.78
Copenhagen1.601.26New York1.951.07
Stockholm1.941.93

Table: The death rates from the principal zymotic diseases in the several sanitary districts of London in 1899 and the period 1889-98 are shown in the following table—

The death rates from the principal zymotic diseases in the several sanitary districts of London in 1899 and the period 1889-98 are shown in the following table—

Sanitary district.Deaths in 1899Death-rate per 1,000 living.Sanitary district.Deaths in 1899.Death-rate per 1,000 living.
1889—98.1899.1860—98.1899.
Paddington1982.061.55Shoreditch4383.733.64
Kensington2632.001.53Bethnal-green4053.733.15
Hammersmith2302.682.11Whitechapel173.2.862.12
Fulham4233.363.23St. George-in-the-East1664.283.44
Chelsea2052.642.13Limehouse2214.023.78
St. George, Hanover-square881.481.09Mile-end Old-town3073.292.72
Poplar5823.313.41
Westminster852.441.64St. Saviour, Southwark853.163.51
St. James241.921.12St. George, Southwark2743.814.53
Marylebone2362.251.70Newington4553.283.67
Hampstead931.341.16St. Olave293.282.61
Pancras6532.592.69Bermondsey2963.263.46
Islingtou7982.492.30Rotherhithe1153.062.80
Stoke Newington472.501.33Lambeth8192.542.65
Hackney4922.22Battersea3873.022.22
St. Giles522.321.40Wandsworth3952.041.89
St. Martin - in - the -Fields131.711.07Camberwell6672.662.52
Greenwich5032.872.76
Strand...302.441.30Lewisham2301.672.03
Holborn663.102.23Woolwich1012.572.44
Clerkenwell2003.573.04Lee831.59.2.06
St. Luke1233.743.03Plumstead862.591.35
London, City of381.431.36London11,1742.7112. 461

Text

Copy text to clipboard

1 See footnote ('), page 3.
2 See footnote (2), page 3.