View report page

The subject of tbe greater prevalence of enteric fever in London in 1899, is referred to by many
medical officers of health in their annual reports, and possible causes of particular cases of this disease are
discussed. In many cases the cause was not discoverable, but in others some cause was assignable,
such as exposure to an antecedent case of the disease. In several reports, moreover, illustrations of the
communication of this disease from one person to another are given. Dr. Reginald Dudfield mentions two
such occurrences in Paddington. Dr. T. Orme Dudfield gives account of a series of cases in Kensington
apparently having their origin in a case of enteric fever in Paddington which was not notified. The
illness of this person was followed by the illness of eleven other persons associated with the first
sufferer or others infected by this first ca6e. Ten houses in all (including the house in Paddington),
were invaded. In Fulham a series of six cases is mentioned by Mr. Jackson, as well as smaller series
in each of which the subsequent cases appeared to be due to infection from the first. The occurrence
of nine cases in a family of eleven persons in St. Pancras is reported by Dr. Sykes, who expresses the
opinion that the cause of the spread of the disease was personal infection. In Shoreditch, Dr. Bryett
found that during the year in each of two houses a series of five cases occurred, and in a third house a
series of three cases. In each house the persons affected were members of one family. Dr. Priestley
gives account of three similar groups, in which the number of persons affected was respectively six,
six, and eight.
The experiences of enteric fever in 1899, as, indeed, that of previous years, points to the
spread of enteric fever from cases of this disease, the nature of the illness of the first case not being
recognised. It further shows the risk of the retention of cases of enteric fever in the houses of
1 See footnote ('), page 3.