View report page

41
If the fatality of the Aberdeen case during this period be applied to the 1,487 deaths from whoopingcough
which occurred in London in 1905, this would give a case rate of about 7 per 1,000 of population.
As in the case of measles, Dr. Reginald Dudfield shows the number of cases occurring in houses
in Paddington invaded by whooping-cough and coming to his knowledge. The results were as
follows:—

For the limitation of whooping-cough, school children attacked by the disease are excluded from
school for as long as the cough continues, and for not less than five weeks from the commencement of
the whooping. Children coming from houses in which whooping-cough exists, although not suffering
from the disease, are dealt with much in the same way as in the case of measles (see page 31 ante). In
one instance during the year ended March, 1906, an infants' department was closed on account of
whooping-cough among the scholars (see Appendix II., page 27). In some districts disinfection after
whooping-cough is carried out. The medical officer of health of Wandsworth expresses the opinion
that the provisions of the Public Health Act, which in 1903 were extended to measles, should in
like manner now be extended to whooping-cough.
The variations in the age-incidence of whooping-cough mortality in London during the period
1861-1905 are discussed in an appendix to this report (see Appendix I.).
Typhus.
No deaths from typhus were registered in the Administrative County of London during the
year 1905, but as will be seen later, one death, although not registered as due to this cause, must be
attributed to this disease.

In this table .000 indicates that the deaths were too few to give a rate of .0005; where — is inserted
no death occurred.
The death-rate in each period since 1868 in relation to the mean death-rate of the period 1869-1905
is shown in diagram XV.
During the year 1905, nine persons were certified to be suffering from typhus, one resident
in St. Pancras, one in Hackney, and seven in Stepney. After removal to hospital the St. Pancras case
and two of the Stepney cases were found not to be cases of typhus. Dr. Thomas supplies information
concerning the five remaining cases notified and also concerning that of a medical man whose death
had been attributed to influenza and toxoemia. The Hackney case was that of a nurse who attended
the Stepney cases admitted to the Eastern Hospital in Hackney. The details of the Stepney cases
were as follows:—
Millie G., aged 12 years, Branbridge-street, Whitechapel, who attended the London Hospital
as an out-patient on the 14th January and was subsequently attended at home by Dr. C., of Burdett-road.
She was finally removed to the Eastern Hospital on a certificate that she was suffering from enteric
fever but on admision was found to have typhus fever; later her brother Abraham was admitted to
the London Hospital where his illness was certified to be typhoid fever, but he was subsequently
recognised to have typhus and was removed to the Eastern Hospital. On the 14th February, Kate,
aged nine, Woolf, aged ten. sister and brother of the above-mentioned cases, were removed to the
Eastern Hospital, both suffering from typhus. Millie had been attended at home by Dr. C., from
the 17th to the 24th January, and he was removed to the London Hospital on the 5th February,
where he died on the 14th February. His illness was characterised by marked mental symptoms,
and the cause of his death was certified to be influenza and toxaemia. There is no reason for
doubting the accuracy of Dr. Thomas' conclusions that Dr. C. died from typhus contracted from Millie G.
The only other case of typhus known to have occurred during the year was that of a girl aged
19, a cap maker, living in Fashion-street, Stepney, who was certified to be suffering from typhoid fever
but whose illness was recognised in the Eastern Hospital to be typhus.
Dr. Thomas reports, with reference to the family G., that it consisted of father,
mother and six children, and that they occupied four rooms in a house occupied also by a man
and his wife and six children. The rooms occupied by the G. family were clean but slightly
overcrowded. The father G. was a tailor's presser; he had been living in Reading for some
months. He returned home for the Christmas holidays and was sufficiently unwell on the
25th December to seek medical aid. The medical man who saw him thought he was suffering from
mild pleurisy; on the 3rd January he returned to Reading where he was also medically attended. He
was too unwell to work and on the 9th January returned to London. If his malady were typhus it
must have been contracted in Reading.
1 See footnote (1), page 9.
11476 F