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 1905
[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for London County Council]
This page requires JavaScript
42
Enteric Fever.
The number of cases of enteric fever notified in the Administrative County of London during
1905 (52 weeks) was 1,552, compared with 1,896 in 1904. The deaths from this disease numbered 234
in 1905, compared with 286 in 1904.
The case-rate and death-rates per 1,000 persons and the case-mortality per cent. in 1905 and preceding periods were as follows:—
| Period. | Death-rate per 1,000 persons living. | Case-rate per 1,000 persons living. | Case mortality per cent. |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1871-80 | 0.24 | -1 | -1 |
| 1881-90 | 0.19 | _1 | _1 |
| 1891-1900 | 0.141 | 0.8 | 18.2 |
| 1901 | 0.1l2 | 0.7 | 15.6 |
| 1902 | 0.122 | 0.7 | 15.8 |
| 1903 | 0.082 | 0.5 | 15.7 |
| 1904 | 0.062 | 0.4 | 15.1 |
| 1905 | 0.052 | 0.3 | 15.1 |
The death-rate in each year since 1868 in relation to the mean death-rate of the period 1869-1904
is shown on diagram XVI.
The notified cases in each week of 1905 may be compared with the average weekly notifications
of the period 1890-1905 on reference to diagram XVII.
The monthly case-rate and case mortality in each of the years 1891-1904 in relation to the mean
of the whole period is shown in diagram XVIII.
The following table shows the enteric fever cases, deaths, case-rates, and death-rates for the year 1905, the case-rates for the decennium 1895-1904, and the death-rates for the period 1901-4 in the several sanitary districts—
| Sanitary area. | Notified Cases, 1905. | Case-rate per 1,000 persons living. | Deaths, 1905. | Death-rate per 1,000 persons living. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1895-1904. | 1905. | 1901-4. | 1905. | |||
| Paddington | 46 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 5 | 0.08 | 0.03 |
| Kensington | 53 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 13 | 0.06 | 0.07 |
| Hammersmith | 41 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 5 | 0.09 | 0.04 |
| Fulham | 56 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 10 | 0.09 | 0.06 |
| Chelsea | 16 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 4 | 0.06 | 0.05 |
| Westminster, City of | 41 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 4 | 0.09 | 0.02 |
| St. Marylebone | 46 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 6 | 0.07 | 0.05 |
| Hampstead | 18 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 2 | 0.08 | 0.02 |
| St. Pancras | 72 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 7 | 0.11 | 0.03 |
| Islington | 100 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 16 | 0.10 | 0.05 |
| Stoke Newington | 10 | 0.6 | 0.2 | — | 0.09 | — |
| Hackney | 165 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 27 | 0.13 | 0.12 |
| Holborn | 21 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 4 | 0.12 | 0.07 |
| Finsbury | 46 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 9 | 0.10 | 0.09 |
| London, City of | 3 | 1.0 | 0.1 | — | 0.08 | — |
| Shoreditch | 36 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 3 | 0.11 | 0.03 |
| Bethnal Green | 61 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 8 | 0.10 | 0.06 |
| Stepney | 127 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 21 | 0.10 | 0.07 |
| Poplar | 71 | 1.1 | 0.4 | 11 | 0.12 | 0.06 |
| Southwark | 74 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 11 | 0.10 | 0.05 |
| Bermondsey | 41 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 8 | 0.12 | 0.06 |
| Lambeth | 75 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 10 | 0.08 | 0.03 |
| Battersea | 33 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 6 | 0.09 | 0.03 |
| Wandsworth | 99 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 11 | 0.08 | 0.04 |
| Camberwell | 62 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 9 | 0.09 | 0.03 |
| Deptford | 34 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 6 | 0.07 | 0.05 |
| Greenwich | 27 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 5 | 0.07 | 0.05 |
| Lewisham | 38 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 6 | 0.06 | 0.04 |
| Woolwich | 26 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 7 | 0.08 | 0.06 |
| Port of London | 14 | — | — | — | ||
It will be seen from the foregoing table that among the several sanitary districts the enteric fever
death-rate was, in the period 1901-4, highest in Hackney (0.13) and lowest in Kensington (0.06),
Chelsea (0.06) and Lewisham (0.06); in 1905, Hackney (0.12) had again the highest; Stoke
Newington and the City of London, where no death was recorded, the lowest. The death-rates from
enteric fever in London in each of the four quarters of the year 1905 were as follows:— first quarter, 0.04;
second quarter, 0.04; third quarter, 0.06; and fourth quarter, 0.05 per 1,000 persons living.
1 The Infectious Disease (Notification) Act came into force in 1889.
2 See footnote (1), page 9.