View report page

31
Concerning the Notified Cases the following facts were ascertained:-
Suffering from other diseases, and not enteric fever 69
Doubtful diagnosis 2
Home case, diagnosis subsequently amended 3
Infected outside the Borough 65
Possibly infected by shellfish, watercress, etc. 61
Infected from other cases (twelve due to "carrier"
case) 79
Other possible sources 3
282
Source of illness not traced 248
Total 530
In the table just given the one case of paratyphoid is included
amongst the true typhoids.
Of the 248 cases, the source of which was not traced, and
which, therefore, might have been water-borne infection, 180 lived
within the area of the "Croydon" supply, and 68 in the "Lambeth"
area. The enteric fever incidence in the two areas was, therefore,
1.3 per 1,000 in the "Croydon" area, and 1.4 per 1,000 in the
"Lambeth " area for the 15 years. The numbers for both water
supplies are small, and conclusively disprove the suggestion that
there has been any water-borne epidemic in Croydon during recent
years.
When the number of cases of enteric fever are so small as they
were in Croydon in 1914 the question of a water epidemic does not
arise, but knowing what we do of the potential dangers of water
infection, it is still essential that the efforts made by the Water
Committee to safeguard further the public supplies should be in no
way relaxed. This subject is dealt with in a special paragraph
of the report on page 1531.
Investigation was also made into the sanitary condition of
premises in which cases of enteric fever occurred, which could not
be traced to infection outside the borough. Again, as the numbers
for 1914 are so small, particulars have been extracted for the ten
years 1905—1914.