View report page

13
In five of the foregoing there were reasons for doubting whether the recurrence
of the disease actually resulted from infection through the return of patients from hospital.
The percentage of the return cases with respect to the cases removed was approximately
2.3, but is reduced to 1.5 if the doubtful cases are excluded.
One instance came under observation in which the interval between the return
of the infecting and the appearance of symptoms in the return case was so short as
to preclude all probability of direct infection. The case is not included in the foregoing;
the particulars are briefly as follows:
May B—, aged 6, was removed to hospital with scarlet fever on June 7th, returning
home on October 10th, at 2 p.m. She appeared in good health, without signs
of discharge from noise of ears, excoriations of the skin, or other lesions. On the day
of her return John B—,a brother, aged 4½ was noticed to be ill about 3.30 p.m., and
was certified to have scarlet fever the same evening.
Two instances came under notice where the recurrence of scarlet fever in houses
took place shortly before the return of scarlet fever convalescents :
Mary T , aged 3, was removed to hospital on October 9th, 1905, and returned
home on January 10th, 1906. Robert T , aged 6, attending school, was taken ill
on January 6th, and Lily T , aged 14 months, on the following day. These children
were certified to have scarlet fever on January 9th and removed to hospital.
Richard H , aged 3, was removed to hospital on April 26th, and was to
have been discharged on June 15th.. He was, however, not allowed to leave the hospital
on account of a discharge from his nose. Lily H , a sister, attending
school, was taken ill on June 20th, and certified to have scarlet fever on June 21st.
Richard H did not return home until after the removal of his sister.
One instance of a return case of diphtheria came under notice. The returning
patient developed a " sore throat " shortly after arriving home, and subsequently a discharge
from the nose was observed.
SMALL-rOX.
No cases of small-pox were certified during the year in Shoreditch. Only about
30 cases were notified for the whole of London, and no deaths were registered.
VACCINATION.
The latest official figures published, so far as I am aware, are those
contained in the report of the Medical Officer of the Local Government
Board for 1904-05, and relate to the year 1903. In Shoreditch the number
of children not finally accounted for as regards vaccination during that