View report page

14
number removed to hospital 384, giving a percentage of 97.7, as compared with
97 in 1909, 97.3 in 1908, 97.5 in 1907, and 96 per cent, in 1906. The percentages
for previous years are contained in the report for 1905. In a densely populated
district like Shoreditch removal to hospital for the purposes of isolation is of the
utmost importance for controlling the spread of infection, and it is satisfactory
therefore to again have to report such a high percentage of removals.
RETURN CASES.
Two instances came under observation where there were recurrences of scarlet
fever in houses subsequent to the return of scarlet fever convalescents from hospital.
The facts were briefly as follows
(1) George W, aged 5, was certified to have scarlet fever on January 14th,
and removed to hospital, returning on April 6th, after 82 days' absence from home.
His mother stated that on his return she noticed he had a " sore place " on his left
ear, and also one or two on his back. Sidney W, aged 2 years and 8 months,
sickened with scarlet fever on April 28th, and was certified to have the disease on
April 30th.
(2) May H.——aged 2i years, was certified and removed to hospital on June
9th, and returned home on September 5th after 88 days in hospital. Three days
after her return a discharge from her nose and ears was observed, and her face became
" scurfy." On September 13th, Rose H, aged 5, who was attending school,
sickened and her case was certified to be one of scarlet fever.
SMALLPOX.
After an interval of six years, smallpox once again made its appearance in the
Borough. On June 15th, a man aged 42, residing in Clarissa Street, fell ill, an
eruption was noticed on the 18th, and on the 20th he walked to a hospital, where
the case was recognised to be one of smallpox and the patient was forthwith removed
to the smallpox hospital. The usual enquiries were made with a view to ascertaining
the source of infection, but nothing definite was obtained to throw light upon the
manner in which the man contracted the disease. He worked in Shoreditch as a
handy man at a drug grinders, and no history was obtained as to him having been
away from Shoreditch for some considerable time prior to his illness. It is possible
however, that he may have handled an infected bale from abroad. The patient
was stated to have been vaccinated in infancy and re-vaccinated at the age of 15
years. The customary steps were taken as regards disinfection, vaccination and revaccination,
and as to the observation of those persons who had been in contact
with the patient of whom there were members of several families. All escaped the
disease except the wife of the patient, aged 35, who stated she had been vaccinated
in infancy, but refused to be re-vaccinated. She fell ill about mid-day on July
3rd, according to what she told me, but it subsequently came to my knowledge that