View report page

8
"Small-pox. Apart from re-vaccination in persons over 10 years of age,
"if vaccinated at all, there was a 5-fold immunity against attack by
"Small-pox, and a 51 fold security against death by Small-pox, compared
"with the un-vaccinated people of the same age."
Let me add that during the Sheffield epidemic, 372 policemen were
employed. All had been vaccinated in infancy. Ten of the men contracted
Small-pox prior to February, 1888, when all were re-vaccinated.
After the re-vaccination, none were attacked. Of 290 men and boys
employed in the Post Office, all of whom in accordance with regulations
had been re-vaccinated, not one contracted Small-pox. It is obvious that
they would run especial risks as regards exposure. If any more statistics
are wished for from Sheffield, they may be culled from Dr. Barry's Report.
Now, if it be remembered that although Whitechapel is so well primarily
vaccinated, re-vaccination has not been at all general among the residents,
and my anxiety in 1895 may be understood. Let it be further remembered
that re-vaccination was well carried out in connection with all cases of
Small-pox which I investigated, and it will be clear why the threatened
epidemic came to nought.
Before leaving this subject it were well to state that one of the objections
most frequently raised against vaccination, is, that it is opposed to religion
and that it is contrary to Bible teaching. The Jews have commenced to
take up this line of argument. Hear what the Chief Rabbi says upon this
point:—"I am greatly pained at seeing in the Report of the proceedings
"at tiie Worship Street Police Court yesterday, that several Jews residing
"in Whitechapel have refused to have their children vaccinated, on the plea
"that they objected to do so on religious grounds. I hasten to assure you
"that there is not the slightest foundation for so silly and absurd a
"statement I have at once taken steps, through the medium of the
"* Jewish Chronicle,' to state that Jewish parents who refuse to have
"their children vaccinated, are guilty of a grave infraction, both of the
"Divine Law, and the law of the land."
Enteric Fever has been frequently notified during the year, but the
deaths from this disease have been few. I received from Mr. Wrack a
report concerning this disease, after a visit to the house, made by him at
my request. I append a copy of the Report:—
"Four cases of Typhoid Fever in one family have recently been notified. The
"first was that of a boy aged 4 years, notified on the 23rd October; he died in the
"Hospital. The second was a girl aged 3 years, notified on the 2Gth November;
"she has been attended at home during her illness. The third and fourth cases, a
"girl aged 10 years and a boy aged 15 months, were notified on the 28th
"December; they are also being attended at home. The house consists of a
"shop on the ground floor and four rooms above. On the first floor the front
"room is occupied by the sick children, and the back room is used as a kitchen.
"On the second floor are two bedrooms. The family now consists of the father,
"mother, and seven children—four girls and three boys, whose ages are 18, 1G, 14,
"12, 10 and 3 years, and 15 months, respectively. The father carries on the
"business of a butcher and poulterer, in the said shop, and at the time of my
"visit at 3 o'clock this afternoon there were several customers in the shop, who
"were being served by the father and mother and other members of the family.
"Upon proceeding upstairs I found the two last notified cases in bed in the first
"floor front room, no one else was in the room with the children. Shortly after I
"had been upstairs some of the members of the family came to me from the
"shop, and one of them (the eldest daughter) stated that she was nursing her
"sisters. As it appeared to me to be advisible for the children's benefit, and for
"the public safety to do so, I advised the removal of the children to the Hospital.
'' This the parents objected to have done, the father stating that he would sooner
"close his shop. I subsequently saw the doctor who could not advise the
"children's removal, for the reason that one of them was too seriously ill to be
"removed, and that the child's life would be endangered by so doing."