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
Finsbury 1902
Report on the public health of 1902
This page requires JavaScript
60
as last year, alone remaining free. In a general way it may be
said that most cases have occurred in the overcrowded and poorer
parts of the district. The incidence has not been exceptionally
heavy in the Model Dwellings, nor in relation to any schools or
milkshops. Five cases only were traceable to school infection,
and none to milk. Personal infection has been, without question,
the main channel for the spread of the disease. Not a few
cases have apparently arisen from contact with " ordinary sorethroats."
There has been no definite outbreak and no large
groups of cases.
The following table illustrates the channels of infection and the sanitation of the houses in all those cases where infection could be at all traced, or the sanitation of the house was in any way open to criticism:—
| I.—Insanitation— | |
|---|---|
| Houses, in which Diphtheria occurred, found to be overcrowded | 12 |
| Defective drains | 46 |
| Defective paving in yard | 7 |
| Total | 65 |
| II.—Channels of Infection— | |
| Previous cases in the same house or family | 29 |
| Contact with Diphtheria elsewhere | 17 |
| Previous cases of Scarlet Fever in house or family | 8 |
| From School | 5 |
| 59 |
Four cases were alleged to be due to " return cases" of
Diphtheria from hospital, but there was not sufficient evidence.
Four cases of diphtheria occurred at milkshops, but in no case
did it spread. In all probability personal infection was the