View report page

13
No. 6.—Case of W— L—, age 35, a labourer, employed at-,
Charles Street, Kensington, and residing at Southerton
Road. He was first taken ill on January 1st. A rash
appeared on January 3rd. The paitent went to the outpatients'
department of the West London Hospital on
January 4th, when his illness was diagnosed as variola.
He was detained there until removed the same day by the
Metropolitan Asylums Board to Rotherhithe. He had
resided at Southerton Road for some months. There had
been no previous case of illness lately at the house, but a
case, that of J— F—, was removed from No. —, Southerton
Road, on December 22nd, and a second case from the same
house on December 28th. As this patient was first taken
ill on January 1st, he probably contracted the disease on
or about December 20th. By reference to my notes on the
of case J—F—it will be seen that he was suffering from the
disease on that date. As No. — is nearly opposite No. —,
the infection may have been carried across the street from
No. — to this patient. No information as to vaccination
was obtained.
No. 7.—Case of J— E— F—, age 48, a coachman, residing at
R— H—. When vaccinating at R— H— on January 4th,
my attention was called to this man. I found that he
had a temperature of 1023, and an erithematous rash. I
had him at once removed to your Council's Shelter, Brook
Green Road. The following day the rash had become
distinctly vesicular, and was indicative of variola. I
therefore had him at once removed by the Metropolitan
Asylums Board to Rotherhithe. He had resided at R—
H— for three months. He occupied cubicle 71. He had
been vaccinated when a child, and was re-vaccinated on
December 14th. On January 4th, when I saw him, he had
been ill for three days. He had evidently contracted
small-pox five days after I vaccinated him, during the
incubation period of the vaccination. I found that his
symptoms were very slight, and the rash was very modified,
owing to the effect of the concurrent vaccination. Had
he been vaccinated a few days before, there can be no
doubt he would not have contracted the disease at all.
-No. 8.—Case of J— J— P—, age 42, a frame maker, employed
at , Westbourne Grove, and residing at Netherwood
Road. He was first taken ill on January 1st. A rash
appeared on January 4th. The complaint was diagnosed
by the private medical attendant on January 6th, and he
was removed the same day by the Metropolitan Asylums