View report page

30
patient (Case No. 56) was attacked with small-pox on
March 23rd, and removed from the house on March 29th.
There can be no doubt that S— C— contracted the disease
from her son. Had he been removed earlier, in all probability
she would not have contracted the disease. She had
been vaccinated when a child, but never re-vaccinated.
No. 59.—Case of B— C—, age 12, a scholar, residing in The Grove.
She was first taken ill on April 8th, when it was noticed
by the Public Vaccinator who called to examine her arm.
which he had vaccinated, that she had a rash. The case
was diagnosed by him as variola on the some day, and at
once removed by the Metropolitan Asylums Board to
Rotherhithe. She had resided at the house for some
years. The brother of this patient (Case No. 56) was
attacked with small-pox on March 23rd, and removed
from the house on March 29th. There can be no doubt
that she contracted the disease from her brother. She had
been vaccinated when an infant, but never re-vaccinated.
No. GO.—Case of H— H—, age 11, a scholar residing in Wharf
Road. She was first taken ill on April 6th. A rash
appeared on April 9th. The case was diagnosed as variola
by the patient's private medical attendant on the some
day, and removed at once by the Metropolitan Asylums
Board to Rotherhithe. She had resided at the house for
12 months. There had been no previous case of illness
lately at the house, and I was unable to obtain any evidence
as to how she had contracted the disease. She had been
vaccinated in infancy, but not since.
No. 61.—Case of T— C—, age 23, a clerk, residing in the Grove.
He was first taken ill on April 21st, when he noticed he had
a rash. He was visited by his private medical attendant,
who diagnosed the disease as variola, and he was removed
the some day by the Metropolitan Asylums Board to
Rotherhithe. He had resided at the house for some
months. The patient is a relative of the three patients
removed from the house on March 29th and April 8th. In
the first case, which occurred at the house, the patient had
had a rash for five days previous to his removal. As the
patient T— C— developed a rash on April 21st, he was
probably first taken ill on April 19th. This is exactly 12
days from the time that the last two cases were removed.
These patients had, no doubt, been ill for two or three days
before their cases were notified, and consequently there
can be little doubt he contracted the disease from them.