View report page

38
By reference to my report on cases No. 78 and 70, it will be seen
that those patients had been ill since June 19th, and that
the cases were also notified to me as chicken-pox. As the
patient A— H— J— was working at the house at the
time, it is probable that she contracted the disease from
them.
With regard to the paragraph in my report in
reference to case Xo. 79, it is important to note the
fact that between July 16th, 1901, and June 19th, 1902,
91 cases of small-pox were notified to me as occurring in
private dwelling houses in this borough. Of this
number, 22 of the patients were either employed at
laundries, or there was evidence that they had contracted
the disease from persons who were employed at
laundries, and who were suffering from the disease.
that is to say, as many as 24.1 per cent. of the total
number of cases which occurred at private dwelling
houses, presumably contracted the disease from
laundries. There can, therefore, be no reasonable
doubt that if the keepers of laundries had been
required by law to see that all of their employes were
recently vaccinated, one fourth of the total number of
cases of small-pox which occurred in private dwelling
houses might have been prevented.
I have excluded from these statistics 38 cases
which during the some time occurred at R— H— and
J— C—, two large lodging houses in the borough, but
I am also strongly of opinion that upon the occurrence
of a case of small-pox at such buildings, the public
health authority should have power to immediately
require that the whole of the inmates should be at once
protected by re-vaccination. -
No. 84.—Case of G— J—, age 28, a labourer, lately employed at
a builder's in Bramley Road, and residing in Wharf Road:
It appears that he was first taken ill on July 23rd. A rash
appeared on July 25th. The case was diagnosed as variola
by the patient's private medical attendant on July 26th,
and removed the some day by the Metropolitan Asylums
Board to Rotherhithe. He had resided at the house for
four years. By reference to my report on case No. 83
it will be seen that the case of A— L— J—, the wife of this