London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

Battersea 1902

Report on the health of the Metropolitan Borough of Battersea for the year 1903

This page requires JavaScript

Group V.—This group consists of Nos. 6, 14, 15, 18, the
three last cases deriving the infection from No. 6, the source
of whose infection could not be traced.
Group VI.—No. 16 was reported as a suspicious case to
the Medical Officer of Health, who, on visiting the premises,
ascertained that the patient was suffering from Small-pox,
and that she had been infected by her husband, No. 17, who
had just recovered from an exceptionally mild attack of the
disease. He had been treated by his medical attendant for
Chicken-pox, and, after staying indoors for a few days, had
followed his occupation whilst in an infectious condition.
Further investigation showed that No. 17 was probably
infected by No. 20, who had also had a very mild attack of
Small-pox. No. 20 was not even confined to the house at any
time during her illness, but had been treated as an out-patient
at a hospital, her complaint being diagnosed as ringworm.
No. 19 was also infected by No. 20.
Group VII.—No. 22 was infected by her husband, who
was living apart from her in Lambeth, but came over to
Battersea occasionally to see his wife. At his last visit on
2nd June she noticed he had " spots " on his face, and as he
complained of feeling ill she advised him to see a doctor.
He returned to Lambeth the next day, and two days later he
went to the Lambeth Infirmary, from which he was removed
to the Small-pox hospital. No. 24 and, probably, No. 23 were
infected by this man.
Group VIII.—No. 25 was a paper-hanger, and fifteen days
before his rash appeared he re-papered a house in Lambeth
in which a case of Chicken-pox was said to have occurred. This
supposed case of Chicken-pox was afterwards proved to have
been a case of Small-pox. No. 25 was taken ill early in
August, and was treated by his medical attendant for Chickenpox.
After the rash had been out about a week he went to
see another doctor, who at once diagnosed the case, and the
patient was forthwith removed to the hospital. Nos. 26, 27,
28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 derived the infection directly or
indirectly from No. 25.