View report page

27
WHOOPING-COUGH.
Whooping cough was the cause of 62 deaths, compared with 52, 59, and 33, in the three preceding
years successively; 57 in the Town sub-district and 5 in Brompton; the corrected
decennial average being GO. All but one of the deaths were of children under five years of age,
including 28 under one year. The deaths in London, as a whole, from this cause were 1,609,
and approximately 647 below the corrected average (2,256).
FEVER.
Enteric Fever.—Ninety-seven cases of enteric fever were notified, compared with 104, 107,
and 104, in the three preceding years. The deaths were 11 (and 8 below the corrected decennial
average); 9 in the Town sub-district and 2 in Brompton. Six of the deaths took place in hospitals,
to which 77 cases were removed. The deaths in the three preceding years were 12, 23,
and 16, respectively.
A group of cases recorded in January and February deserves mention. The patients,
eight in number, were occupants of three houses in North Kensington. The person first to be
attacked was Mrs. L., aged 42, wife of a horsekeeper, who with her husband and seven children
occupied three rooms (two of them in the basement) at a house in Lonsdale-road. The illness
commenced in the last week of December, and she kept her bed " on and off " for three weeks,
but had no medical attendance. Early in January, Mrs. L's son Edwin, aged 4, fell ill and was
taken to a general hospital as an out-patient, his complaint being regarded as a " severe cold."
He was kept in bed until the 21st January, on which day he was admitted to St. Mary's Hospital,
together with his brother Harry, aged 9 years, who had fallen ill on or about 11th January. The
nature of these children's illness was not immediately recognised. Michael L., aged 7 years,
had fallen ill at about the same time as his brother Harry, and he too was admitted to hospital
on 28th January. The notifications of the illness of these patients were received on Monday,
January 29th. The house being visited, it was found that yet another child, Agnes L., aged 5
years, was ill ; she was removed to hospital the same day, as was also Mrs. B., a married sister
living at another house in the same street. At this date Mrs. L., the mother of all the patients,
was very unwell, as was her daughter Annie, aged 18, who had fallen ill on or about January 15th.
She had gone as an out-patient to a special hospital, and had been referred to St. Mary's Hospital,
but failed to attend. On January 26th the case of John Y., aged 18, was notified from
a house in Southam-street, but as he had been removed to hospital by the doctor, no history of
his illness was forthcoming. During the investigation of the outbreak in the L. family, however,
it came out that he had been a daily visitor at the house in Lonsdale-road, during the
month of January. I formed the opinion that Mrs. L. and her daughter Annie had enteric
fever. Mrs. L. was going to St. Mary's Hospital on the day of my visit, and she continued to
attend as an out-patient until the 8th February, when the doctor insisted on her going in. On
the 16th her case was notified as one of enteric fever—''in the stage of the fag end of a relapse."
The girl Annie was treated at home. The source of infection in the first case, that of Mrs. L.,
was not traced. Having regard to the mode of occupation of the rooms (not " overcrowded " in
the official sense); the four young children slept in one bed, in the back basement room, spread
of the disease was practically inevitable; for, there having been no medical attendance, the nature
of the illness was not recognised, and no precautions had been taken. All of the patients ultimately
recovered.
The deaths in London, as a whole, from this cause, were 537, and approximately 107 below
the corrected average. The notifications were 3,193 in number.
Typhus.—Two cases of typhus, of a man and his wife, were recorded in May. The man,
a flower seller, aged 50, lived with his wife and two young children in the front room on the ground
floor at a house in St. Katharine's-road. He fell ill on or about April 18th and was seen by
the district medical officer at the parochial dispensary, Mary-place, on the 19th. On the 26th
the doctor was asked to visit him at home. Being very ill, with influenza, as it was thought, he
was removed to the infirmary forthwith. On the 28th the disease was diagnosed as typhus, and
he was removed to hospital, where, after a severe illness, he made a good recovery. The source
of infection, thought to be external to the borough, was not traced ; but the home was found
to be in a dirty and insanitary condition. The wife and children were removed to a lodging
provided for them in the neighbourhood; the clothing was disinfected; the bedding was destroved
and replaced with new; the walls and ceiling of the room were scraped and cleansed. The
family were kept under observation, and all continued well until after the period when danger
of their having contracted infection from the sick man, whilst at home, was at an end. But the
man having been placed on the danger list, was visited frequently by his wife, who thus became
infected, although he lay in an airy, well-ventilated ward, and she was not allowed to sit near
to him. On the 20th May the woman applied for admittance for herself and the children to the
workhouse, whence she was removed to hospital, with typhus, on the 22nd May. She alleged