London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972
View report page
Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
Kensington 1902
Annual report on the health, sanitary condition, etc., etc., of the Royal Borough of Kensington for the year1902
This page requires JavaScript
71
VACCINATION.
The table at page 75 is a return respecting vaccination in Kensington in 1901 (the complete
return for 1902 not yet being due) compiled by Mr. King, the newly appointed vaccination officer. It
appears that of 3,620 infants whose births were returned in the " Birth List Sheets " (col. 2), during
the year, 2,937 were successfully vaccinated, and 16 were returned as " insusceptible of vaccination."
In 8 cases vaccination was postponed by medical certificate: 344 infants died before attaining the
age for vaccination ; in 37 cases infants were removed to other districts, the vaccination officers of
which were duly notified of the fact; whilst some 230 cases from " removal to places out of the
parish unknown, or which cannot be reached, and cases not having been found," were unaccounted
for. These cases are, with those of "conscientious objectors" (46. against 5, 31, and 40, in the three
preceding years respectively), equivalent to a " loss " of 7.6 per cent., as compared with the number
of births returned in the "Birth List Sheets;" the losses in the ten preceding years having been 8.0,
8.7, 7.7, 8.4, 9.0, 10.1, 10.7, 12.7, 8.1, and 6.8 per cent. Kensington in this repect always compares
favourably with the Metropolis, as a whole, for according to the most recent returns it appears that
the "loss" in the Metropolis in 1899 was 27.7 per cent., as compared with 12.7 per cent. in Kensington.
Mr. Shattock, the late vaccination officer (whose retirement owing to ill-health is greatly regretted)
informed me that false registration, i.e., wrong addresses entered in the birth list sheets, largely
accounted for the " loss " ; the children could not be traced.
The actual figures, showing loss, both for town and country, during the fourteen years 1886-99, as set out in the report of the Local Government Board for 1901-2, are as follows:—
| Metropolis Cases lost. | Rest of England. Cases lost. | Metropolis. Cases lost. | Rest of England. Cases lost. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1886 | 7 8 per cent. | 6.1 per cent. | 1893 | 18 2 per cent. | 15.7 per cent. |
| 1887 | 90 | 6.7 „ | 1894 | 20.6 „ | 19.0 „ |
| 1888 | 10.8 | 8.2 „ | 1895 | 24.9 „ | 19.8 „ |
| 1889 | 11.6 „ | 9.6 „ | 1896 | 26.4 „ | 22.3 „ |
| 1890 | 18.9 „ | 10.9 „ | 1897 | 291 „ | 21.6 „ |
| 1891 | 16.4 „ | 12.9 „ | 1898 | 33.0 „ | 19.6 „ |
| 1892 | 18.4 „ | 14.8 „ | 1899 | 27.7 „ | 15.4 „ |
These figures show that the vaccinated children in the Metropolis, and in the country
generally, are a great host whose unprotected condition involves a serious danger to the community.
In this borough, as already shown, there had been recorded, up to 1898, a yearly increasing " loss "
of cases of children who, from removal to places out of the parish, or which cannot be reached, and
cases not having been found, are deemed to be unvaccinated. In London, as a whole, in 1886, the
" lost " cases were only 7.8 per cent. In 1898 the proportion had increased to 33.0 per cent. This
is an average proportion ; in some of the metropolitan boroughs the unvaccinated cases were more
numerous than the vaccinated. The "lost" cases in Stepney were 46.6 per cent., in Bethnal
Geeen 47.8, in Poplar 49.6, in Shoreditch 52.2, and in Mile End Old Town 69.4 per cent.; and these
boroughs were the greatest sufferers (Holborn only excepted) during the small-pox epidemic. The
lost cases in Kensington, 6.7 per cent. in 1890 had increased to 12.7 per cent. in 1898 ; but in 1899,
as above shown, they fell to 8.1, and in 1900 to 6.8 per cent., under the operation of the new
Vaccination Act. In 1901 there was a slight rise to 7.6 per cent.; but probably in no other part of
London is there a better vaccinated population than in Kensington, which, as we have seen, was
but lightly affected during the recent epidemic. The tide however seems to have turned, for the
loss in the Metropolis in 1899 was 27.7 per cent. only, compared with 33.0 in the preceding year.
In the rest of England and Wales the " loss " in 1899, was only 15.4 against 19.6 in the preceding
year, and succeeding returns may be expected to show further improvement.
The influence of the visitation of small-pox is seen in the table at page 75, which shows
for 1901 an increase in the number of certificates of successful vaccination in Kensington of no
fewer than 879 compared with those received in 1900.
The Local Government Board in their report for 1901-2, referring to the vaccination returns
for 1899, observe that the " increased acceptance of primary vaccination "—at a time precedent to
the epidemic of small-pox—is to be "referred to the altered conditions under which, consequent
upon the Vaccination Act, 1898, and their regulations made thereunder, vaccination is now performed,
and the increased facilities which now exist for its performance." One of the most potent
influences tending to the increase in the number of vaccinations in normal years is the provision
for the use of glycerinatcd calf lymph which has cut the ground from under the feet of those who
objected to vaccination because of the possibility of enthetic disease being conveyed in humanized
lymph.