View report page

22
house, the infection appears to have been conveyed
from the first patient (treated at home in Paddington)
to relations in the country. Certain of the relatives
were removed to the local isolation hospital. One
of the patients, discharged from that hospital, came
to Paddington, and there infected other members of
the family. (See Group 26, Appendix B, p. 114).
Two groups, one of five and the other of six cases,
were intimately associated. The source of infection
of the first patient (Group 37, p. 114), an inmate of
Victoria Orphanage, could not be traced. He appears
to have infected three other children, at varying
intervals, and after his apparent recovery, was sent to
Hampstead to recover his health. From the Branch
Home in Hampstead, six children, including the
patient already mentioned, were some two months
later removed to this Parish, all ill with diphtheria.
The first patient succumbed to this his second attack.
The children were brought into the Parish as soon as
they were taken unwell, and no diagnosis was made
until they were in Paddington. (See Groups 37 and
31, Appendix B, page 114.)
Although the bulk of the cases of diphtheria were
reported from houses occupied by more than one
family, in five instances only did the infection spread
to other families.
Of the 322 cases reported, 206 were removed to
hospital, equal to 60.8 per cent. In 1896, 50.0 per
cent. of the cases were removed, in 1895, 53.0, and in