View report page

62
information. There must have been a large number
of attacks in families sending no children to school.
Both these defects may be reasonably expected to
become less operative with experience, more particularly
as the wish to have cases reported becomes more
universally known, and the results obtained warrant
a further trial.
On information being received of a case of measles,
the same routine as to school exclusion, disinfection,
&c., was followed as for other infectious disease. With
regard to disinfection, measles not being a "dangerous
infectious" disease within the meaning of the Public
Health (London) Act, 1891, disinfection could not be
insisted on after the recovery of the patient, but, by
persuasion, a very large proportion of the infected
rooms were disinfected, and a smaller proportion of
the beds removed for purification. In a considerable
proportion of the earlier cases reported, the information
was received so long after the onset of the illness that
disinfection was not considered necessary. In 95
cases out of upwards of 600 where disinfection was
urged, an absolute refusal was met with. As it is exceptional
medical advice to be sought, except in the
event of serious symptoms supervening, a special
system had to be devised to secure prompt disinfection
after recovery. The present routine may be described
thus:—
On receipt of information of a case, almost invariably from a non-medical
source, a visit of inquiry is made to verify the information and ascertain the
date of attacks, schools, &c. If the disease be present and admitted by the