View report page

130
institution as a case of chickenpox, but was there diagnosed to be
suffering from smallpox. As chickenpox is not notifiable in this
Borough she had therefore not come within the purview of the Public
Health Department.
Another case, although not resident in the Borough, occurred in
the person of a waitress, aged 16, whose home address was in Southwark,
but who slept during the week at the restaurant in Hampstead
where she had just secured employment. This girl began work in
Hampstead on a Monday, on which day she complained of headache.
On the following Friday a rash appeared, on the next day at midday
she was sent home, and the same evening was removed to hospital.
The customary precautions were observed in both instances and
no further case arose.
During the year notifications were received from various Port
Medical Officers of passengers arriving by steamships from abroad on
board of which cases of Small-pox had occurred during the voyage.
Altogether, 29 such "contacts" arrived in the Borough and were
kept under surveillance for the customary sixteen days from the date
of last possible contact with the patients.
It is particularly pleasing that, although there were 1,138 cases of
smallpox in the Metropolis during 1932, only one was a resident of
Hampstead. A certain measure of explanation may be forthcoming
in that Hampstead continues to obtain a relatively high degree of
immunity by means of vaccination. I append the return of the
Vaccination Officer, from which it will be seen that the percentage of
persons vaccinated is considerably higher in Hampstead than in
England and Wales.
Year.
Hampstead.
Per cent.
England and Wales.
Per cent.
1926 71 448
1927 69 449
1928 66 426
1929 66 399
1930 62 401
1931 61 Figure not yet available