View report page

16
diphtheria.
General's number) lower than that of any of the Adjacent Districts. (See Table 9, ante.*)
The rate immediately above that of the Borough was recorded in Kensington (0.72), and the
highest that of Willesden (1.99).
Last year's total for the Borough (96) was but little more than one-third the corrected
decennial average (270), that for the Metropolis (6,489) rather more than one-half. A
complete comparison is given below:—
Diphtheria : Notifications.
(Including Membranous Croup.)
Annual Averages (corrected and adjusted).
1905.
1895-99.
1900-1904.
1895-1904.
London
6,489
13,492
10,177
11,815
Borough
96
336
206
270
St. Mary
80
236
137
185
St. John
9
35
26
31
North-West Paddington
7
65
43
54
The diminution in prevalence of the disease was not due to any marked fall at any
particular part of the year, but was uniform throughout the year. Below will be found the
figures for last year (each quarter for each of the three Registration Sub-Districts) set out in
comparison with the uncorrected averages for the two five-year periods, 1895-99 and 1900-04.
Diphtheria.
St. Mary. St. John. North-West Paddington.
Quarters 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3.4. 1. 2. 3. 4.
1895-99 43 55 53 67 7 9 10 9 18 21 15 16
1900-04 31 30 51 41 7 8 3 8 6 5 11 21
1905 16 21 28 15 3 4 1 1 3 3 —1
Table 10 gives the numbers of cases reported from each Ward during the past two years.
In Harrow Road Ward only was the number for last year (36) in excess of that of 1904 (32).
The Borough's morbidity (sickness) rate for the disease last year (0.65) was lower than that
of any of the Adjacent Districts (Table 9). The highest rate was that of Willesden (1.99), but
the latter rate shows a greater diminution (0.86) from the mean for the four years 1901-04
than does the Borough rate (0.81).
The 96 cases notified were received from 89 houses, distributed thus:—
1905. 1904. 1903.
Houses with one case each 83 109 119
„ „ two cases 5 6 8
„ „ three „ 1 5 2
„ „ four „ — 1 1
In the family with three cases, the secondary cases were apparently due to delay
(8 days) in certifying the first cases. Of the 5 houses with two cases, one can be ignored,
the second case being subsequently certified as erroneously diagnosed. In a second, the
nature of the first patient's illness was not discovered until the second case had been certified.
In a third, the first patient was kept at home, and the second sickened after that patient had
been freed from quarantine (18 days' duration).
* The discrepancies between the rate as shown above and in Table 9 are due to differences between the
totals obtained from the weekly returns issued by the Metropolitan Asylums Board (used above) and the returns
issued quarterly by the Registrar-General (used in Table 9).