London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

Islington 1866

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Islington, Parish of St Mary]

This page requires JavaScript

6
On the 30th two cases were reported. One in the same house in Clarke's Place,
in the wife of a man then ill with cholera; and the other in Palmer Mews. Both
of these, too, were fatal.
On the 31st I find, by the Registrar General's return, that a child was attacked
in Highbury Place, with what was returned as " English cholera," and died on
August 3rd; and two cases, both of which recovered, were reported to me : one in
Caledonia Street, Battle Bridge; and the other in Blundell Street, Caledonia Road.
The causative principle of the disease was therefore widely diffused, by this time, over
the parish; and I felt that no part of our district was likely to remain very long free
from its operation.
On August 1st another burst of cases was reported. One in Palmer Street
again; one in Hope Place West, near the George's Road, Holloway; one somewhere
in Upper Holloway, brought to the Fever Hospital; one (of a cholera nurse) in the
Fever Hospital itself; and four in the same house in Gifford's Buildings, where a
case had happened on the 27th July. Of these seven patients all died but one.
On the 2nd a single case only was reported—the wife of the man attacked in
Popham Street. She ultimately recovered.
On August 3rd, however, six more cases occurred. Two in Gifford's Buildings
again; one in Rufford's Buildings, High Street; one in Grosvenor Street, St. Peter's,
near the canal; one in the Queen's Road; and one in Brand Street. The two last
recovered : the four others died.
By this time most of our preventive measures had got into operation; and
although one, two, or three cases occurred on some days subsequently up to the end
of November, we met with no more of those alarming outbreaks of the epidemic
which had rendered me so anxious previously. I saw that we had it in hand, and
that, if properly carried into effect, the means which we were adopting would
probably be sufficient to prevent any extensive spread of the disease from the houses
invaded. Nor was I disappointed. From this time it became a rare event to see
more than a single case occur in a house; and when it did happen, the cause was very
apparent in the neglect of the measures recommended for adoption.
The following table represents the operation of the epidemic influence week by
week, as it resulted in the production of cases of cholera, and what has been termed
"choleraic diarrhoea." I must premise that this term has been throughout vaguely
used; and it is only by grouping together the reported cases of undoubted cholera,
and of the less severe affection, that a fair estimate can be formed of the extension
and operation of the morbid influence.