View report page

9
Among the common lodging-houses, 33, Great Peter-street, and the two Victoria Homes at
Whitechapel particularly suffered. The outbreaks in these common lodging-houses and shelters
seldom extended beyond one or two generations.'' In 1894 the common lodging-house class
suffered to a less notable extent; indeed, two localised prevalences in Marylebone (not affecting
common lodging-houses) accounted for a considerable proportion of the cases in that year. In
1895 the incidence upon vagrants was again marked; out of 35 cases in June, 29 occurred in
persons of this class, and in the course of the year 17 cases were removed from the Blackfriars
Shelter and 27 from the shelter in Whitechapel-road.
The extent to which, at the commencement of the outbreak, the inmates of common lodging-houses
had been vaccinated and re-vaccinated.
It needs to be borne in mind that a considerable amount of vaccination was carried out
during the course of the 1901-2 outbreak ; this fact will, of course, have entailed alteration, as the
epidemic pursued its course, in the extent to which common lodging-house occupants were found
to have been subjected to the operation. Moreover, a considerable proportion of these persons
were attacked by smallpox during the outbreak. It is necessary, therefore, to have due regard
in each instance to the precise period at which particulars were ascertained. In the first place,
the result of four detailed surveys made at different dates may be given ; it will then be well to
refer to other evidence collected which bears upon the extent of alterations brought about during
the progress of the epidemic.
The four surveys alluded to were the following—
(a) Survey made at 8 and 10, Parker-street early in November, 1901. This survey
relates to women, and represents), save as regards one particular to be mentioned
presently, the state of affairs prior to the 1891-2 outbreak. Dr. Farrar made examination
of the women who were being kept under observation in these two houses, and I
subsequently made inquiries with regard to them, in order to fill up gaps in the information
and clear up doubtful points. The results ultimately obtained were as follows—
Seventeen women stated that they had been vaccinated in infancy, and subsequently
re-vaccinated, and presented more or less complete evidence that such was,
in fact, the case.
With regard to five others, moreover, this was said to be true, and, though
the evidence was of a less satisfactory character, it may reasonably be supposed
that the statement was correct.
Thirteen women said that they had been vaccinated in infancy only, and presented
evidence suggestive of the fact that this was the case.
Three women believed they had been vaccinated in infancy (two of them said
they had been vaccinated twice), but no vaccination scars of any sort could be
detected.
Seven of the thirty-eight women stated that they had suffered from smallpox
(these included the three cases presenting no evidence of having ever been vaccinated,
but none of the cases presenting evidence of having been re-vaccinated).
These thirty-eight women were in no way selected, save in so far as they did not
include four cases which had been removed, during the few weeks prior to the survev,
suffering from smallpox. The state as to vaccination was not precisely ascertained
prior to removal in these four cases; so far as it was known the women had been vaccinated
in infancy but not re-vaccinated.
From these facts it may be inferred that approximately 59 per cent. of the women
were vaccinated and re-vaccinated; 33 per cent. of the women had been vaccinated in
infancy only (ten out of the thirty-three per cent. having had smallpox); 8 per cent. were
unvaccinated (all those included in this 8 per cent. had had smallpox).
(i) A survey made by Mr. Gamer, the Council's inspector, early in April, 1902,
of seventy-eight male lodgers in Campbell's lodging-house, Vere-street. None of these
lodgers had been re-vaccinated, attempts to persuade men at this house to be re-vaccinated
having proved unsuccessful. They were in no sense selected, save in so far
as they do not include the cases which had been removed from the house suffering from
smallpox. Of such oases, six or seven may be regarded as the number which would
have to be allotted to the 78 cases in order to make the sample a complete one; of
these six or seven it may be assumed that the majority had been vaccinated in infancy.
(None, so far as is known, had been re-vaccinated.) The inclusion or exclusion of these
seven cases will be found to have no large effect on the percentages obtained.
Of the 78 lodgers, 42 had been vaccinated and re-vaccinated, 33 had been vaccinated
in infancy only, or only vaccinated on one occasion, 3 had never been vaccinated.
Eighteen of the 78 stated that they had had smallpox prior to 1901; these 18 included
6 of those vaccinated in infancy only, and the 3 who had never been vaccinated. It
will thus be seen that 9 of the 78 claimed they had been vaccinated and re-vaccinated,
and that they had also had smallpox. It is noteworthy, however, that 4 of the 9 put the
date of their attack of smallpox before that of their re-vaccination ; one of them said
he had suffered from smallpox at 11 years of age, when unvaccinated, and had subsequently
been vaccinated and re-vaccinated at 18 and 30 years of age respectively. The remaining
4 claimed to have had smallpox at intervals of 8, 10, 13 and 42 years respectively
after re-vaccination. Thus approximately it may be stated that—
54 per cent. of the men were vaccinated and re-vaccinated (about one-tenth of these
belonged to the group of 9 men referred to already as having stated they had suffered
from smallpox subsequent to re-vaccination). .
[15]