London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972
View report page
Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
London County Council 1906
[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for London County Council]
This page requires JavaScript
30
immediately a case of measles was notified, and in the other only the ordinary measures of excluding
children coming from infected homes were adopted. Comparing the prevalence of measles in each of
these districts in the four years 1903-6 with the prevalence in an antecedent period, 1901-2, he finds
that "although closure of classes appears to have had the effect of greatly limiting the increase of measles
in the Eastern district compared with the Western, it must be admitted that the total result of closure
has been much less than might have been hoped for," and he attributes this to the fact that "there
is no satisfactory system by which a teacher becomes aware of the cause of the absence of a pupil."
Commenting on the smaller mortality from measles in Woolwich in later years, he attributes this result
to a more hygienic treatment of children who are attacked as the result of advice which is given to
the parents by the sanitary anthority.
There is some indication that measles is now being regarded more than formerly by parents as a
serious malady, and Dr. Dudfield states that it was found in Kensington that a larger proportion of the
cases was attended by a medical man.
Reference to Dr. Kerr's report (Appendix II.) shows that 52 classrooms and 15 departments
in the infants' departments of provided and non-provided schools were closed during the year on
account of measles prevalence.
Scarlet Fever.
The cases of scarlet fever notified in the Administrative County of London during 1906 (52 weeks)
numbered 20,329, compared with 19,461 in 1905. The number of deaths registered from this cause was
533 in the year 1906 (52 weeks), compared with 549 in 1905.
The scarlet fever case-rates, death-rates and case-mortality for 1906 and preceding periods arc shown in the following table:—
| Period. | Death-rate per 1,000 persons living. | Case-rate per 1,000 persons living. | Case-mortality per cent. |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1861-70 | 1.13 | –1 | –1 |
| 1871-80 | 0.60 | –1 | –1 |
| 1881-90 | 0.33 | –1 | –1 |
| 1891-1900 | 0.192 | 4.8 | 3.9 |
| 1901 | 0.132 | 4.1 | 3.2 |
| 1902 | 0.122 | 3.9 | 3.1 |
| 1903 | 0.082 | 2.7 | 2.9 |
| 1904 | 0.082 | 2.9 | 2.7 |
| 1905 | 0.122 | 4.2 | 2.8 |
| 1906 | 0.112 | 4.3 | 2.6 |
The death-rate in each year since 1858 in relation to the mean death-rate of the period 1859—
1906 will be seen on reference to diagram VIII.
The monthly case-rate and case-mortality in each of the years 1891-1906 in relation to the
mean of the whole period is shown in diagram X.
It will be seen from the following table that in the decennium 1896-1905 the London scarlet fever
death-rate was lower than that of any of the undermentioned English towns, except Bristol and
West Ham, and in 1906 was exceeded by the death-rates of Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Bradford,
West Ham, Salford and Leicester:—
| Town. | 1896-1905 | 1906. | Town. | 1896-1905 | 1906. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| London | 0.121 | 0.113 | West Ham | 0.12 | 0-13 |
| Liverpool | 0.29 | 0.25 | Bradford | 0.16 | 014 |
| Manchester | 0.19 | 0.18 | Newcastle-on-Tyne0 | 0.13 | 0.06 |
| Birmingham | 0.21 | 0.10 | Hull | 0.13 | 0.05 |
| Leeds | 0.18 | 0.07 | Nottingham | 0.14 | 0.07 |
| Sheffield | 0.20 | 0.49 | Salford | 0.33 | 0.19 |
| Bristol | 0.12 | 0.08 | Leicester | 0.15 | 0.22 |
The following table shows that the London scarlet fever death-rate was, both in the decennium
1896-1905 and the year 1906, exceeded by the death-rates of Stockholm, St. Petersburg, Berlin, Vienna
and New York:—
1 The Infectious Disease (Notification) Act came into force in 1889.
2 See footnote (2), page 7. 3 See footnote (1), page 8.