View report page

33
This leaves 20 primary cases which had occurred in families
supplied with milk by the same dairy, and this report deals
with these 20 cases.
Dealing with the question as to the evidence that the
cases were Scarlet Fever, there is no doubt on that point.
Eleven of the cases were admitted to the hospital, and all the
patients presented the characteristic signs and symptoms of
Scarlet Fever. The rash was indistinguishable from the ordinary
rash of Scarlet Fever, and the appearance of the throat and
tongue was typical of Scarlet Fever. Moreover, secondary cases
occurred in several houses. In one house six cases occurred.
The type of the disease was mild, but the age distribution of the
disease was unusual. The proportion of adults was high, and this
circumstance in itself might have affected the type of the
disease.
The 20 cases occurred in 18 houses, three of the cases
having occurred in one house. The total number of inhabitants
in the 18 houses was 95, and of these 54 were stated
not to have had a previous attack of Scarlet Fever.
In one instance the information obtained was indefinite.
In one instance the patient had not taken unboiled milk. In
seven instances the person attacked was the only one in the
house who had partaken of unboiled milk. In two instances
the maids of the house were attacked. When inquiries were
made at the house, the heads of the family declared that no
one in the house drank raw milk, but when the maids were
questioned they admitted that they had taken uncooked milk.
In one of the houses, the maid was the only person
attacked. In the other house, the maid was the primary case,
but subsequently five other cases occurred in the house.
In one instance, the person attacked and a sister were the
only ones in the house who drank unboiled milk. The sister