View report page

1923
28
The infected person moved freely about the district
between May 3rd and May 18th, and came in contact with
hundreds of people. He drew his old-age pension 3 times at
the Post Office in Bollo Bridge Road, but as far as can be ascertained
the only one who contracted Small-pox was the case
notified from Isleworth on May 18th.
The inmates of the Common Lodging House were kept
under observation. All the lodgers were examined on the night
of May 18th and the following Sunday morning. A fairly complete
examination is only possible early on a Sunday morning
or a holiday, and neither day is an ideal one to carry out such
an examination.
Early on the morning of Whit-Monday, May 28th I was
successful in examining all the inmates except one. I found 2
suffering from Small-pox, one of them had felt seedy on May
25th or 26th, and a rash appeared op May 27th. The other had
felt seedy on May 24th, but was unaware of a rash until I
pointed out a few spots to him on his face, feet and hands.
The person who had avoided me on Whit-Monday was
absent again on Whit-Tuesday. He complained of being seedy
on May 29th, and the proprietor told him to go and see a doctor.
He did not return to the Lodging House, but through the
Relieving Officer it was found that he had been admitted to the
Workhouse Infirmary. I telephoned to Dr. Nash and the man
was kept under observation and on June 1st, he was found to
be suffering from Small-pox. No more cases occurred in the
Common Lodging House but on July 3rd a case was notified
from a house in the same street and situated almost exactly
opposite the Lodging House. The patient had been ill over a
week and the rash appeared about July 1st. although every
endeavour was made to trace the source of infection of this latter
cast we were unsuccessful. It is natural to assume that a further
case may have occurred among someone in or near the Common
Lodging House, and the case notified on July 3rd infected from
this missed case. The dates suggest that someone was infected
by the cases which ocurred at the end of May, developed Smallpox
about the middle of June and then infected the woman who
developed Small-pox and was notified on July 3rd. But these
are mere, assumptions and no one was known to have had an
illness which might have been Small-pox towards the middle of
June.
The number of cases reported here was too small to
generalise, but they seemed to be similar in character to the
cases which occurred in London in 1928, and really formed part
of that outbreak. The outbreak in London was of the mild or
sub-toxic type which has been wide-spread in the provinces for