View report page

27
Concerning the Notified Cases the following facts were ascertained:—
Suffering from other diseases, and not enteric
fever 59
Doubtful diagnosis 1
Home case,diagnosis subsequently amended 2
Infected outside the Borough 56
Possibly infected by shellfish, watercress, &c. 47
Infected from other cases 58
,, while unstopping of drains. 1
,, by overflow of sewer 1
225
Source of illness not traced 197
Total 422
Of the 197 cases, the source of which was not traced, and
which, therefore, might have been water-borne infection, 140 lived
within the area of the "Croydon" supply, and 57 in the "Lam beth"
area. The enteric fever incidence in the two areas was, therefore,
12 per 10,000 in the "Croydon" area, and 14 per 10,000 in the
"Lambeth" area for the eleven years. The numbers for both
water supplies are small, and conclusively disprove the suggestion
that there has been any water-borne epidemic in Croydon during
recent years.
When the numbers of cases of enteric fever are so small as they
were in Croydon in 1910, the question of a water epidemic does not
arise, but knowing what we do of the potential dangeis of water
infection, it is still essential that the efforts made by the Water
Committee to further safeguard the public supplies should be in no
way relaxed.
Investigation was also made into the sanitary condition of all
premises in which cases of enteric fever occurred, which could not
be traced to infection outside the borough. As the numbers for
1910 are small, particulars have been extracted for the six years
1905—1910.