View report page

89
group being concerned in the causation of scarlet fever. This
latter view is fortified by the knowledge that the streptococci
found in scarlet fever and those found in erysipelas have distinctive
cultural and other characteristics and that the diseases
do not overlap and have epidemiological nothing in common.
This latter view may, of course, be quite acceptable and
from observation is quite acceptable as regards scarlet fever
and erysipelas, but what of the relationship between the cases
of scarlet fever (clinical) and those of sore throat without
other manifestations of scarlet fever found in households,
schools and hospitals, occurring simultaneously and from which
the same type of hæmolytic streptococcus is isolated? Is not
the individual with the absence of clinical signs of scarlet
fever save one, i.e., the rash, possessed of potentialities for
dissemination as potent as are those of the individual possessing
the undoubted text-book clinical picture, and if so the
further question arises as to the desirability of regarding
such persons as potentially infectious.
It has been advanced as a tenable theory that the rash
in scarlet fever is due to a particular susceptibility on the
part of the individual, and this is supported by the fact that
other members of a household, in which there is a case of
scarlet fever, often suffer from sore throat and other symptoms
but do not develop the rash with which the disease is
associated.