View report page

31
SECTION F
PREVALENCE OF AND CONTROL OVER INFECTIOUS
DISEASE.
Scarlet Fever.
The figures for 1952 show a decided increase on last year. Under
the existing circumstances this cannot really create undue surprise
because although the disease is notifiable it has of late been of a mild
type and consequently there appears to have been a lessening in the
regard previously held for it by the public and thus in the measures
adopted by the public to prevent spread.
It may be said rightly that the Public Health Authority are under
an obligation to insist upon requisite measures of prevention but in the
ultimate the degree to which any advice is carried out depends entirely
upon the outlook of the individual concerned. Since Scarlet Fever
has frequently been referred to as largely of the same family as epidemic
sore throats and since in one household a ease or cases of sore throatwhich
is not notifiable—precede or even follow the case of Scarlet Fever,
it is naturally difficult for people to realise that Scarlet Fever retains
any of its pristine importance. It is appreciated that absolute rigid
isolation for any lengthy period is under ordinary circumstances practically
impossible save in hospital but it would probably be premature
to say that scant regard should now be paid to the disease.
Our visiting of notified cases of the disease has two main advantages
in that firstly some degree of isolation for a minimum period is secured
and any very close contacts who may be in occupations of public health
importance, e.g. catering or milk trades, are ascertained and can be
kept under observation until (at any rate immediate) danger is passed.
This role of acting as a gleaner and supervisor of important contacts
remains one of our most important functions in preventing the
spread of infection and however relatively mild the disease would appear,
there is 110 doubt as to the preventive value of practice of this nature.
I have noted below certain features of importance concerning some
of our local cases during the year, viz:—
Duration of Isolation. The figures are based on the interval
elapsing between the appearance of the rash and the date upon which
the case was certified by the private practioner as free from infection
or discharged from hospital.
1-6 days
7-14 days
15-21 days
22-28 days
Over 28 days
Home
6
21
36
50
58
Hospital
2
10
5
1

Of the cases hospitalised, 3 occurred in households of 3 persons,
6 in 4, 5 in 5, 4 in 6.