London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

Southgate 1948

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Southgate]

This page requires JavaScript

Prevalence and Control
over Infectious Diseases
From the table of notifications set out on page 45 it will be
seen that 1,156 cases of infectious disease were notified during the
year, as against 887 in 1947 and 797 in 1946. The Infectious Sickness
Rate for the district was thus 15.62, as compared with 11.93.
during 1947 and 10.96 in 1946.
The rise in Infectious Sickness Rate was almost entirely due
to the increase in measles notifications.
Diphtheria. —For the first year in the recorded health history
of Southgate, no cases of diphtheria have been notified. This will
be referred to in greater detail later in the Report, in the section
dealing with Immunisation.
Scarlet Fever.—Scarlet fever notifications received during the
year were almost identical with those relating to 1947 (104 as
against 105). The type of disease was again mild, admission to
hospital being necessary in only 34 cases.
It is interesting to note that the policy adopted by the
Regional Hospital Board in regard to the admission of cases of
scarlet fever to hospital is almost identical with that approved by
the Southgate Borough Council. Broadly speaking, cases of
scarlet fever are only admitted to hospital when either the severity
of the illness, home conditions or accompanying circumstances
relating to a breadwinner in the family warrant this action being
taken. So long as scarlet fever retains its present mild character,
I have no doubt that this policv is sound. In this connection, it
is becoming increasingly obvious that the term "scarlet fever"
is a misnomer and that it is based on false premises. The rash
in scarlet fever, from which the disease takes its present name,
can only be regarded as one among a collection of symptoms.
Indeed, it is not too much to say that the rash has little or no
epidemiological significance, beyond the fact that it draws attention
to the underlying condition. Unfortunately, we are still
inclined, indeed encouraged, to limit our consideration of scarlet
fever cases to those patients who exhibit a rash, or in which the
occurrence of a rash can be presumed, except in comparatively
rare circumstances. This leaves out of account the very large
variety of streptococcal infections of the throat, many of which
are equally infectious. This presents immediate difficulties when
one has to deal with an outbreak of streptococcal infection in a
school. It is to be hoped that this situation will receive more
attention than it has in the past, and that steps will be taken to
alter the machinery at present at our disposal for dealing with and
controlling all forms of streptococcal throat infection.
38