View report page

Prevalence and Control of
Infectious Diseases
From the table of infectious diseases set out on page 38. it
will be seen that 781 cases of infectious disease were notified
during the year, as against 1,400 in 1951. The Infectious Sickness
Rate for the district was therefore 10.77 as compared with 19.22
during the previous year.
The fall in the Infectious Sickness Rate was entirely due to a
reduction in the number of cases of measles reported, from 980 to
421. As the Council will be aware, measles became more prevalent
during the last quarter of 1952, and showed a very marked rise
during the early part of 1953. As the previous period of measles
prevalence covered the first six months of 1951, this means that
the two-yearly interval between measles epidemics was reduced.
This is in keeping with what has been happening during recent
years, when the timing of a measles epidemic can no longer be
accurately predicted.
The type of infectious disease met with has once again continued
mild, with few complications or deaths and a very limited
demand for admission to hospital. This, of course, is the standard
by which any period or district must be judged. It is quite impossible
to ensure that infection of one kind or another is not imported
into an area such as Southgate. What we do hope is that, although
the infective agent is present, and although a varying number of
susceptibles will be affected, the ultimate reaction, i.e., the appearance
of a specific disease, will not be serious. Provided this is the
case, and provided those individuals who develop an infectious
disease recover without mishap, the situation might be described
as satisfactory. I think it can be said that this has been the case
so far as Southgate is concerned.
I would once again remind the Council that the field of
epidemiology is very wide, and that we must now think in terms
very much wider than the investigation and control of common
infectious diseases. As I stated in my Annual Report for 1951,
the appearance in greater numbers of virus diseases is a matter in
which we must be very keenly interested. We must also interest
ourselves in any local conditions which are liable to encourage
disease in any shape or form. Unfortunately, although it is very
easy to say this, it is not so easy to carry the principle into practical
effect. Indeed, I am sometimes disturbed by the glib statements
which are occasionally made concerning the role which the Medical
Officer of Health has to play in this particular field. It is readily
admitted that the Public Health Committee and its Medical Officer
of Health must be intimately concerned with the removal of
30