View report page

PREVALENCE AND CONTROL OF
INFECTIOUS DISEASES
From the table of infectious diseases set out on page 43, it
will be seen that 1,216 cases of infectious disease were notified
during the year, as against 349 in 1956. The Infectious Sickness
Rate for the district was therefore 16.92 as compared with 4.87
during the previous year.
As I have mentioned on previous occasions, the Infectious
Sickness Rate for any district has lost most of its significance. This
rate is almost entirely governed—at least during any normal year—
by the fact of the period under review being or not being a year
during which measles was prevalent. It need scarcely be said that
1957 was, in fact, a "measles" year, 973 cases being reported, as
against 43 during 1956. Apart from the fact that scarlet fever
notifications rose from 19 in 1956 to 69 in 1957, the year's totals
for individual infectious diseases require no elaboration.
I do not think I can do better here than to quote the remarks
which I included in my report to the meeting of the Public Health
Committee held on the 25th February, 1958, These remarks apply
to the infectious diseases picture as it applied to 1957:
"It must be frankly admitted that, so far as measles
notifications are concerned, we merely receive these notifications
and do little more, unless we are specifically asked to do
so by a general practitioner or by a parent. And this, it may
be observed, is an extremely rare occurrence.
"In the case of scarlet fever notifications, we do, of course,
control the contacts of food handlers; while we still carry out
disinfection when and where this is requested or required. But
here again, it must be appreciated that what we do now is more
or less infinitesimal compared with what we did not so very
many years ago. Indeed, in my submission, having regard to
all the circumstances, the only justification for continuing the
notification of the disease which we know as 'scarlet fever'
is the fact that, at any time, the more severe type may arrive
back in this country, and will then require rigorous super'
vision. The notification of 'scarlet fever' seems even more
illogical when it is remembered that streptococcal infection of
the throat without a rash is not notifiable but is generally
assumed to be more infectious. It must also be borne in mind
that many cases of the present mild type of scarlet fever are
never notified at all. Indeed, in quite a number of instances,
it would seem that the existence of the disease is never even
suspected.
34