View report page

28
at home, and two cases were removed to hospital. Two
other pupils in another family had been previously
removed to hospital suffering from scarlet fever, and
subsequently two more pupils belonging to a third family
were attacked.
A child being taken ill, was allowed to mix freely with the
children of another family in the adjoining house, the
result being that all of them, four in number, contracted
the disease.
In three cases, in as many families, scarlet fever was contracted
at the seaside and imported into the parish.
A case, recorded in October, was the child of a School Board
visitor, and there appeared to be good grounds for
suspecting that the father's clothing had been the
medium of infection, he having had occasion, in discharge
of his official duties, to visit at houses where the disease
existed. The child was treated at home, and the visitor
was relieved from duty until the medical attendant was
able to give him a clean bill of health. The School
Board, I may mention, do not allow children to attend
school from houses where scarlet fever exists, even
though there be no illness in the families to which the
excluded children belong, and naturally therefore they
do not allow a visitor to be on duty while there is infectious
illness in his family. It may be doubted, however,
whether it would not be to the public advantage to find
a temporary lodging for the visitor in such a case rather
than let him remain at home idle for so many weeks,
supposing he is, as in the above case, unwilling to
avail himself of the means of isolation provided at the
public expense.
Scarlet fever was to a certain extent epidemic in London, in
the latter part of the year, but it did not assume a severe type, and
the deaths were 688 only, or 1,452 fewer than the decennial average,
corrected for increase of population. These deaths give a rate of