View report page

29
disease assumed a mild form, and no doctor was consulted. An examination
was coming on at a local school, amongst the pupils at which scarlet fever had
been very prevalent, and as it was important to whip-up absentees, attention
was directed to the fact—after nearly four weeks—of the absence of one of the
constable's children whose attendance was desired. The School Board Visitor
found the current address of the family (who had migrated from the Mews
referred to above as furnishing so many cases of scarlet fever), and, on calling
at the house, was informed that the absence of the children was due to scarlet
fever. On the house being visited, it appeared that the servants of the occupier
had already returned, and that the family were to follow on the next day. The
constable and his family were to go home, and did go home, the sick children
in a public vehicle (number unknown), on the day when visited. The occupier
had been kept in ignorance of the illness, and but for the prompt action
of the Inspector, in telegraphing, he would have brought his family to a house
reeking with infection. The constable, it may be mentioned, continued on
duty throughout the illness, but was taken off duty as soon as the Divisional
Surgeon became acquainted with the facts. The constable should have reported
the outbreak at once, in conformity with Police Orders (vide my
Annual Report for 1882, page 75). If he had done so, he would have been
relieved from duty ; the children would have "been removed ; the occupier
would have been informed; the house would have been disinfected —in a
word, everything would have been done to secure the safety of all parties,
and presumably the constable would have lost the advantages of his position
as caretaker. Some of the children it may be added had attended school after
the disease broke out in the family.
Two cases occurred in the family of a lodger. The first, beginning on
August 18th, was concealed, the result being a second case a few days later.
The landlady of the house knew nothing of the illness until her own child
was attacked on the 3rd September. All three cases were removed to hospital
on 5th September.
In another house there were four concealed cases. The first case began
on the 19th August, the child dying on the 23rd. Upon visitation of the
house—as a result of the registration of the death—three other children were
found to be ill, having been successively infected.
In another house there were four cases in two families. The first
case began on the 16th August, two other children in the same family
being successively attacked. Another case occurring a few days later,
in another family, was reported, after some delay, visited, and removed.
The illness of the other three children was then ascertained, and they also
were removed to hospital.
In another house a child was attacked on August 9th, two others fell ill
on the 16th and 24th respectively. The child last attacked died, and
registration of the death led to discovery of the other cases, which, however,
were not removed, consent of the parents being withheld.