View report page

29
was removed the same day to the Hospital; and on April
9th, J. G. (No. 4) and F. A. (No. 5) both in the samo
ward as No. 1, were removed to the Small-pox Hospital;
and on the same day E. C. (No. 6) sleeping in a female
ward, who was engaged in the laundry, was attacked with
the disease, and at once removed to the Hospital. As I
understand, none of these had been re-vaccinated; but the
whole of the inmates of this ward, which was in no way
connected with the ward in which the disease broke out,
were re-vaccinated as quiokly as possible.
On April 14th and 15th two other cases, those
of A. A. (Nos. 7 and 8), occupying a third ward, were
attacked; the former, No. 7, was employed in the laundry,
and No. 8 occupied a bed immediately opposite to No. 7,
but as she was sickly she was not employed in the laundry.
The inmates of this ward, as well as of the other two, were
all re-vaccinated, and everything they had used properly
disinfected; and subsequently both wards were emptied of
their inmates—that is to say, after 15 days had elapsed
from the occurrence of the last case, and no other persons
have been attacked.
The history of this outbreak is, I think, unusually
instructive. It will be seen that No. 1 must have received
the infection before his admission, as four or five days after
he came in he had the rash of small-pox, which was mistaken
as it readily may be, for that of syphilis. The man, No. 2,
who waited upon him, being frightened on hearing what
the disease was, left the Infirmary, but became infected as
well as others from No. 1, and was removed to the Hospital
10 days after he left the Infirmary, and 15 days after he
was first exposed to infection. If it be allowed, which I am
not certain about, that small-pox is not infectious until the
appearance of the rash, at any rate there can be no doubt as
to the cause of his infection, nor of Nos. 3, 4 and 5, who
were removed to the Hospital from the same ward on April