View report page

30
8th and 9th, A question arises in these cases, would these
four cases have occurred if they had been re-vaccinated on
March 25, as soon as the rash appeared in No. 1? According
to Mr. Marson's opinion they would not, as he believes if
re-vaccination be effectually performed within two, or at
the most three days after exposure to small-pox infection,
those who are so exposed will not suffer from the disease.
At any rate, it is certain that no one else suffered as soon
as re-vaccination was performed on all the inmates.
The cause of the outbreak in the women's ward is not
so simple, as there was no direct communication between the
two sides of the Infirmary, the only persons passing from
one to the other being the medical officers. The fact,
however, that No. 6, the first case that occurred on the
female side, was employed in the laundry to which the
infected clothes had been sent without dis-infection (as
small-pox was not suspected), and that she sickened about
the usual time after the clothes were sent to the laundry,
seems satisfactory evidence as to the origin of the disease.
No. 1 first showed the rash about Maroh 24th, and was
removed with the rash out on April 9th. This, I think,
pretty conclusively proves the assumption that she took the
disease from infected clothing. No. 7, who had no connection
with No. 6, except that both were employed in the
laundry, was removed to the Hospital on April 14, and
No. 8 on April 15th, both of these being inmates of the
same ward. How No. 8 caught the disease cannot be
be explained, unless the clothes of No. 7 became infected in
the laundry ; but, if so, it is somewhat difficult to say why
the outbreak in this ward was confined to these two, unless
the speedy re-vaccination of all the oocupants of the ward
prevented any further spread of the disease. I think,
considering the large number of inmates, I believe more
than 800, the rapidity with which the epidemic was stamped
out is, in my opinion, most satisfactory, especially as