London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972
View report page
Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
Hackney 1930
[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Hackney]
This page requires JavaScript
98
Chickenpox.—Owing to the prevalence of smallpox, the Council
made an Order in pursuance of Sec. 56 of the Public Health
(London) Act, 1891, making chickenpox compulsorily notifiable in
the Borough from 7th February. The Order was in force at the
end of the year. The number of notifications received was 648.
Scarlet Fever or Scarlatina.—The number of cases of scarlet
fever notified during the year was 984. Fifty-four of the patients
notified as suffering from this disease were found, after admission
to hospital, not to be suffering from an infectious disease. The
actual number of cases of scarlet fever occurring in the Borough
during the year was, therefore, 930. This is an increase of 102 upon
the actual number of cases that occurred during 1929. The attackrate
for scarlet fever was 4.3 per 1,000 persons living, and for
England and Wales 2.76.
The number of cases removed to hospital during the year was
875. This is equal to 88.4 per cent. of the total number of
notifications received.
The following table shows the distribution of scarlet fever in the Electoral Wards and Registration Sub-districts of the Borough:—
| Area. | No. of cases. | Attack-rate per 1,000 living. |
|---|---|---|
| The Borough | ||
| Wards:— | ||
| Stamford Hill | ||
| West Hackney | ||
| Kingsland | ||
| Downs | ||
| Clapton Park | ||
| Homerton | ||
| South Hackney | ||
| Hackney | ||
| Registration Sub-districts:— | ||
| North | ||
| Central | ||
| South-West | ||
| South-East |
It will be seen that scarlet fever was most prevalent in the
Clapton Park Ward of the Borough.
Twelve of the 930 cases of scarlet fever were patients in the
same family as a person who had within the previous 28 days
returned from hospital after having been treated for this disease.
Cases of this kind are called "return" cases, and careful
investigation is made in these cases with a view to ascertaining
whether there is any direct evidence that infection has been
conveyed by the discharged patient. No such evidence could be
obtained in regard to the 12 "return" cases.