View report page

273
It is impossible to say, with any pretence to certainty,
from the above facts, whether or not the notifiable diseases
have been unusually prevalent or not, for the Notification
Act only came into operation at the end of October, 1889;
and the year to which my present report relates is the first
year in which notification has been carried out uniformly
from the beginning to the end. But assuming the record
to be fairly complete and fairly accurate, I do not think
that it shews an alarming prevalence of the diseases of
which it takes cognisance.
The two cases of reputed small-pox were notified
severally on the 4th and 12th of February of the year 1891.
The first was that of a young baby, which I saw, and as to
which I am doubtful if it was really a case of small-pox.
The second was that of a young male adult. Both cases
were treated at home and recovered. In neither could we
trace the source of infection, and from neither, so far as we
were able to learn, was there any spread. The case of
reputed typhus was that of a lad. I have reason to believe
that it was not really a case of typhus, and at any rate it
was not followed by any extension of disease. The case of
cholera was not a case of Asiatic or Epidemic Cholera, but
merely a severe case of summer diarrhoea; and this leads me
to observe that it is somewhat unfortunate that "cholera"
should be included among the notifiable diseases. Cholera
was the name originally given to cases of severe summer
diarrhoea, before the Asiatic or Epidemic Cholera (quite a
different disease) was known in Europe. On the advent of
the latter disease, owing to the striking;; resemblance which
some of its symptoms bore to those of the endemic malady,
the term cholera was applied to it, and now the graver