View report page

54
The next case (2) was notified on August 8th, and was in no
way connected with the first. This patient was also in good
circumstances, was engaged in London and enquiries did not elicit
information as to an unrecognised case or to any article of diet
which might have been a possible cause.
The case was efficiently nursed at home and no further case
arose in connection with it.
On August 18th, a case (3) was notified from a cottage in the
Second Cross Road. The patient was seen by the Medical Officer
of Health and the diagnosis verified bacteriologically. Neither
his occupation, diet nor sanitary surroundings were open to
suspicion. The only feature in common between cases (2) and (3)
being that both were in the habit of bathing in the river regularly,
and frequently swallowed river water.
As Hospital accommodation for typhoid cases has not been
provided by the Council, the patient remained at home and was
nursed by his mother.
On September 9th a second case (4) was notified from the
same house and died after a few days. On September the 24th,
the mother (5) of these cases was found to be suffering from the
disease and after considerable difficulty was admitted to a London
hospital. Three other members of the same family (6), (7), (8),
had by this time however been infected although one was a very
mild case, the other two were of a very severe type and died after
removal to a nursing home. A subsequent case (9) was notified
from a cottage in another road and was also removed to a nursing
home. She was a friend of case (6) and in all probability a
contact case.
After removal and isolation of these cases, no further cases
arose in the district, which has since been entirely free from the
disease. Altogether, therefore, there were seven cases at or in
connection with the cottage in the Second Cross Road, and there is
no doubt that six were due to infection from the first case (3)
arising there.