Annual report of the Medical Officer of Health of the Borough of Hammersmith for the year 1902.

  • Hammersmith (London, England). Metropolitan Borough.
Date:
[1903]
Catalogue details

Licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)

Credit: Annual report of the Medical Officer of Health of the Borough of Hammersmith for the year 1902. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    13/62 (page 13)
    13 No. 6.—Case of W— L—, age 35, a labourer, employed at-, Charles Street, Kensington, and residing at Southerton Road. He was first taken ill on January 1st. A rash appeared on January 3rd. The paitent went to the out patients' department of the West London Hospital on January 4th, when his illness was diagnosed as variola. He was detained there until removed the same day by the Metropolitan Asylums Board to Rotherhithe. He had resided at Southerton Road for some months. There had been no previous case of illness lately at the house, but a case, that of J— F—, was removed from No. —, Southerton Road, on December 22nd, and a second case from the same house on December 28th. As this patient was first taken ill on January 1st, he probably contracted the disease on or about December 20th. By reference to my notes on the of case J—F—it will be seen that he was suffering from the disease on that date. As No. — is nearly opposite No. —, the infection may have been carried across the street from No. — to this patient. No information as to vaccination was obtained. No. 7.—Case of J— E— F—, age 48, a coachman, residing at R— H—. When vaccinating at R— H— on January 4th, my attention was called to this man. I found that he had a temperature of 1023, and an erithematous rash. I had him at once removed to your Council's Shelter, Brook Green Road. The following day the rash had become distinctly vesicular, and was indicative of variola. I therefore had him at once removed by the Metropolitan Asylums Board to Rotherhithe. He had resided at R— H— for three months. He occupied cubicle 71. He had been vaccinated when a child, and was re-vaccinated on December 14th. On January 4th, when I saw him, he had been ill for three days. He had evidently contracted small-pox five days after I vaccinated him, during the incubation period of the vaccination. I found that his symptoms were very slight, and the rash was very modified, owing to the effect of the concurrent vaccination. Had he been vaccinated a few days before, there can be no doubt he would not have contracted the disease at all. -No. 8.—Case of J— J— P—, age 42, a frame maker, employed at , Westbourne Grove, and residing at Netherwood Road. He was first taken ill on January 1st. A rash appeared on January 4th. The complaint was diagnosed by the private medical attendant on January 6th, and he was removed the same day by the Metropolitan Asylums