Return cases of scarlet fever and diphtheria : reports and papers relative to the Board's inquiries / Metropolitan Asylums Board.
- Metropolitan Asylums Board (London, England)
- Date:
- 1901
Licence: In copyright
Credit: Return cases of scarlet fever and diphtheria : reports and papers relative to the Board's inquiries / Metropolitan Asylums Board. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.
11/52 (page 9)
![sisters were attacked with scarlet fever, the infection of which was pro- bably received at a children's party. (e) llose E. was treated in hospital for scarlet fever and detained 63 days; 11 days after her return, Emily E., her sister, was attacked with diph- theria. It was ascertained that diphtheria prevailed in the district, and that there were cases in the school that Emily attended. (/) Frederick J. was treated in hospital for scarlet fever, and detained there 75 days. Within 18 days of his return five persons in the house were attacked with diphtheria. But the history of the cases pointed to a source of infection quite distinct from that of Frederick, the diphtheria first appearing in a family who had suffered from the same disease the same time the year before. A notable feature of this case was the discovery of a pure culture of diphtheria bacilli in the throat of Frederick, which was evidently the result of living in the midst of an infected household. In this case the discovery of diphtheria bacilli in Frederick’s throat gave no indication that he had infected the others, but rather that he had been infected by them. Together, these two classes represent 7 per cent, of the 339 which have come under investigation, or an incidence on the houses to which the 257 cases were discharged of 9 per cent. As regards source of infection, they obviously have no connection with the primary cases discharged from hospital. This is clearly so in both cases. Still, as a group they are particularly valuable in this inquiry in demonstrating that among the large number of cases of scarlet fever and diphtheria discharged from the Board’s hospitals there will arise, within a short time in the homes to which they have been discharged, fresh or secondary cases of scarlet fever and diphtheria which are unquestionably coincidences, and which are in no way causally related as shown by the time at which the illness commences or by the difference in the nature of the disease, and as coincidences they are in no way causally related with the primary case discharged from hospital. secondary the fresh or secondary cases are of the same kind as the primary cases the source of infection is more diffcult to trace. Naturally, the nature to Primai7 case just returned from hospital bulks largely in every one’s the primary mind as the probable cause, and there is little hesitation on the part cases. of t]ie parents to attribute the secondary cases to that cause; but, even in these, inquiry not infrequently traces the infection to a different source altogether, or shows that there is no evidence to favour the view of there being any connection or, at least, throws considerable doubt on the assumed connection. When the infection is derived from some other source than personal infection of the primary case discharged from hospital, it may be due to an infection which belongs to the house, or which is unconnected with the house, and is derived from the outside. Secondary cases due to outside source of Infection. There were 26 cases in which the probable infection of the secondary cases may be set down as due to outside infection. The following example will suffice to show the nature of these cases:— (a) Arthur D. was discharged from hospital after 63 days’ treat-](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b22369697_0011.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
