Dr. H.F. Parsons's report to the Local Government Board on the recent prevalence of scarlet fever and diphtheria in the Thorne registration district, and on the general sanitary condition of the sanitary districts comprised therein / [H. Franklin Parsons].

  • Parsons, H. Franklin (Henry Franklin), 1846-1913.
Date:
1883
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Dr. H.F. Parsons's report to the Local Government Board on the recent prevalence of scarlet fever and diphtheria in the Thorne registration district, and on the general sanitary condition of the sanitary districts comprised therein / [H. Franklin Parsons]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    3/14 (page 3)
    u took scarlet fever. Mr. Pullan, medical officer of health for Belton, says, that “’as soon as “ his attention was drawn to these facts, he stopped the selling of milk until the fever “ abated and the skinning process had been gone through, as well as the house “ thoroughly disinfected.’* He also says, “ Mothers visit infected houses with children “ in their arms, thinking there is no danger in doing so. I have cautioned them not “ to do so, but still they persist.” In at least one instance the corpse of a child who had died of scarlet fever was carried to the grave by little girls. In March 1882, scarlet fever appears to have been independently introduced into Beltoft, a hamlet a mile east of Belton, by children attending school at West Butterwick in the Gainsborough Union. I have no evidence, however, that school attendance bore a large part at Belton in diffusing the disease, and it was not thought necessary to close the village school, except for the usual holidays in August and at Christmas. The disease appears to have almost subsided between July and November, but broke out again in the winter,—it was thought, owing to a re-introduction from Thorne by persons attending a sale. The proportion of scarlet fever deaths to population was greater in Belton than in any other place in the union, but this high mortality fell especially upon particular families, two having lost three children each, and another two children. In Epworth no other cases appear to have immediately followed that first mentioned. On April 25th, a little boy, son of a draper, died of “ croup.” Three days after his death, his sister began to be ill of scarlet fever, which was followed by dropsy. She died on June 22nd, her death also being certified as due to “ croupanother child also had scarlet fever. The origin of these cases is not known. The house was damp, and a bad smell was complained of. Shortly after these (the date could not be learned), the child of an innkeeper suffered from what seems to have been scarlet fever (though this was denied at the time), having had sore throat, and a slight rash followed by peeling of the skin. Several other families residing in different parts of the parish, but con¬ nected or in communication with that of the innkeeper, were attacked in July ; and in August the disease became generally diffused over the parish. The two public elementary schools in Epworth were closed on July 21st, and remained so till September 18th, but the Sunday schools were not closed. It may be noted that the number of households newly attacked in each month fell from 19 in July to two each in September and October, after which it again rose. In 30 households the first member to be attacked was a child attending school, though there was not at any time a disproportionately large incidence upon the scholars of either school. Instances were heard of in which children who had had scarlet fever, or living in infected houses, had returned to school, doubtless without the knowledge of the managers, after in¬ sufficient periods of quarantine. It appears likely that at Epworth school attendance had some influence in spreading the disease, but on the other hand in many of the cases a history could be obtained of communication, other than at school, with neigh¬ bours previously affected. Five of the deaths at Epworth occurred in one family, of which seven members were attacked. The house in which this family resided is an old one, and somewhat damp, and the bedrooms are rather low, but it is not worse than many of the other houses in Epworth, and I could not find any explanation of this terrible fatality. In Thorne the first cases of scarlet fever occurred in April 1882, two or three households having been apparently independently attacked; the origin of the outbreak is unknown. In some subsequent cases there was a history of the introduction of the disease from Gfoole and Mexbrough. In June and July the disease appeared to be subsiding, only one new household being attacked in the latter mouth, but in August the number rose to seven. Several of the cases about this time were children attending a dame’s school (since closed) to which a little boy who had recently had scarlet fever had returned, it was said, before he had quite recovered. The epidemic persisted longer at Thorne than at the other places in the district, and had not entirely ceased at the end of May, when my inspection was made. The other places in the district, which are of a rural character, had been visited but slightly, although there were still some cases of scarlet fever at Hatfield at the time of my visit. In the remote townships of Wroot (population 356) and Sykehouse (popu¬ lation 426) no cases were known to have occurred. The first case of scarlet fever in Crowle occurred in the family of a woman who had come not long before from Belton, where scarlet fever had previously been prevalent. This was some time between March and the end of May 1882, but exact dates and par* ticulars could not be obtained.