Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-09T03:16:07.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Outbreak of Diphtheria checked by Prophylactic Use of Antitoxin, and the Isolation of Infected Persons

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Louis Cobbett
Louis Cobbett
Affiliation:
From the Pathological Laboratory of the University of Cambridge
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Towards the end of October 1900 the Sanitary Authorities of Cambridge and Chesterton found themselves face to face with a serious outbreak of diphtheria; the first official notification had been on October 14th, and by October 23rd eleven cases had been notified, of which four terminated fatally, on October 15th, 21st, 22nd and 26th respectively. These four were all children attending the Infants' Department of a certain Higher Grade School, and the other seven cases were either children of this school or persons closely associated with them.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , April 1901 , pp. 228 - 234
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1901

References

1 The number of notifications of diphtheria in previous years may be of interest for comparison. From 1890 to 1899 inclusive they were as follows: 23, 20, 8, 15, 7, 24, 10, 16, 34, 27. In 1900 previous to the outbreak there had been 15 cases notified in the early part of the year, none in June, July or August, and one in September, which could not be connected in any way with the outbreak which followed. These figures are not strictly comparable with those of the outbreak itself, because during the period of the latter bacteriological examination was for the first time extensively used, with the result that some mild cases, which would probably have otherwise escaped detection, were notified, while two notifications were withdrawn on the result of a negative bacteriological examination. The figures for the outbreak include all notifications, except those withdrawn, whether confirmed bacteriologically or not. For their analysis see the next paper. For the early part of this year since Jan. 5th the weekly notifications have been: 1, 1, 0, 2, 0, 1, 4, 1, 3.

1 Ravenel, Mazÿck P., “A Contribution to the Study of Membranous Rhinitis.” The (Philadelphia) Medical News, 25 05, 1895.Google Scholar

2 Cited by Welch, W. H., “Bacteriological Investigations of Diphtheria in the United States.” Am. Journ. of Med. Sciences, 10 1894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Cited by Abbott.

4 Abbott, A. C., “The Etiology of Membranous Rhinitis.” The (Philadelphia) Medical News, 05 1893.Google Scholar

5 One killed a guinea-pig in 4 days, two, each in 5 days, aud two caused symptoms from which the animals recovered. Cited by Welch (loc. cit.), the dose not being stated.