29
whole uninoculated population of the whole district and including the eastern thánás, which
were never infected, we find that out of every thousand persons no less than 38 contracted
plague. This shows that the inoculated are ten times safer than the uninoculated. If we
turn to the actual list of those attacked as given underneath—
Table showing the number of days after inoculation, persons attacked with Plague.
On day of
inocu-
lation.
8
DAYS AFTER INOCULATION.
2
9
3
13 7
s
6
6
7
1st week
53 cases.
7
3
8
3
g
•
10 I! 12 13 14
2nd week
14 cases.
15 16 17 18 19 20
3rd week
12 cases,
21 23 »3
1
24
1
25
I
26
I
4th week
8 cases.
28
2 I
30
3
31
2
32 33 34
S h week
7 cases.
35
I
37 38 39 40 41
6th week
2 cases.
42 V 44 45 46 47 48 49
...
7th week
4 cases.
NOTE.-Besides these, ore person Was attached 55 days after inoculation, another 57, a third 68 and a fourth 90 days after in-
oculation. The details of the remaining 1 case is unknown.
we find that 30 people shewed signs of plague within 72 hours of being inoculated, after
which the drop in the attacks is a large one. These 30 ought certainly not to count, as
they were probably all infected before inoculation. This would reduce the number of attacks
to about .2 per cent., which probably represents the correct number.
" The effect of inoculation is also well marked in reducing the mortality in the disease
Among the uninoculated the case mortality was as high as 76 per cent., or about .
10 per cent, above the average death-rate for this disease in former years ; while among the
inoculated it was only 41.9 per cent., i e. .23 per cent, below the usual average, and 34 per
cent, below that of the uninoculated in the same eptdemtc.
" These results are so marked that, taken with similar results obtained elsewhere
there is little room for doubt as to the efficacy of the prophylactic. It only remains to add
that the inoculations were carried on in the height of the epidemic and among the most
severely infected villages."
Methods of infection.
(ni) No reference is made either by the Deputy Commissioner or by the Plague
Medical Officer as to the manner in which the
infection of plague is disseminated through
infected places or contracted by human beings or other animals, though in the case of rats
the Deputy Commissioner surmises that they may contract the disease by eating infected grain,
as will appear from the extract from the Deputy Commissioner's report, given below : —
On the subject of the conveyance of infection to places previously infected from
plague, Mr. Maynard remarks that in no instance is the process of the importation of plague
otherwise than by human agency.
He notes that in the commencement pi the outbreak, the district was threatened by
several centres of infection from British Districts and the Patiála State, also that the first
infection of the district probably came from a Ludhiána village and the second from Sirhind
Bassi in the P atiála State. He adds " it matters little, for in January infection flowed in
like a rising tide from all quarters." The Ambala Cantonment became infected at Christmas
probably by a tailor from the Jullundur District, and became the source of infection of the
town of Ambala, Kharar, Jagádhri and many villages in the Ambala Tahsil.
Although Mr. Maynard records the want of proof of the carriage of infection by other
than human agency, his report does not afford any information as to whether infection was
usually conveyed directly by persons suffering from plague or by infected clothing or other
personal effects. That infection could be carried by clothes was however recognised by the
people fairly soon, and in all towns the practice of burning clothes of persons who died of
plague was introduced, and was acquiesced in by sweepers who had previously suffered
severely from taking the abandoned clothes of the dead.
Mr. Mayprard is inclined to the opinion that infection may be carried in grain, for he
writes :—
Plague in grain.
" The frequency with which plague made its first appearance, or its worst ravages,
among grain-dealers and porters or others who
handle grain, and in the neighbourhood of
grain markets, is noteworthy. Rats were often attacked first. I suggest the explanation
that they contracted infection from grain, which, being cooked before its consumption by
human beings, did not affect the latter."