Proceedings of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjab in the Home (Medicial and Sanitary)
Department, No. 1610 S , dated 5th August 1905.
READ—
The Report on Vaccination in the Punjab for the year 1904-05 by Lietentant-Colonel
C. J. Bamber, I.M. S., D. P. H. (Camb ), Sanitary Commissioner, Punjab.
REMARKS —The report deals with the triennial period ending 1904-05.
The number of vaccinations carried out in each of the three years under report
was as follows : -in 1902-03, 667 5 4 ; in 1903-04. 685,105 ; and in 1904-05,
719,771. It would not appear therefore that the continued prevalence of plague
in a severe form has, on the whole, hampered the work of the vaccination staff.
It is clear that, as pointed out by the Sanitary Commissioner there was a con-
siderable falling off in some of the districts in which plague was most prevalent,
e. g., Gurgaon and Lahore ; but it may be noted that in other districts, such as
Siálkot, Gujrát and Jullundur, which also suffered severely from plague, the total
was not seriously affected. The Sanitary Commissioner has explained the reason
for the decrease (which is apparent only) in Jhelum, Ráwalpindi, Hoshiáirpur,
Gujranwála and J hang. With regard to the explanation offered concerning the
last three districts, it is not clear why the work of the special staff should not be
included in the figures for each district. The falling off in the case of Delhi,
however, is not noticed and would seem to require some explanation, as the
plague mortality was not high in that district. The decrease in Kángra is at-
tributed to the fact that the returns for February and March are not available,
but it may be noted that the vaccinations performed in the remaining ten months
of the year amounted to only 25,936 against 53,751 in the twelve months of the
preceding year.
2. The figure of chief interest in the Report is the increase in the
number of re-vaccinations, which amounted to 137,752 against 80,901 in
1903-04 and 84,918 in 1902-03. The Officiating Lieutenant-Governor is glad
to see that the present system (lately introduced by the Sanitary Commissioner),
by which one-eighth of a district is systematically re-vaccinated every year, has
already met with a considerable measure of success. The Sanitary Commis-
sioner explains the reason for the low returns of re-vaccinations from Rohtak
and Gurgaon (where the numbers are, however, nearly equal to those carried out
last year), but does not explain the falling off in Delhi or Gurdáspur. That the
opposition to this operation is not due entirely to the suspicion that plague
inoculation is intended under the guise of re-vaccination is proved by the case of
Jullundur, Ludhiána and Siálkot. where re-vaccinations increased largely in spite
of the prevalence of plague. With regard to what was said in paragraph 2 of the
Government of India letter No. 1798, dated 7th December 1904, it is noteworthy
that some 10,000 more females were re-vaccinated in the third than in the
second year of the period.
3. In Government of India letter No. 1603, dated 30th October 1903,
reference was made to the possibility that the separate record of cases with
"unknown " results (which was first introduced in the statements for 1903-04)
might lead to vaccinators returning unsuccessful cases as unknown in order to
avoid the charge of bad work. In the case of primary vaccinations this does not
seem to have occurred, as the unknown cases form only 2.63 of the total ; but it
is possible that it has occurred to some extent in the case of re-vaccinations, where
the percentage is 15.21 of the total number. Of the re-vaccinations carried out
by the special staff, the result of no less than 33 per cent. is returned as unknown.
Somewhat better results might have been expected in view of the fact that
out of the 130,545 re-vaccinations effected in all districts excepting Kángra,
no less than 99,861 cases were inspected by different members of the supervising
staff.
4. The average cost of each successful operation was the same as last
year, viz., two annas four pies. This includes the cost of the special staff and
European supervising officers, which forms a charge against Provincial Funds.