Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T10:11:08.443Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of withdrawing mice from an infected herd at varying intervals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

M. Greenwood ,
A. Bradford Hill ,
W. W. C. Topley  and
Joyce Wilson
M. Greenwood
Affiliation:
From the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
A. Bradford Hill
Affiliation:
From the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
W. W. C. Topley
Affiliation:
From the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Joyce Wilson
Affiliation:
From the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
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.

In a recent report (Greenwood et al. 1936) we included a short discussion of the few scattered observations that we had made on the effects of the dispersal of an infected herd (pp. 189–92). Briefly, we had found that the division of a herd, in which an epidemic due to Bact. typhi-murium was under way, into small isolated groups was followed by a greatly decreased rate of mortality in those groups when the dispersal was carried out at the beginning of the beginning of the epidemic period. Reaggregation of the groups resulted in a fresh spread of the disease, but the final mortality was lower than in a similar herd which had not been dispersed during the earlier stages of cage life (Topley, 1922). In a subsequent experiment (Topley & Wilson, 1925) dispersal was carried out at a later stage of epidemic spread, and very different results were obtained. For the first three weeks or so after division into small groups there was no material difference between the mortality experienced by the dispersed and not-dispersed mice. But at about the 25th day the death-rate in each of the dispersed herds showed a definite decline, while that in the undispersed herds continued unabated for some further length of time.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , March 1939 , pp. 109 - 130
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1939

References

REFERENCES

Greenwood, M., Bradford Hill, A., Topley, W. W. C. & Wilson, J. (1936). Spec. Rep. Ser. Med. Res. Coun., Lond., No. 209.Google Scholar
Greenwood, M., Newbold, E. M., Topley, W. W. C. & Wilson, J. (1930). J. Hyg., Camb., 30, 240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, M. & Topley, W. W. C. (1925). J. Hyg., Camb., 24, 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, M., & Topley, W. W. C. & Wilson, J. (1931). J. Hyg., Camb., 31, 257, 403, 484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, A. B. (1933). J. Hyg., Camb., 33, 359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kermack, W. O. & McKendrick, A. G. (1937). Proc. roy. Soc. Edinb. 57, 228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Topley, W. W. C. (1922). J. Hyg., Camb., 21, 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Topley, W. W. C., Ayrton, J. & Lewis, E. R. (1924). J. Hyg., Camb., 23, 223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Topley, W. W. C. & Wilson, J. (1935). J. Hyg., Camb., 24, 295.Google Scholar