Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T23:26:02.665Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Varying Epidemiology of Q Fever in the South-East Region of Great Britain II. In two Rural Areas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

B. P. Marmion  and
M. G. P. Stoker
B. P. Marmion*
Affiliation:
Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge
M. G. P. Stoker
Affiliation:
Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge
*
Member of the staff of the Public Health Laboratory Service, seconded to the Department of Pathology.
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.

The epidemiology of Q fever in the residents of two rural areas, respectively, the Romney Marsh in Kent and Chatteris-Witchford rural districts in Cambridgeshire, has been studied.

In the Romney Marsh some 14 % of persons who had suffered from pneumonia or undiagnosed fever probably had Q fever. No cases of Q fever were detected in Chatteris-Witchford R.D.

Two sources of infection—sheep and infected cows' milk—were found in the Romney Marsh, and the infection of some of the cases of Q fever could be attributed to them. There was also a group of cases who were probably not infected from milk or by direct exposure to sheep. They may, however, have been indirectly infected from sheep.

The absence of Q fever in the Chatteris-Witchford area is of interest in view of the use of raw milk by a substantial proportion of the inhabitants of this area and also because of their contact with cattle. Investigation, however, failed to reveal any infection of the cattle with Rickettsia burneti.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 54 , Issue 4 , December 1956 , pp. 547 - 561
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1956

References

Blanc, G. & Bruneau, J. (1953). C.R. Acad. Sci., Paris,237, 582.Google Scholar
Clark, W. H., Romer, M. S., Holmes, M. A., Welsh, H. H., Lennette, E. H. & Abinanti, F. R. (1951). Amer. J. Hyg. 54, 25.Google Scholar
Fiset, P. & Barber, H. (1956). In preparation. Marmion, B. P. & Harvey, M. S. (1956). J. Hyg., Camb., 54, 533.Google Scholar
Marmion, B. P., Stewart, J., Richmond, P., Barber, H. & Stoker, M. G. P. (1954). Lancet, 1, 1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marmion, B. P., Stoker, M. G. P., Walker, C. B. V. & Carpenter, R. G. (1956). J. Hyg., Camb., 54, 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoker, M. G. P., Brown, R. D., Kett, F. J. L., Collings, P. C. & Marmion, B. P. (1955 a). J. Hyg., Camb.,53, 313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoker, M. G. P. & Marmion, B. P. (1955). J. Hyg., Camb., 53, 322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoker, M. G. P., Page, Z. & Marmion, B. P. (1955b). Bull. World Hlth Org. 13, 807.Google Scholar
Syrucek, L., Raska, K., Lim, D. & Havlik, O. (1955). Ceskoslov. Hyg., Epidemiol., Mikrobiol., Imunol. 4, 22.Google Scholar
Williams, R. E. O. (1949). J. Hyg., Camb., 47, 416.Google Scholar