Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T05:54:35.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The epidemiology of the common cold II. Cross-infection and immunity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

O. M. Lidwell  and
R. E. O. Williams
O. M. Lidwell
Affiliation:
Air Hygiene Laboratory, Central Public Health Laboratory, Colindale, London, N.W.9
R. E. O. Williams
Affiliation:
Air Hygiene Laboratory, Central Public Health Laboratory, Colindale, London, N.W.9
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.

Analysis by epidemiological methods of the spread of the common cold among office workers and their families has failed to account for more than a fraction of the infections as a consequence of known exposure to infected individuals. Infections too mild to be recorded as colds, survival of the virus in the environment and its subsequent dispersal are considered as possible explanations of this.

The distribution of serial intervals between colds suffered by members of the same family indicates that the median interval between the onset of an infection and the first symptom in infection apparently arising from it as cross-infections was between 21½ and 31½ days. This is only slightly longer than the median interval, 2·4 days, observed between nasal installation and the onset of symptoms in experimental infections.

There is some epidemiological evidence that susceptibility to the common cold is reduced during the weeks following a cold.

We should like to repeat, in this the second paper in this series, our thanks to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and to the Shell Petroleum Company, to those members of their staffs and to the nurses and others who helped us in this investigation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 59 , Issue 3 , September 1961 , pp. 321 - 334
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1961

References

Andrewes, C. G. (1950). New Engl. J. Med. 242, 235.Google Scholar
Brimblecombe, F. S. W., Cruickshank, R., Masters, P. L., Reid, D. D. & Stewart, G. T. (1958). Brit. med. J. i, 119.Google Scholar
Commission on Acute Respiratory Diseases (Director—Dingle, J. H.) (1947). J. clin. Invest. 26, 974.Google Scholar
Dingle, J. H., Badger, G. F., Feller, A. E., Hodges, R. G., Jordan, W. S. & Rammel-Kamp, C. H. (1953). Amer. J. Hyg. 58, 16.Google Scholar
Dowling, H. F., Jackson, G. G., Spiesman, I. G. & Inonye, T. (1958). Amer. J. Hyg. 68, 59.Google Scholar
Hobson, D. & Schild, G. C. (1960). Brit. med. J. ii, 1414.Google Scholar
Simpson, R. E. Hope (1958). Brit. med. J. i, 214.Google Scholar
Jackson, G. G. & Dowling, H. F. (1959). J. clin. Invest. 38, 762.Google Scholar
Jackson, G. G., Dowling, H. F., Anderson, T. O., Riff, L., Saporta, J. & Turck, M. (1960). Ann. intern. Med. 53, 719.Google Scholar
Lidwell, O. M. & Sommerville, T. (1951). J. Hyg., Camb., 49, 365.Google Scholar
McNamara, M. J., Thomas, E. H., Strobl, A. & Kilbourne, E. D. (1960). Amer. Rev. Resp. Dis. 82, 469.Google Scholar
Reed, L. J. (1934). Paper presented to the American Epidemiological Society, New York, 27 April 1934 (unpublished); cited by Commission on Acute Respiratory Diseases (1947). above.Google Scholar
Sartwell, P. E. (1950). Amer. J. Hyg. 51, 310.Google Scholar
Tyrrell, D. A. J. & Parsons, R. (1960). Lancet, i, 239.Google Scholar
Tyrrell, D. A. J. & Bynoe, M. L. (1961). Brit. med. J. i, 393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar