First of all, this is factually wrong, assuming that the trait is carried by only 40 percent of the population. Second, a 25 percent mortality rate is not diasterous. Prior to medical science it was common.
First of all, this is factually wrong, assuming that the trait is carried by only 40 percent of the population. Second, a 25 percent mortality rate is not diasterous.
I was discussing if all would have it to survive malarial infection. Reason why all do not have it is obviously the high death rate. As to it being disastrous, no it would not be disastrous, but neither is malaria disastrous since groups without this trait do survive in malarial areas - without this high death toll.