Black Death Targeted The Weak

The Telegraph (UK) ^ | 1-30-2008 | Roger Highfield

[blam]

Black Death targeted the weak

By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
Last Updated: 10:01pm GMT 28/01/2008

The Black Death, which killed one person in every three in Europe, was not as indiscriminate as thought, according to studies of remains in mass grave in East Smithfield.

Skeletons of plague victims in a mass grave at East Smithfield, London

The toll was so high during its height in the 1300s that many have concluded that anyone and everyone who came into contact with the agent, thought to be a bacterium, was doomed.

But research published today shows that people who were physically frail and malnourished before the epidemic were more likely to die from the disease than healthy individuals.

The plague of 1347-1351 is the deadliest known epidemic in history, killing an estimated 75 million people, including more than one-third of the European population. Sharon DeWitte and James Wood of the University of Albany, New York, examined 490 skeletons from the East Smithfield Black Death cemetery in London - one of several dug especially for plague victims - for bone damage or other evidence of weakness during life.

For comparison, they used 291 pre-Black Death skeletons from cemeteries elsewhere during the same era. The scientists estimated the victim's age at their time of death and used a computer model to calculate how strongly skeletal damage, associated with natural physical "frailty," were linked to risk of death.

The link between lesions and death was much stronger in the controls than in the London cemetery, showing how even healthy people were killed by the Black Death. However, the study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concludes that even in London, frailty - probably the result of poor nutrition - and plague death were linked to some degree.

"This actually contradicts what many have assumed about the epidemic - that given the extraordinary mortality of the Black Death, it must have killed people indiscriminately," says Dr DeWitte. "Some contemporary reports of the Black Death state that everyone was at equal risk. But we have quantitative evidence that not everyone was at the same risk."

"The pattern we observed, of the Black Death targeting the weak but also killing people who were otherwise healthy, is consistent with an emerging disease striking a population with no immunity to that disease," she says.

The plague reached London in the mid 1300s. A new Smithfield cemetery was hurriedly opened by the Bishop of London, but became so swamped that a local landowner, Sir Walter Manny, donated land nearby at Spittle Croft for a second cemetery. Excavation of the East Smithfield cemeteries, revealed that the dead were stacked five deep in the mass graves.

Most believe the Black Death was bubonic plague spread by rats and their fleas but other scholars claim it was an Ebola-like virus transmitted directly from person to person.

[blam]

GGG Ping.

[trisham]

Interesting article.

[Always Right]

Most believe the Black Death was bubonic plague spread by rats

I did not know Democrats even existed back then, but otherwise the theory makes sense.

[SoKatt]

LOL!

[Tzimisce]

So after killing millions of innocent people (most of them poor minorities) shouldn’t it be renamed “The White Death”?

[SunkenCiv]

:’D Twice in one day?!? We’re going to observe the anniversary of this from now on. Okay, now I’m just havin’ fun...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1962056/posts?page=7#7

Clues to Black Plague’s Fury in 650-Year-Old Skeletons
NY Times | January 29, 2008 | Nicholas Bakalar
Posted on 01/29/2008 1:00:36 AM EST by forkinsocket
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1961219/posts

[SunkenCiv]

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·
	Gods Graves Glyphs	Thanks Blam. Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. GGG managers are Blam, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
· Google · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology magazine · Biblical Archaeology Society · · Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·

[Cacique]

btt

[wintertime]

ping

[Caramelgal]

But research published today shows that people who were physically frail and malnourished before the epidemic were more likely to die from the disease than healthy individuals.

Well Dah! Given the living conditions, food resources and sanitation conditions at the time, I would have to wonder how many people would be considered physically frail and malnourished at that time in comparison to what we consider fit and healthy now days.

Infant mortality was much higher and life expectancy was much lower than it is today but at the time, it was considered “normal” and so can’t be compared to what is considered healthy and “normal” today. I can’t believe that than one-third of the European population was already on sitting on the edge of death’s door before the Plague.

The same might be said about the great 1918 flu epidemic that killed a lot of “healthy” and young people not normally susceptible to illness during their own time. But if you compare their over all health with those of us living today, many of them would be considered to be frail and unhealthy by today’s standards but not by the standards of their own time.

My guess is that any time a new pathogen finds its way into a population that has no previous immunity, all people are at risk. The most frail and malnourished being the most venerable but otherwise healthy people not previously exposed would also be at risk but perhaps not just as proportionately and those with lesser access to better nutrition. If one looks at the mortality rates during the 1918 flu pandemic, it hit the wealthy and young and healthy as proportionally as is did the poorer and less healthy populations.

But also consider that during the worst years of the Black Death, the wealthy, who probably had somewhat better overall health because of somewhat better nutrition, also had the means to escape the densely populated urban areas and go to their rural estates where the risk of transmission was much less.

If one looks at the Yellow Fever outbreaks in the US in the early 1800’s, one can find the same pattern – the wealthy could escape the densely populated urban areas and thusly decrease their risk of exposure. That didn’t necessarily mean that they were any less vulnerable to the disease, but it did mean that they could minimized their risk of exposure.

[BigBobber]

My distant ancestors survived it. Woo hoo!

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Plagues generally work from the bottom of societies pyramid up.

It is noteworthy that after a plague has ended, there is often a major improvement in the economy. The European Black Plague of the 14th Century was followed by the Renaissance; and the Black Plague of the 17th Century, by the Industrial Revolution. This theory is further supported by the effects of repeated and widespread plagues in historical China, often followed by a strong recovery.

The first impact is the increased efficiency of farming, when small, subsistence farms are combined, which result in enough food to bring excess to market instead of just supporting a single family. And workers must be hired to tend these new fields, paid for with market earnings.

Then because the aged are often more susceptible to disease, the wealth of older people is inherited by their children at a younger age, and they are more inclined to spend and invest it.

Generally, after a plague, wages go up while prices go down. Economic success tends to promote peace, and population recovery is fast, and as a whole, healthier. This without the destructive effects of war, or the extremely destructive effects of famine, which can devastate a region for a hundred years or more.

After a plague, there are usually big advances in the sciences and arts, as wealthy emerge that appreciate both and contribute to them.

A major plague often wipes out unhealthy populations that are a reservoir of other diseases as well, so much that these may be temporarily eliminated in a region. Diseases such as typhus, typhoid fever, polio, cholera, poxes, mumps, and many others become much less common.

[Teacher317]

Surprise! This just in: wealthier people are better-off, and less likely to be exposed to unsanitary conditions. They have more access to better health care and safer alternatives for just about everything. Wealthier people have advantages in nearly every aspect of life. This is why being poor sucks, and is its own best incentive to climb out of poverty.

Why the Left insists on trying to do the impossible and circumvent this eternal truth is beyond me.

[xrmusn]

This just in: wealthier people are better-off,
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
At the time wasn’t there about 400,000 poor people for every ‘rich’ one?
Realize that is just a ‘number’ but the point...