1 posted on
01/30/2008 8:59:48 AM PST by
blam
To: SunkenCiv
2 posted on
01/30/2008 9:00:12 AM PST by
blam
(Secure the border and enforce the law)
To: blam
3 posted on
01/30/2008 9:02:07 AM PST by
trisham
(Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
To: blam
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.
4 posted on
01/30/2008 9:05:04 AM PST by
Always Right
(Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)
To: blam
So after killing millions of innocent people (most of them poor minorities) shouldn’t it be renamed “The White Death”?
6 posted on
01/30/2008 9:07:44 AM PST by
Tzimisce
(How Would Mohammed Vote? Hillary for President!)
To: blam
7 posted on
01/30/2008 9:10:11 AM PST by
SunkenCiv
(https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/__________________Profile updated Wednesday, January 16, 2008)
8 posted on
01/30/2008 9:10:48 AM PST by
SunkenCiv
(https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/__________________Profile updated Wednesday, January 16, 2008)
To: blam
9 posted on
01/30/2008 9:25:07 AM PST by
Cacique
(quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
To: wintertime
10 posted on
01/30/2008 10:05:42 AM PST by
wintertime
(Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
To: blam
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 cant be compared to what is considered healthy and normal today. I cant believe that than one-third of the European population was already on sitting on the edge of deaths 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 todays 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 1800s, one can find the same pattern the wealthy could escape the densely populated urban areas and thusly decrease their risk of exposure. That didnt necessarily mean that they were any less vulnerable to the disease, but it did mean that they could minimized their risk of exposure.
11 posted on
01/30/2008 10:13:50 AM PST by
Caramelgal
(Rely on the spirit and meaning of the teachings, not on the words or superficial interpretations)
To: blam
My distant ancestors survived it. Woo hoo!
To: blam
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.
To: blam
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.
14 posted on
01/30/2008 10:46:44 AM PST by
Teacher317
(Eta kuram na smekh)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson