|
|
Re: Pre-contact diseases anyone???
SHICKLEY@VM.TEMPLE.EDU
Sun, 30 Jul 95 09:16:17 EDT
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950726201810.12997A-100000@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu>
Jeffrey L Baker <jbaker@gas.uug.arizona.edu> writes:
>
>
>
>On Wed, 26 Jul 1995 SHICKLEY@VM.TEMPLE.EDU wrote:
>
>> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950724155910.8402F-100000@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu>
>> Jeffrey L Baker <jbaker@gas.uug.arizona.edu> writes:
>> >This is for a single disease, the 85-95% rate refers to the cumulative
>> >effect of a whole range of diseases. Crosby wrote his book more than
>> >25 years ago. At that time, a total of 50% mortality was not considered
>> >too low. We know better now. We also know that the behavior of diseases
>> >today is not necessarily an accurate guide of how they behave in the
>> >past, particular to populations that had never faced them before.
>> >
>> Not to really dispute this Jeff, but on what basis do we know this.
>> The figures I see for modern infection into "virgin soil" populations
>> has epidemic infection rates as "high" at 50%. This is in South
>> Amerindian populations with infectious diseases such as measles
>> which have been cited as also affecting North Amerindians post-
>> contact. If you have some references, I'd like to see them
>> purely out of curiosity.
>
>Tim,
> Is the 50% for a single disease or is it for multiple diseases?
>I would agree that 50% is on the high side for a single disease, but when
>you are talking about a series of diseases over a period of 100 years,
>50% is on the low side.
>
>
>Jeff Baker
>
>
>
>
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950726201810.12997A-100000@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu>
Jeffrey L Baker <jbaker@gas.uug.arizona.edu> writes:
>
>
>
>On Wed, 26 Jul 1995 SHICKLEY@VM.TEMPLE.EDU wrote:
>
>> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950724155910.8402F-100000@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu>
>> Jeffrey L Baker <jbaker@gas.uug.arizona.edu> writes:
>> >This is for a single disease, the 85-95% rate refers to the cumulative
>> >effect of a whole range of diseases. Crosby wrote his book more than
>> >25 years ago. At that time, a total of 50% mortality was not considered
>> >too low. We know better now. We also know that the behavior of diseases
>> >today is not necessarily an accurate guide of how they behave in the
>> >past, particular to populations that had never faced them before.
>> >
>> Not to really dispute this Jeff, but on what basis do we know this.
>> The figures I see for modern infection into "virgin soil" populations
>> has epidemic infection rates as "high" at 50%. This is in South
>> Amerindian populations with infectious diseases such as measles
>> which have been cited as also affecting North Amerindians post-
>> contact. If you have some references, I'd like to see them
>> purely out of curiosity.
>
>Tim,
> Is the 50% for a single disease or is it for multiple diseases?
>I would agree that 50% is on the high side for a single disease, but when
>you are talking about a series of diseases over a period of 100 years,
>50% is on the low side.
>
>
>Jeff Baker
>
Figures for measles were actually more like 30% if I recall. The
waves of diseases are also superimposed on birthrates which may
drop some if the reproducing sectors of the society are also
vulnerable. Most of the "childhood" diseases affect just those
who are most vulnerable, but adults who are immunologically naive
may suffer tremendous affects. This may or may not affect birth rate
figures. The problem stems from the lack of GOOD data on pre-contact
populations. The observations of present-day "virgin-soil" groups
(i.e., VS1) don't support 90% +/- 10% figures. This is why I'd be
very interested in reading original research papers on population
estimates of various pre-contact groups. I know there are some groups
which were not observed, and some which were even unknown. This is
why there is a great deal of uncertainty in ANY figures of real
North American population levels prior to recorded European contact.
Tim
PS: I had a total hard disk crash last week. I'm awaiting a new
computer from the University. When it arrives, I'll try to restore
my reference files.
|