|
|
Re: Pre-contact diseases anyone???
SHICKLEY@VM.TEMPLE.EDU
Wed, 26 Jul 95 19:41:05 EDT
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950724155910.8402F-100000@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu>
Jeffrey L Baker <jbaker@gas.uug.arizona.edu> writes:
>
>
>
>On Sun, 23 Jul 1995, Stella Nemeth wrote:
>
>> kill. Although mortality rates were very high, they were not in the
>> 85-95% range considered normal for a contact disease wave by some
>> writers on this newsgroup.
>>
>> One of the reasons I discount the 85-95% mortality rate for contact
>> disease in the Americas AS AN AVERAGE MORTALITY RATE (not in specific
>> examples) is this book. Crosby considered a 50% mortality rate in one
>> location to be very high and he seemed to know what he was talking
>> about.
>
>
>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.
>I do think 85-95% is on the high side, but would not opt an average
>figure too much lower (75-90%).
>
So do I, but more based on modern observation of "virgin soil"
populations (VS#1 for those monitoring VS type).
>Jeff Baker
>
>
Tim Shickley (shickley@vm.temple.edu)
Temple University School of Medicine
---------------------------------------- - - - - -- - -- - ---
|