In article <21fllusp87664kdcp7uvjm9udnil4hv3a1 at 4ax.com> Bob LeChevalier <lojbab at lojban.org> writes:
<
<cary at afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
<>And smallpox, which may have killed more people in history
<>than any other singles disease
<
<Not likely. Probably cholera and diphtheria have killed 10 times as
<many. Diseases that favor infants with newly developed immune systems
<are the worst killers. In pre-modern times, infant mortality may have
<been as high as 50%, many of them from diseases of diarrhea. Malaria
<also probably was higher frequency, but tended to be constrained to
<warm climates (scientists believe that sickle cell, common in blacks,
<is a genetic accommodation specifically selected to minimize death
<from malaria - there is no known corresponding genetic change in an
<entire population tied to smallpox).
<
<Smallpox was nasty because it could strike and kill adults, it was not
<limited to the tropics, and there was no treatment that could help.
<It may have been the biggest killer in medieval Europe, which had a
<cooler climate and better sanitation than the tropical regions. But
<even then, plague was a tough competitor in the body count division
<because when it came through, it decimated the population (or worse).
<
That's a very good point. I was taking my facts from Clarke, but he
may very well have had a Euro-centric take on things when he wrote that.
I suppose that following Mr. August's lead, cholera is God's punishment for
drinking water. I'm not sure what point He's trying to make with malaria.
I suppose it's could be about that pagan blood-brother stuff we indulge in
with mosquitos.
It's interesting that you mention "favor infants with newly developed
immune systems". I've been reading up on parasites that actually
reach out and tweak the human immune response in order to further
their own survival. Sleeping sickness, leishmaniasis, and toxoplasmosis
were the three discussed in greatest detail. Fascinating stuff.
-- cary
