Content-Type: text/html

# 20th century/Infectious disease Talk

HomePage | 20th century | RecentChanges | Preferences
You can edit this page right now! It's a free, community project

[Comments on historical periods should be in the past tense] Third World countries are not so well off unfortunately. They are too poor to afford modern medicine and thus mortality rates of diseaes like AIDS are still very high and the number of infected people is in some sountries (like South Africa) as high as 20% of adult population.

The benefits of modern medicine enjoyed by people in poor countries in the 20th century were probably greater than benefits enjoyed by people in the rich countries. This explains the faster growth in populations in poor countries - populations could not have grown, unless the diseases that killed people (mostly children) by the millions had been defeated. The fact that the defeat of infectious diseases resulted in faster population growth in poor countries, shows that these diseases had been a bigger problem in poor countries, hence their eradication a bigger benefit in poor countries.

Are you implying that such diseases do not remain a significant problem? If one looks at world-wide statistics for, say, the distribution of tuberculosis, one finds that very little progress has in fact been made throughout much of the world. It would be wrong to present figures for the US and pretend that they indicate a positive trend everywhere. And, btw, population has been growing throughout most of history despite the prominence of disease; the black plague is about the only example I can think of where it has actually been halted.

Estimates of historic population levels look like the letter L on its back. There is a upward slope during the period of classical antiquity, and an upward slope in the period of the Renaissance. At about the time of Louis Pasteur, the graph turns abruptly skyward. - TS

All the ones I've seen have been frankly exponential, with little jumps at such important innovations as agriculture, industry, and modern health care, but no serious change in the growth rate per number of people. In any case, though, the first point still stands: disease remains an unbelievably serious problem throughout much of the world, and a fair description of 20th century health would mention that.

'Disease as serious problem' is something the 20th century has in common with every other century. What sets it apart in this respect are the gains made in the fight against disease. -TS

Agreed, but I think it should be mentioned that there is still a long way to go. If one were to talk about disease in the 19th century, one would also focus on the many advances made, but it would seem awfully strange for disease to have been near-eradicated in both it and the subsequent century. And what will our page on the 21st century say?

At the end of the 19th century, deadly disease claimed mostly young people. At the end of the 20th century, deadly disease claimed mostly old people. This is true even in poor countries, as increases in life expectancy show. It is possibly THE story of the 20th century. At the end of the 21st century, deadly disease may claim mostly people nearing 150. - TS

I was not aware that there was any cure for AIDS, not matter how rich you are. Rather, their are medications that can bring temporary remissions, slow down the prgress of the disease, and treat complications more efficiently. At this point, I believe it is considered a terminal disease, despite hopes to the contrary in the last ten years. I would check the GMHC - (Gay Men's Health Crisis) figures. Whereas 5 years ago they were developing programs to "rehabilitate" AIDS victims in order that they might retirn to work, right in the middle of this effort, victims who appeared to be in long term remissions returned to active status. Needless to say, they have reverted to their original mission, to support AIDS sufferers as face the end of their lives

The discussion could be moved to an AIDS page. Anecdotally, a friend with HIV looks forward to an "indefinitely long life" thanks to the effectiveness of protease blockers. He has been infected for more than 10 years, so in his case and others, remissions appear to be permanent.

Anecdotally, I can think of over a dozen people who I knew who thought the same thing.

T.B. is actually on the rise in the USA. It is becoming enough of a problem that in certain states it is legal to institutionalize sufferers in an active state of this disease, if there is firm evidence that they are not taking their medication. I wouldn't say that T.B. has "largely disappeared."

In 1900 TB was responsible for more than 11% of ll deaths in the US; that declined to about one-twentieth of 1% in 1998

There seem to be far to many un-observed factors in trying to qusntify the amount of illness or of a particular illness in a particular population or globally over time. I think we could argue for ever. We are getting statistics from a source unidentifed to me. Anyway, even with identifiction of the source, I suspect these stats could probably stand some scrutiny. Medical statistics are notoriously influenced by factors other than data.

There should be some stats here, for those who want to argue about them: [[1]]

HomePage | 20th century | RecentChanges | Preferences
You can edit this page right now! It's a free, community project
Edit text of this page | View other revisions
Last edited July 9, 2001 9:09 pm (diff)
Search: