Question 3: Disease
Pages
- 1
- 2
| Author | Topic: Question 3: Disease |
|---|---|
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Friday, May 5 2006 13:28
Profile
Homepage
Infernal: I gathered that much, I'm just confused as to how it was made in a defensive manner. *shrug* -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Friday, May 5 2006 16:44
Profile
Homepage
quote:Which leads me back to my main point: Black Death caused the Renaissance. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Friday, May 5 2006 17:37
Profile
quote:No it didn't, you buffoon. The fall of Constantinople caused the Renaissance. The Black Death at most created an environment conducive to it, and even that is highly debatable. Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Dollop of Whipped Cream
Member # 391
|
written Friday, May 5 2006 17:49
Profile
Homepage
quote:I just love the originality of the insults in here. -------------------- "Tyranicus is about the only one that still posts in the Nethergate Forum." —Randomizer Spiderweb Chat Room Shadow Vale - My site, home of the Spiderweb Chat Database, BoA Scenario Database, & the A1 Quest List, among other things. Posts: 562 | Registered: Friday, December 14 2001 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 4506
|
written Saturday, May 6 2006 02:18
Profile
Homepage
:D While we can all say that stopping disease is very good and all, and that it can be done, albeit with difficulty, some of us have to wonder whether you should stop the disease. If there was a worldwide pandemic it would do wonders for population control. However, as I don't think anyone wants this soon, we do need to get a way of destroyng diseases quicker than we already have. I also have to disagree with saying that we are better equipped to deal with diseases than in the Middle Ages. Back then the diseases were also simple things, these days they have evolved along with us to be immune to all the various drugs etc that we use. I mean, we've never been able to get rid of the common cold - have we? - Archmagus Micael -------------------- "You dare Trifle with Avernum?" ~ Erika the Archmage -------------------- My Scenarios: Undead Valley : A small Undead problem, what could possibly go wrong? -------------------- Richard Black - PROOF of his existance (the Infernal one's website). -------------------- MY FORUM! Randomosity at it's highest! :) Posts: 1370 | Registered: Thursday, June 10 2004 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, May 6 2006 02:52
Profile
Homepage
quote:Hmm, let me see here. Drugs which are generally effective against bacterial infections but getting gradually less so over time, or no drugs at all. Gee, I know which option I'd prefer. Besides, even if you ignore the impact of antimicrobial drugs, there are still very effective public health measures we have now that we didn't have then, like regular hand-washing. Pathogens aren't going to develop an immunity to being washed off. quote:The main problem with treating the common cold is that there's no such thing as the common cold. There are hundreds of different viruses which can all cause minor inflammation of the upper respiratory tract, so it's unreasonable to expect one treatment to completely cure all of them. We do have reasonably good treatments for the symptoms of a cold, and that's about the best that we're likely to achieve in the near future. [ Saturday, May 06, 2006 02:55: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 6581
|
written Saturday, May 6 2006 02:58
Profile
Homepage
quote:  Another think to stop disease can maybe be a massive-free vaccination? -------------------- Download Geneforge 4: Rebellion You have 6 posts. Nobody cares what you think. - Thuryl Wikipedia may be your friend, but UBB is not. - Dikiyoba Posts: 1310 | Registered: Tuesday, December 20 2005 08:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Saturday, May 6 2006 05:36
Profile
Homepage
Originally by MagmaDragoon: quote:Unfortunately, many diseases don't have a vaccine yet. Others lose their effectiveness over time, requiring booster shots. And getting everyone in the world vaccinated would be very difficult, not just in the time, money, effort, and organization that would be required, but in the persuasion it would take to convince everyone that they should get the vaccine. That said, it is possible to eradicate a disease entirely. Like smallpox, for example. Although there are still samples of it in existance, so it isn't entirely gone. Dikiyoba. Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Sunday, May 7 2006 09:32
Profile
quote:Well, of course at the level of the individual it is simple to cry out "Me, me!" and claim that good is getting accomplished. At the species level though it may be more admirable to allow humans to be the ones that, through natural selection, become immune to various innoculations. I wasn't aware that the question was drugs, or no drugs. It is simply how do we deal with massive disease epidemics, and it is clear that philosophy is the deciding factor. -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Post Navel Trauma ^_^
Member # 67
|
written Sunday, May 7 2006 09:44
Profile
Homepage
And there was me thinking that the discussion was more "how should we avoid masses of people dying horribly?" than "should we avoid masses of people dying horribly?". The former is not a particularly philosophical question, and the latter is one that I think there will be widespread consensus on. Before you start letting the weak die for the good of the species, you might want to note that large diversity will be better than a group selected for a few narrow traits. [ Sunday, May 07, 2006 09:46: Message edited by: Khoth ] -------------------- Barcoorah: I even did it to a big dorset ram. desperance.net - Don't follow this link Posts: 1798 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Sunday, May 7 2006 09:44
Profile
Homepage
Humans cannot rely on evolution to allow us to beat disease. Bacteria and viruses evolve much faster than we do. They have massive advantages in that regard. The only reason that we survived before the advent of modern medicine is that diseases needed us as hosts to stay alive. If it had been in their interests to kill us, we'd all be dead. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Sunday, May 7 2006 10:32
Profile
Homepage
quote:Good points. But this hasn't changed, has it? Don't diseases still need us as hosts? So are we really in danger of dying from disease? I don't mean that question seriously, really, but it does follow from your arguments. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Sunday, May 7 2006 10:41
Profile
Homepage
Well, not as a species. As individuals, however... Dikiyoba. Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 3040
|
written Sunday, May 7 2006 16:25
Profile
That leads to an interesting line of questioning. What conditions are necessary for a disease to sustain itself? A disease's potential for being lethal is probably dependent on how contagious it is. From the time of infection to the time of the host's death, the disease would need to spread to enough new hosts to keep itself going. In the case of diseases that take a long time to kill a host after infection (HIV, for example), they wouldn't need to be very contagious, because there would be a large window of opportunity to infect others. If a disease were short-acting and killed its host very quickly, it would need to be very contagious so as not to die out (I'm not sure of examples. Ebola, maybe?). So I guess the answer to "So are we really in danger of dying from disease?" would be that we have always been, and always will be, in danger of dying from lethal, contagious, diseases to which we have no cure. Modern medicine has led to more cures, vaccinations, and better quarantine procedures, though, and the latter especially could reduce the level of contagion, and therefore raise the bar on how short-acting a disease must be. -------------------- 5.0.1.0.0.0.0.1.0... Posts: 508 | Registered: Thursday, May 29 2003 07:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Sunday, May 7 2006 18:14
Profile
Although we have better quarantine procedures, our ability to quarantine has decreased. People travel a lot more now than they did 50 years ago. A highly contagious and deadly disease could spread very fast indeed in such a highly connected world unless we catch it very early. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
|
written Sunday, May 7 2006 18:21
Profile
Homepage
However, a desease that destroys its entire host population wouldn't be likely to survive. So does that mean that deseases have to be less deadly now, because of a possibility to quickly spread through entire population? -------------------- Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword, For it too has the power to kill. However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword, Can also have the power to heal. Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Sunday, May 7 2006 18:35
Profile
If it kills it's hosts, that's fine, it just depends on how fast it does the killing versus the time it is contagious. If everyone dies in 10 seconds, it's not a very good disease from an evolutionary standpoint. The mean interaction time between people over large distances is much shorter today than it was. One infected person has to go on a plane full of people. Even if only one-third of them become infected, you will inevitably get outbreaks in a lot of cities around the world. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Sunday, May 7 2006 19:54
Profile
Homepage
Slartucker: Because they tend to evolve so intelligently, we tend to place too much agency in diseases. A disease mutates randomly — randomly — and turns into more or less deadly forms. A highly deadly or highly contagious form can come about at any time, because these mutations happen randomly. Most highly deadly diseases are not terribly long-lasting, however. A second round of infections from a disease tends to be less deadly than a first, not merely because the host population has built up immunity, but also because the disease itself has evolved to kill slower in order to spread further. Zeviz: No disease that I've ever heard of has been deadly enough to kill its entire host population. No disease is 100% infectious, even if some are very nearly 100% deadly. [ Sunday, May 07, 2006 19:58: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, May 7 2006 21:12
Profile
Homepage
quote:A particularly instructive example of this principle is the biological control of rabbit populations in Australia. Two viruses have been released in Australia in an attempt to control rabbit populations; myxomatosis was released in the 50s, and calicivirus in the 90s. Death rates from myxomatosis approached 99% in infected individuals, and the virus is believed to have reduced the total rabbit population of Australia by close to 90%. Calicivirus was somewhat less effective but still reduced rabbit populations dramatically. However, after both viral outbreaks, resistance emerged and the rabbit population soon recovered. Both diseases are still endemic in the Australian rabbit population and cause fairly high death rates, but rabbits breed fast enough that the deaths don't have a huge impact on population growth. It just goes to show that a species in a habitat to which it's well-suited won't necessarily be harmed in the long term by even a very significant short-term population decline. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Sunday, May 7 2006 21:24
Profile
quote:We are a pesky species. -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
Pages
- 1
- 2