AIDS Appears in the 1780s

[Heart of Darkness]

What if HIV as we know it had developed into its present form a century or two earlier?

[MrP]

Well, we'd quite possibly have developed an immunity to it by now. After all, I don't see anyone dropping dead today of the plague that smacked Athens about in the fifth century BC. The 1780s is quite an interesting idea, because the slave trade's not yet dead, either. AIDS still originates in Africa, right?

[CalBear]

Do you know it didn't?

HIV/AIDS as an epidemic is as much the result of jet travel as anything else. There is evidence of cases going back to WW II, and some sources speculate even further. If it existed before modern medicine could test for it, it would just be chalked up as another "African wasting disease", one of the MANY tropical nasties knocking explorers off left & right.

Prior to antibiotics, people died from all kinds of strange illnesses in Africa (actually they still do, just not as often). So you die from some disease you caught in Africa? Graveyards are full of folks just like you, that's what you get for going there, 'ya bloody fool, 'ya.

Think about the transmission methods -

Blood transfusions? A couple of doctors were thinking about them, but if you tried one they would likely have burned or hanged you. Medical belief of the time called for "bleeding" not replacing the stuff.

IV Drug use? Huh?

Sex? You bet they had it, lots of it, but promiscuous behavior was looked down on to an extent that it is difficult for those of us living today to imagine. It occured, but it didn't happen in "polite" circles. Where it did happen people died like flies anyway. Come to think of it, lots of prostitutes used to die of consumption, a wasting disease. Coincidence or clue?

Makes you think, 'eh?

[jolo]

Not to mention that about 10% of us appear to be immune - how come?

But with a widespread AIDS epidemic, there might be differences - people would probably wonder what killed all the "strange" men, and sometimes even some "normal" men and women. God's curse? Maybe there'd be even more religious fanaticism and a much stronger anti-gay movement. Then again, once there are practically no gays anymore, why hate them? An illness invisible even to the best microscopes might also delay medical progress a lot. At the beginning, the symptoms might be considered the problem - all those little "normal" infections people with aids have to deal with...

[King Gorilla]

But would it even necessarily be a "Gay" disease. While in the west AIDS was originally spread through the Gay community and amongst interveinial drug users this is not the case in either Aisa or Africa where it is very much a heterosexual STD.

[MrP]

Originally Posted by King Gorilla

But would it even necessarily be a "Gay" disease. While in the west AIDS was originally spread through the Gay community and amongst interveinial drug users this is not the case in either Aisa or Africa where it is very much a heterosexual STD.

I'll second that. It'll pass through the easiest channels - be they homosexual or heterosexual sexual ones.

[carlton_bach]

With that kind of incubation period, would it even be recognised as a separate disease? There's no microscopic diagbnosis, no pathology, just people at some point falling ill with various insignificant infections and dying. I can't see 18th century medicine understanding the phenomenon.

Though here is an interesting thought: if it comes from Africa and is brought to the Western world via the slave trade, its first outbreaks recorded by western physicians would be in Brazil, the Caribbean and the southern US. Now, I disagree with the assessment that prmouscuity was much more limited in 'polite society'. That was a petit bourgeois and - to a lesser extent - peasant concern. The upper classes (males especially) were quite promiscuous. The surviving diary of an 18th century British slaveowner (quoted by Adam Hochschild) lists about a sexual encounter per day, with varying partners almost all his property, and occasionally prostitutes. So this disease would most likely spread through the slave population relatively quickly, and to the slaveowners and their families and neighbours. It probably won't become the explosive epidemic it is today until the industrial revolution hits, but how about 'God's punishment for slavers'?

[DuQuense]

The Immumity appears to be related to the 1300's black death. the harder the blow back then the more resistant the population today.

around the late 1700's the age of death creep up from 45 to 65, with a corresponding raise in the age of majority from 14~16 to todays 21.**

The life expecticy of a 14~15 yr old was 50~55 years
With the normal age of Marrige being 16~ 18, & a twenty year incubation period, this will have a effect on the whole average age of death, and Life expecidcy.

**[with todays rise to 75~80, Whe Should be talking about raising it to 25: but thats a different matter]

[The Ubbergeek]

Originally Posted by MrP

I'll second that. It'll pass through the easiest channels - be they homosexual or heterosexual sexual ones.

As it would surely come from the slaves trade, it would be called the 'african plague/consumption/wasting', I guess. Probably much mroe cases at first with the blacks, logicaly.

[Torqumada]

Carlton Bach, raises a good point. AIDS cam have an incubation period up to a decade, even without treatment. People might see it in the same light as cancer, just another process that kills the body slowly, by "devouring" it. Since its caused by a virus, the cause probably wouldn't be found until the early 20th century. Much like the bacteria Haemophalous influenzia was blamed for influenza, even though its caused by a virus, Pnemocystis carnii might get the blame for AIDS early on.

Torqumada

[Gladi]

Bright day
Interesting discussion.

One could also argue that by now AIDS would get "civilized" and stop killing its enviroment as many other diseases did.

[carlton_bach]

Originally Posted by Gladi

Bright day
Interesting discussion.

One could also argue that by now AIDS would get "civilized" and stop killing its enviroment as many other diseases did.

With AIDS, that's a bit problematic. HIV is a slow-motion killer. You get it, it spreads through your system and you become infectious within weeks. Then it takes many years to break down your body's immune system while you live, oblivious to the fact that you are carrying it. Only then do you die. Mostviruses that turned from killers into nuisances failed in the original form because the victims couldn't pass them on. They became symptomatic too soon, immobilised or obviously sick. Then they died, often hours or days after contagion. That's a very poor strategy. Much better to spread quickly, but not kill the victims. HIV, on the other hand, has an unusually long asymptomatic incubation period. In the absence of modern medicine, we might not even make a connection between the disease and the infection route. If I wanted to design a long-term population thinner, that's how I'd do it (except, obviously, that sexual transmission is way too selective).

[MerryPrankster]

Originally Posted by carlton_bach

The surviving diary of an 18th century British slaveowner (quoted by Adam Hochschild) lists about a sexual encounter per day, with varying partners almost all his property, and occasionally prostitutes. So this disease would most likely spread through the slave population relatively quickly, and to the slaveowners and their families and neighbours. It probably won't become the explosive epidemic it is today until the industrial revolution hits, but how about 'God's punishment for slavers'?

God's punishment for slavers?

Many of the early evangelicals in the South were anti-slavery (unfortunately they got co-opted or driven out, leading to the sorry spectacle of the southern churches claiming plantation slavery and its associated evils were sanctioned by God).

With slave masters dying of AIDS and non-slave-owners (relatively) untouched, perhaps the religious types can successfully push for the abolition of slavery in the US South.

Of course, then what does one do with the former slaves? Might they get sent back to Africa or qurantined on reservations as disease risks?

[Midgard]

I wonder if this might create a major racist backlash against the blacks. Maybe even an idea that the disease is something akin to "black magic" or the like, kind of like voodoo. If it is still coming from Africa, eventually someone will add two and two, and, given sensibilities (or lack thereof) of the time, blame the blacks for everything that it entailed. In other words, brutal pogroms might be the order of the day in any areas where significant populations of blacks exist - and there would probably be a backlash to that, too, resulting in violent rebellions and much racial-inspired brutality.

[King Gorilla]

Would they even know that aids came from Blacks though. It would probably first appear as a sailor's disease and overtime come to be identified in the same light as gonorrhea or syphilis.

[Tyr]

This is impossible. Gay jews weren't a big enough group back then never mind one with the technology to make such a disease.


note in case you are a bit off today: quite obviously joking.


I would imagine it would die out in Africa before human arrival though. IIRC it started in a chimp disease that spread to humans (yes, the theory is it did spread THAT WAY).
The tribesman that catches it would still be stuck in his local community with this being pre-European Africa.
And the chances are if he has to resort to chimp buggery he may not have a wife. Even if he does and they have kids- those kids aren't growing up to breed.

[Leo Caesius]

Originally Posted by jolo

But with a widespread AIDS epidemic, there might be differences - people would probably wonder what killed all the "strange" men, and sometimes even some "normal" men and women. God's curse? Maybe there'd be even more religious fanaticism and a much stronger anti-gay movement. Then again, once there are practically no gays anymore, why hate them? An illness invisible even to the best microscopes might also delay medical progress a lot. At the beginning, the symptoms might be considered the problem - all those little "normal" infections people with aids have to deal with...

This presumes that there were "gays" to hate in 1780. There were not.

In 1780, most marriages were arranged, and few people married for love. With the exception of a select few (such as sailors, theatricals, and clergymen) most people would be married off before their twenties. I'm not sure how many of "nature's bachelors" were bumming about in the 1780s but I'm willing to bet that not many were. If you were a man and had a thing for another man, you would probably carry on behind your wife's back like most other men having affairs, and thus be discrete. Without a sense of gay identity (which is a relatively new phenomenon) you'd be effectively indistinguishable from other men. Unless you were caught in flagrante delicto, most people would never know (look at Michael Wigglesworth a century earlier; he managed to keep his affairs with other men secret for three hundred years!)

Now, if you were caught, you would be put to death in most places, making the career of the openly homosexual man (or "strange" men as you put it) rather short. OTOH, some societies tend to turn a blind eye to homosexual liasons (for example, most Islamic societies at this time, in which both men and women were sold as sexual slaves) and others integrated them into their society (e.g. some Native Americans and Pacific Islanders). Their societies may be transformed by such a disease, although it would be hard to say if they would ever put two and two together, for the reasons mentioned by Carlton.

Note also that anal sex (which is the riskiest behavior from the standpoint of infections) is taboo in many societies in which homosexuality is accepted (e.g. the ancient Greeks, who prefered intercrural or interfemoral sex). In other societies, such as some Berbers, casual anal sex between males (usually of different ages) is common throughout the population even today.

One other thing: We in Europe and the US tend to think of AIDS as a "gay disease," but in most of the world it is not. The fact that it is associated with gay men in the US (even the largest growth in HIV infections, both in absolute and relative terms, is among straight - and specifically black - women), is something of a historical fluke.

[Gladi]

Originally Posted by carlton_bach

With AIDS, that's a bit problematic. HIV is a slow-motion killer. You get it, it spreads through your system and you become infectious within weeks. Then it takes many years to break down your body's immune system while you live, oblivious to the fact that you are carrying it. Only then do you die. Mostviruses that turned from killers into nuisances failed in the original form because the victims couldn't pass them on. They became symptomatic too soon, immobilised or obviously sick. Then they died, often hours or days after contagion. That's a very poor strategy. Much better to spread quickly, but not kill the victims. HIV, on the other hand, has an unusually long asymptomatic incubation period. In the absence of modern medicine, we might not even make a connection between the disease and the infection route. If I wanted to design a long-term population thinner, that's how I'd do it (except, obviously, that sexual transmission is way too selective).

But is it not possible (and occurs) that AIDS is generation succesive- from mother to child- and that child may live enough to breed? Would this change the people not? (my english is vacationing, gimme time to hunt the bloody thing down, please)

[carlton_bach]

Originally Posted by Gladi

But is it not possible (and occurs) that AIDS is generation succesive- from mother to child- and that child may live enough to breed? Would this change the people not? (my english is vacationing, gimme time to hunt the bloody thing down, please)

I'm not an expert, but I believe that was due to the mother's and child's genetic makeup and immune response, not any change in the virus. There are supposed to be people who survive full-blown AIDS, and people whose immune systems beat HIV. So in the long run, we might see the human population makeup change until HIV becomes nonviable.

Anyone here who has actually followed the research?

[Torqumada]

Originally Posted by carlton_bach

I'm not an expert, but I believe that was due to the mother's and child's genetic makeup and immune response, not any change in the virus. There are supposed to be people who survive full-blown AIDS, and people whose immune systems beat HIV. So in the long run, we might see the human population makeup change until HIV becomes nonviable.

Anyone here who has actually followed the research?

As with any infectiive agent, those that are immune to it will survive. However, due to its unique nature of transmission, AIDS doesn't spread as fast as other viruses and, despite what many people may believe, it is hard, not impossible to get the AIDS virus. It is actually a very fragile virus, as viruses go. 200 years wouldn't be enough time to develop a large resistant population, like Europeans were to smallpox compared to Native Americans. Now, if you had something that was spread by say respiratory droplets, like influenza, populations become resistant pretty quickly to the various strains, due to its mode of transmission and its rapid nature.

Torqumada