DBWI: Contagion theory was not universally accepted in the 1760s?

[Deleted member 114175]

In 1762, the Austrian physician Marcus Antonius von Plenciz (1705-1786) published a book titled Opera medico-physica. It outlined a theory of contagion stating that specific 'animalculae' in the soil and the air were responsible for causing specific diseases. Von Plenciz noted the distinction between diseases which are both epidemic and contagious (like measles and dysentry), and diseases which are contagious but not epidemic (like rabies and leprosy). The book cites Anton van Leeuwenhoek to show how ubiquitous such animalculae are, and was unique for describing the presence of germs in ulcerating wounds.

Ultimately, the theory espoused by von Plenciz was enthusiastically accepted by the scientific community, and further microbiological experiments confirmed the existence of bacteria and viruses as causes for most disease. This led to a revolution in health, surgery, and public sanitation starting from the end of the Enlightenment period, well into the 19th century, with the 1800s having a surprisingly modern medical science.

But what if this amazing scientific leap was not accepted at the time? What if scientists of the 1700s and 1800s did not figure out the cause of disease until the late 19th century, continuing to think it was miasma, demonic possession, "imbalanced humours", or "bad airs"? How much worse would the late 18th and 19th centuries have been if these misconceptions remained common?

 

[Ellis MacVey]

Bad. Very, very bad.

 

[Malos]

A later germ theory would almost certainly butterfly away efforts to improve sanitation in large cities from the early 19th century, which could greatly complicate the explosive growth of cities like Prague caused by the Industrial Revolution. In fact, they might be cesspools of disease for a long time.

 

[Johnrankins]

In 1762, the Austrian physician Marcus Antonius von Plenciz (1705-1786) published a book titled Opera medico-physica. It outlined a theory of contagion stating that specific 'animalculae' in the soil and the air were responsible for causing specific diseases. Von Plenciz noted the distinction between diseases which are both epidemic and contagious (like measles and dysentry), and diseases which are contagious but not epidemic (like rabies and leprosy). The book cites Anton van Leeuwenhoek to show how ubiquitous such animalculae are, and was unique for describing the presence of germs in ulcerating wounds.

Ultimately, the theory espoused by von Plenciz was enthusiastically accepted by the scientific community, and further microbiological experiments confirmed the existence of bacteria and viruses as causes for most disease. This led to a revolution in health, surgery, and public sanitation starting from the end of the Enlightenment period, well into the 19th century, with the 1800s having a surprisingly modern medical science.

But what if this amazing scientific leap was not accepted at the time? What if scientists of the 1700s and 1800s did not figure out the cause of disease until the late 19th century, continuing to think it was miasma, demonic possession, "imbalanced humours", or "bad airs"? How much worse would the late 18th and 19th centuries have been if these misconceptions remained common?

I can see it delayed but 150 years, that seems pretty unlikely. If it did expect a number of epidemics. The plunging of death rates due to disease boosted the lifespan of people at the time which helped technological development. I think radios , for example, would have came later than 1868.