AIDS a century earlier

Funny, I was just thinking about this topic the other day. WI the critical mutation of the virus took place circa 1500 in western Africa, just as European exploration was beginning? Spanish and Portugese vessels come in contact with infected locals, and crew members bring the HIV back home. Although the epidemiology would be similar to syphilis, the mortalility rate would be higher and the infection rate faster. If western Africa was seriously infected, it might even depopulate some areas, making the slave trade difficult, and reducing the number of healthy slaves, changing the economics of the coloniztion of the New
World.

What do you think?
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Funny, I was just thinking about this topic the other day. WI the critical mutation of the virus took place circa 1500 in western Africa, just as European exploration was beginning? Spanish and Portugese vessels come in contact with infected locals, and crew members bring the HIV back home. Although the epidemiology would be similar to syphilis, the mortalility rate would be higher and the infection rate faster. If western Africa was seriously infected, it might even depopulate some areas, making the slave trade difficult, and reducing the number of healthy slaves, changing the economics of the coloniztion of the New
World.

What do you think?

With a 1500 POD

I don't think that AIDS would be much worse for Europe at the time than Syphilis, but else there it could be interesting.

Some intersting traits HIV have:

People who carries the Sickle-cell cronosome is easier infected with HIV
Around 15% of North Europe population has a mutation which make almost immune to HIV, because it's almost impossible for the virus to enter their cells.

Here is a interesting map what shows the distribution of Sickle cell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sickle_cell_distribution.jpg

This mean that Africa will be hardest hit by the virus, beside that you can fear that the Balkans and South Italy is also hard hit (and India and the Persian Gulf).

So what does it change in the worst epidemy case? Lots of Africa becomes depopulated which means fewer slaves to sell and the one there are is less hardy, so we likely see the Caribbian populated by mestizo instead of Mulattos and Blacks, and a lack of a Black community in Americas. The disease could hit the Ottomans hard, and make them less succesfull in the short term and remove one of the primary sources of slaves, which means that they will likely import slaves from the north instead (likelu Ukraine), so long term few changes except a larger Slavic population (maybe even in majority some places in Anatolian). The rest of Islamic world and Europe will likely get a small population fall, but it's unlikely it will have long term consequenses.
 
People who carries the Sickle-cell cronosome is easier infected with HIV
Around 15% of North Europe population has a mutation which make almost immune to HIV, because it's almost impossible for the virus to enter their cells.
Really? I've not heard that one.
I don't fancy trying it though....


This could be really good for religion. It really reinforces the no sex before marriage thing.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Really? I've not heard that one.
I don't fancy trying it though....

The immunity thing is believed to be a reult of the Black Death, because it believed that the plague entered human cells the same way HIV does, coupled with a around 40-50 precent dead in Scandinavia and North Germany, that resulted in that such a mutation could became so common.
 
It's more like 1% of Northern Europeans are immune, although 10-15% might have some form or resistance.

Genetic resistance to AIDS works in different ways and appears in different ethnic groups. The most powerful form of resistance, caused by a genetic defect, is limited to people with European or Central Asian heritage. An estimated 1 percent of people descended from Northern Europeans are virtually immune to AIDS infection, with Swedes the most likely to be protected. One theory suggests that the mutation developed in Scandinavia and moved southward with Viking raiders.


All those with the highest level of HIV immunity share a pair of mutated genes -- one in each chromosome -- that prevent their immune cells from developing a "receptor" that lets the AIDS virus break in. If the so-called CCR5 receptor -- which scientists say is akin to a lock -- isn't there, the virus can't break into the cell and take it over.


To be protected, people must inherit the genes from both parents; those who inherit a mutated gene from just one parent will end up with greater resistance against HIV than other people, but they won't be immune. An estimated 10 percent to 15 percent of those descended from Northern Europeans have the lesser protection.

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2005/01/66198
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Thing is, would anybody really notice?

You get a lot of prostitutes and malnourished people dying of TB.

I think you're right for Europe this would just thin out in the urban poors*, while the rural population wouldn't notice at all. Of cource the more urban countries would likely notice.

*and cities already worked in that way.

P.S: thanks for the information DDD
 
Last edited:
Thing is, would anybody really notice?

You get a lot of prostitutes and malnourished people dying of TB.

People would probably notice, since the immune-compromised would contract many other 'weird' diseases and syndromes besides TB. It might take a while, but I think even 1880's doctors would figure out something new was a foot after a while. Not that there would be anything they could do about it, or that they'd even understand the pathology.
 
People would probably notice, since the immune-compromised would contract many other 'weird' diseases and syndromes besides TB. It might take a while, but I think even 1880's doctors would figure out something new was a foot after a while. Not that there would be anything they could do about it, or that they'd even understand the pathology.

I agree with you that weird diseases would pop up... but I feel like in an era before outright sanitation, normal bugs would get them first, for the most part.

And then you have to come up with the idea of what's linking them all together.
 
No doubt, it could run rampant through certain population for a long time or almost indefinately before someone picked up on it. But it'd inevitable penetrate into higher class circles at some point, at which point some physician or other would be called in, study the progression of the disease, and not some abnormalities in its progression.

He might not think anything of it for a long time, until at the bar one night with another physician friend, they start swapping stories and something comes up. Ect, ect. And no doubt some doctors, explorers, missionaries, whatever - higher class people -would contract the disease in the course of their work as well.

Immunology visa-vie as it relates to bacteria would still be in its infancy at this point. (Quick glance at wikipedia shows me some history:

1862 - phagocytosis (Ernst Haeckel)
1867 - First aseptic practice in surgery using carbolic acid (Joseph Lister)
1876 - First demonstration that microbes can cause disease-anthrax (Robert Koch)
1877 - Mast cells (Paul Ehrlich)
1878 - Confirmation and popularization of the germ theory of disease (Louis Pasteur)
1880 - 1881 -Theory that bacterial virulence could be attenuated by culture in vitro and used as vaccines. Proposed that live attenuated microbes produced immunity by depleting host of vital trace nutrients. Used to make chicken cholera and anthrax "vaccines" (Louis Pasteur)
1883 - 1905 - Cellular theory of immunity via phagocytosis by macrophages and microphages (polymorhonuclear leukocytes) (Elie Metchnikoff)
1885 - Introduction of concept of a "therapeutic vaccination". First report of a live "attenuated" vaccine for rabies (Louis Pasteur).
1888 - Identification of bacterial toxins (diphtheria bacillus) (Pierre Roux and Alexandre Yersin)
1888 - Bactericidal action of blood (George Nuttall)
1890 - Demonstration of antibody activity against diphtheria and tetanus toxins. Beginning of humoral theory of immunity. (Emil von Behring) and (Shibasaburo Kitasato)
1891 - Demonstration of cutaneous (delayed type) hypersensitivity (Robert Koch)
1893 - Use of live bacteria and bacterial lysates to treat tumors-"Coley's Toxins" (William B. Coley)
1894 - Bacteriolysis (Richard Pfeiffer)
1896 - An antibacterial, heat-labile serum component (complement) is described (Jules Bordet)
1900 - Antibody formation theory (Paul Ehrlich)

but by the time anti-body formation theory comes around in 1900, the idea theres some-kind of immune-deficiency-syndrome floating around there, being passed in a non-bacteriological manner is probably established in medical circles. Viruses weren't discovered until around 1892, so, I'm guessing before then, there will be all sorts of wyld theories about how this immune-deficiency is being spread. Genetics, magic, etherally, whatever.
 
Top