Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
If no medical assistance and fitness was applied.................
Replies
-
...elderly at 65?! Old yes, but the closer I get to 60 the more I think of 80 as elderly. Or maybe that's because both of my parents are 84.3
-
Most antibiotics reduce the intensity or duration of an infection which is different than saving a life. For example, treating acne is a major reason to take it (impacts quality of life, not duration). I've never taken it to save my lifeWhat about vaccines for diseases? Or antibiotics for infections? Or surgery because of accidents?What about vaccines for diseases? Or antibiotics for infections? Or surgery because of accidents? Or treatments for cancer or poisoning?
Majority would mean that the majority of people go to hospitals for what you mentioned when most are in there because they are sick, injured or need medical attention.
If you are saying zero medical intervention, probably the life of women would be noticeable shortened due to increased death from child birth.
For reference, the most common OR procedures are:
1. cesarean section (saves some lives though many would go fine with natural birth)
2. circumcision (no impact to length of life)
3. Arthrosplasty knee (quality of life, not length)
4. Hip replacement (quality of life, not length)
5. Spinal fusion (quality of life, not length)
6. Coronary angioplasty (does extend length of life)
Poisoning is very rare in our modern world and very few people per capita go to hospital for life saving surgery following an accident.1 -
Most antibiotics reduce the intensity or duration of an infection which is different than saving a life. For example, treating acne is a major reason to take it (impacts quality of life, not duration). I've never taken it to save my lifeWhat about vaccines for diseases? Or antibiotics for infections? Or surgery because of accidents?What about vaccines for diseases? Or antibiotics for infections? Or surgery because of accidents? Or treatments for cancer or poisoning?
Majority would mean that the majority of people go to hospitals for what you mentioned when most are in there because they are sick, injured or need medical attention.
If you are saying zero medical intervention, probably the life of women would be noticeable shortened due to increased death from child birth.
For reference, the most common OR procedures are:
1. cesarean section (saves some lives though many would go fine with natural birth)
2. circumcision (no impact to length of life)
3. Arthrosplasty knee (quality of life, not length)
4. Hip replacement (quality of life, not length)
5. Spinal fusion (quality of life, not length)
6. Coronary angioplasty (does extend length of life)
Poisoning is very rare in our modern world and very few people per capita go to hospital for life saving surgery following an accident.
I actually have relatives who died of fairly straightforward infections, before antibiotics were commonly available. It wasn't that unusual. Infections after childbirth were pretty common. Bacterial pneumonia. My uncle died of infection (peritonitis) after appendicitis, which likely would've been survivable only a few years later (sulfa drugs were discovered in the 1930s, in pretty wide use by WWII, perceived to have saved many lives). Simple wound infections killed quite a few people, before antibiotics.
I think antibiotics are more influential on lifespan than you're thinking: Each case where I've gotten an antibiotic was an opportunity to have died of that infection, had antibiotics not been available. Maybe I would've fought it off, maybe not. When you had infections that were not life-threatening, it's often the antibiotics making those conditions less life-threatening. They don't worry us much, anymore, except for the resistant-bacteria types.
Further, some modern surgeries would be impractible without antibiotics, from a total mortality standpoint, so it's complicated. People who've had hip replacements are generally told to take antibiotics prophylactically before some dental work, and I'll bet there's a reason, let alone antibiotics involved in these surgeries themselves.
FWIW, my understanding is that hip fracture is correlated with earlier mortality for women, even in a modern world with more nursing homes for services to the disabled. There are implications for lifespan from some of those "quality of life" surgeries.5 -
Well that's not what stats are saying.paperpudding wrote: »
Well again we're taking into consideration that there was some medical intervention. But what if there wasn't any? A simple infection could easily kill someone off or what if they got the measles or flu with no medical help?Pretty sure that childhood and maternal mortality in the past is what accounted for most of the lower average life expectancy. Once you were out of childhood (and for women past childbearing I guess) you had a pretty good chance of living to be elderly.
As amazing as the human body is, we're still pretty susceptible like any other animal to disease and injury. If not for medical intervention, our current population would likely be half of what it is now around the world.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Some medical intervention in medieval times????
Very little and some of what there was did more harm than good.
I agree with others that if you take out infant/ childhood deaths and maternal childbirth deaths the life expectancy was not that much less than today.
Less, sure , but not as dramatically less as one might think.
https://www.verywellhealth.com/longevity-throughout-history-2224054#:~:text=of Bubonic Plague-,From the 1800s to Today,and 40 years of age.&text=Though it's hard to imagine,surgery in the mid-1800s.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2885717/
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Your article doesn't dispute what I said.
It says life expectancy from birth was 30 to 40 years.
But the thing is that statistic is heavily skewed by childhood deaths and in the case of women,childbirth deaths.
Doesn't dispute what I said - if you take those deaths out of the equation, life expectancy was not that much less than today.
Less, sure - but not 50 years less.
Your article does not say otherwise.2 -
alisdairsmommy wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Some medical intervention in medieval times????
Very little and some of what there was did more harm than good.
I agree with others that if you take out infant/ childhood deaths and maternal childbirth deaths the life expectancy was not that much less than today.
Less, sure , but not as dramatically less as one might think.
I might quibble a little bit with this. Some methods were harmful, sure, and the explanations and descriptions can sound fanciful or ridiculous to the modern ear, but medieval and ancient peoples were far from stupid - they simply lacked the observational tools we benefit from today. In some things (though not all), modern inventions and techniques were actually MORE harmful at first than what generations past had done. The fields of obstetrics and gynecology in particular are full of this kind of thing (others might be as well, but that's my area of familiarity.)
I'm very thankful for sanitation and germ theory, to be sure, but I think one thing that's hard about the original question is that people have been practicing medicine, of a sort, for all of human history. It might look different, but it's there. People have always tried to take care of themselves.
Oh sure - a lot of ancient people had a degree of natural remedies which did have some benefit.. not disputing that
My post responded to medieval times - an era in Europe of quite anti scientific practices0 -
My odds of dying if I didn't take antibiotics were close to zero the times I took them, same for my immediate family members.
If we are going to regress all safety, health, OSHA standards back to what they were before, including more frequent wars, then we already know the impact on life expectancy
0 -
And yet before antibiotics, people died from infections that are common now, but with the advent saves lives. Bacterial meningitis killed. As well as whooping cough for kids. Tuberculosis, pneumonia and even strep throat was fatal for many. You do realize that antibiotics are one of the biggest medical advances in history? And it was because they could save lives.
Most antibiotics reduce the intensity or duration of an infection which is different than saving a life. For example, treating acne is a major reason to take it (impacts quality of life, not duration). I've never taken it to save my life.What about vaccines for diseases? Or antibiotics for infections? Or surgery because of accidents?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
7 -
Most antibiotics reduce the intensity or duration of an infection which is different than saving a life. For example, treating acne is a major reason to take it (impacts quality of life, not duration). I've never taken it to save my lifeWhat about vaccines for diseases? Or antibiotics for infections? Or surgery because of accidents?What about vaccines for diseases? Or antibiotics for infections? Or surgery because of accidents? Or treatments for cancer or poisoning?
Majority would mean that the majority of people go to hospitals for what you mentioned when most are in there because they are sick, injured or need medical attention.
If you are saying zero medical intervention, probably the life of women would be noticeable shortened due to increased death from child birth.
For reference, the most common OR procedures are:
1. cesarean section (saves some lives though many would go fine with natural birth)
2. circumcision (no impact to length of life)
3. Arthrosplasty knee (quality of life, not length)
4. Hip replacement (quality of life, not length)
5. Spinal fusion (quality of life, not length)
6. Coronary angioplasty (does extend length of life)
Poisoning is very rare in our modern world and very few people per capita go to hospital for life saving surgery following an accident.
I have to disagree about your stance on antibiotics. They save lives, and regularly. I say that as an ER PA. My hospital is a sepsis center. What may start as a small infection, UTI, for example, or foot would can quickly become life threatening if not treated. Even with antibiotics available, many patients come in and die from life threatening bacterial infections.5 -
My odds of dying if I didn't take antibiotics were close to zero the times I took them, same for my immediate family members.
If we are going to regress all safety, health, OSHA standards back to what they were before, including more frequent wars, then we already know the impact on life expectancy
If that's so, why do you take them? Taking *unnecessary* antibiotics is just contributing to the proliferation of resistant bacteria, after all.
Really, they're being prescribed for a reason. They're mitigating the risk of dangerous, even life-threatening infection. Guaranteed life threatening? No. But as others have said, people used to die much more often from "minor" infections. A few still do.
No one is arguing that we should regress all safety, health or OSHA standards, that I saw. I don't know where that straw man came from. I also don't know what argument the life expectancy chart is intended to support, either: The effect of antibiotics and other medical interventions is in there, along with safety and health standards, among other things.
3 -
paperpudding wrote: »
Oh sure - a lot of ancient people had a degree of natural remedies which did have some benefit.. not disputing that
My post responded to medieval times - an era in Europe of quite anti scientific practices
My quibble is primarily with your assertion about medieval people, so it still stands!
I think it's a really unfair, albeit common, description of how medieval people lived and thought. Medieval people absolutely experimented, invented things, and tried to heal to the best of their ability. They weren't "anti-science" (there was no defined scientific method at that time, which I have no problem conceding), but they were absolutely curious about nature and how things worked. That they may have purposefully integrated other disciplines like philosophy and theology doesn't dismiss that.
Medieval people are largely the ones we have to thank for preserving the knowledge of how ancient peoples did those things, too.3 -
paperpudding wrote: »
Well that's not what stats are saying.paperpudding wrote: »
Well again we're taking into consideration that there was some medical intervention. But what if there wasn't any? A simple infection could easily kill someone off or what if they got the measles or flu with no medical help?Pretty sure that childhood and maternal mortality in the past is what accounted for most of the lower average life expectancy. Once you were out of childhood (and for women past childbearing I guess) you had a pretty good chance of living to be elderly.
As amazing as the human body is, we're still pretty susceptible like any other animal to disease and injury. If not for medical intervention, our current population would likely be half of what it is now around the world.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Some medical intervention in medieval times????
Very little and some of what there was did more harm than good.
I agree with others that if you take out infant/ childhood deaths and maternal childbirth deaths the life expectancy was not that much less than today.
Less, sure , but not as dramatically less as one might think.
https://www.verywellhealth.com/longevity-throughout-history-2224054#:~:text=of Bubonic Plague-,From the 1800s to Today,and 40 years of age.&text=Though it's hard to imagine,surgery in the mid-1800s.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2885717/
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Your article doesn't dispute what I said.
It says life expectancy from birth was 30 to 40 years.
But the thing is that statistic is heavily skewed by childhood deaths and in the case of women,childbirth deaths.
Doesn't dispute what I said - if you take those deaths out of the equation, life expectancy was not that much less than today.
Less, sure - but not 50 years less.
Your article does not say otherwise.
I suppose I should remind myself of the original premise, but I wouldn't take childhood deaths or even many childbirth deaths out of the equation, personally, as they relate to diseases we can now cure or vaccinate against and conditions that can be treated by medical assistance/antibiotics.
Adults are less susceptible to such illnesses on average, which would be why the effect would be less once you start with adults (especially adults who are better off, for whom we have the best information, and who were innately healthy enough to survive childhood), but even that is going to depend on the specific time. Plague obviously killed a huge number of adults when active (although it's hard to figure out precisely how many), and same with other recurring illnesses. Also various crop failures and general malnutrition (which was more of an issue with the groups we can't measure as well due to fewer historical records).2 -
Lots of what we would call non scientific practices too - or non evidence based practices.
ETA in response to alisdairs mom.0 -
paperpudding wrote: »
Well that's not what stats are saying.paperpudding wrote: »
Well again we're taking into consideration that there was some medical intervention. But what if there wasn't any? A simple infection could easily kill someone off or what if they got the measles or flu with no medical help?Pretty sure that childhood and maternal mortality in the past is what accounted for most of the lower average life expectancy. Once you were out of childhood (and for women past childbearing I guess) you had a pretty good chance of living to be elderly.
As amazing as the human body is, we're still pretty susceptible like any other animal to disease and injury. If not for medical intervention, our current population would likely be half of what it is now around the world.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Some medical intervention in medieval times????
Very little and some of what there was did more harm than good.
I agree with others that if you take out infant/ childhood deaths and maternal childbirth deaths the life expectancy was not that much less than today.
Less, sure , but not as dramatically less as one might think.
https://www.verywellhealth.com/longevity-throughout-history-2224054#:~:text=of Bubonic Plague-,From the 1800s to Today,and 40 years of age.&text=Though it's hard to imagine,surgery in the mid-1800s.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2885717/
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Your article doesn't dispute what I said.
It says life expectancy from birth was 30 to 40 years.
But the thing is that statistic is heavily skewed by childhood deaths and in the case of women,childbirth deaths.
Doesn't dispute what I said - if you take those deaths out of the equation, life expectancy was not that much less than today.
Less, sure - but not 50 years less.
Your article does not say otherwise.
I suppose I should remind myself of the original premise, but I wouldn't take childhood deaths or even many childbirth deaths out of the equation, personally, as they relate to diseases we can now cure or vaccinate against and conditions that can be treated by medical assistance/antibiotics.
Adults are less susceptible to such illnesses on average, which would be why the effect would be less once you start with adults (especially adults who are better off, for whom we have the best information, and who were innately healthy enough to survive childhood), but even that is going to depend on the specific time. Plague obviously killed a huge number of adults when active (although it's hard to figure out precisely how many), and same with other recurring illnesses. Also various crop failures and general malnutrition (which was more of an issue with the groups we can't measure as well due to fewer historical records).
well yes those things happened - plague, malnutrition from crop failures etc - and yes of course many of the childhood deaths related to now preventable or treatable diseases.
Not disputing that at all.
Nevertheless the simple statistic of life expectancy being 30 - 40 years counting from birth, is heavily skewed by huge number of infant and childhood deaths.
If one reached about 10, one had not that less a life expenctancy to now -certainly not 40 years less.
Because as you say " Adults are less susceptible to such illnesses on average, which would be why the effect would be less once you start with adults"
Not even adults - start with 10 year olds. Possibly even 5 year olds - most infant/childhood deaths occurred before age 5
and the biggest cause of death for women aged between 15 and 40 would be childbirth deaths.
1 -
paperpudding wrote: »Lots of what we would call non scientific practices too - or non evidence based practices.
ETA in response to alisdairs mom.
Can you share what you're basing this assertion on? It's commonly believed, but I don't think there's much to actually support this idea.
I don't want to deviate too far from the original purpose of this thread, but I studied medieval history in undergrad and even read medieval medical texts. They were well aware of and interested in the evidence that was available to them at that time. And they collected what they could. They painstakingly copied texts from the ancients and corresponded with other cultures to further their knowledge. We have medievals to thank for our university system today, because they started it. No, they were not strict materialists. But not being a materialist doesn't mean evidence doesn't matter to you (NB: I am not a materialist and I think it's one of the worst things about today that it's fashionable again. But that's immaterial - heh - to the thread.)
The invention of the microscope was 1590. Bacteria were not observed until the 1670s - these are the early modern period. Curiously, though, a germ theory of disease has existed since the eleventh century - solidly medieval. For not being able to actually see the germs, that's pretty good! Curiously, though, it took until the 1850s and Louis Pasteur for the theory to be widely accepted.
I often find, that when people disparage the Middle Ages they're confusing it with the early modern period. Medieval people were very clean yet they're often depicted in media as dirty. In Europe they lived longer and got taller than early moderns (industrialization really did a number on the health of the average person). As medicine was taken over by "serious scientists" more people died because handwashing was viewed as superstitious. Same with herbal remedies which we now know do work in some cases (even if they didn't know the mechanism, medieval people could absolutely observe the effects!) And you need to practice evidence-based medicine to do things like quarantine, which people did in things like plague even if it was too late by the time symptoms appeared. They knew to burn and air out things to sterilize absent other techniques. Inoculation (the precursor to vaccination) was developed in China as early as the tenth century, with firmer evidence placing it at the very, very beginning of the early modern period.
The stereotype that medievals were a bunch of bumbling idiots who blamed everything on God is based on at best a serious misunderstanding and at worst a fabricated smear campaign (I have my suspicions about the latter but then we're really off topic
.) Were they deeply religious as a whole? Yes, definitely. But that doesn't preclude academic inquiry and achievement, now or then.
If anyone wants to start diving deep into this topic, this is a really good starting place: 15 Myths About the Middle Ages
7 -
So now that I got all that out, I will also concede that of course the time period had its grifters, snake oil peddlers, and desperate gullible people who will latch onto anything.
But we got plenty of 'em now, too. 4 -
paperpudding wrote: »Nevertheless the simple statistic of life expectancy being 30 - 40 years counting from birth, is heavily skewed by huge number of infant and childhood deaths.
Yes, I agree. Just saying if doing a comparison based on the significance of medical advances, I certainly would not ignore the childhood deaths.
Also, although 30-40 is skewed greatly by infant/child deaths, most of the good comparison information we have are from selected periods and tend to relate more to better off people (who are better documented). There's a lot of uncertainty. I'd be willing to say the true number is not 30-40 (once someone is an adult) or anywhere near that number, but also that we can't say how close it is to current life expectancy for the population as a whole and that it was less. But again I think it's important to include ALL deaths from illnesses that we have eradicated or can cure to do an accurate, meaningful comparison, and that would include lots of childbirth deaths and childhood deaths.
There were also more deaths due to violence and to some extent that we can heal injuries now in a way we could not historically (there were huge medical advances that occurred as a result of the American Civil War related to treating injuries and some other conditions, and even in the past 30 or so years more advances, which I've seen discussed in connection with shooting vs homicide rates where I live, sadly).2 -
Most antibiotics reduce the intensity or duration of an infection which is different than saving a life. For example, treating acne is a major reason to take it (impacts quality of life, not duration). I've never taken it to save my lifeWhat about vaccines for diseases? Or antibiotics for infections? Or surgery because of accidents?
I once got a nasty infection while working on a lobster boat. Antibiotics may not have saved my life, but I imagine I could have lost that finger or hand.
I'm sure the antibiotics I took for a brown recluse spider bite did save my life.2 -
And yet before antibiotics, people died from infections that are common now, but with the advent saves lives. Bacterial meningitis killed. As well as whooping cough for kids. Tuberculosis, pneumonia and even strep throat was fatal for many. You do realize that antibiotics are one of the biggest medical advances in history? And it was because they could save lives.
Most antibiotics reduce the intensity or duration of an infection which is different than saving a life. For example, treating acne is a major reason to take it (impacts quality of life, not duration). I've never taken it to save my life.What about vaccines for diseases? Or antibiotics for infections? Or surgery because of accidents?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
People died of syphilis before the advent of antibiotics.
3 -
Yes, I agree. Just saying if doing a comparison based on the significance of medical advances, I certainly would not ignore the childhood deaths.
No I certainly would not either - since the majority of the advances saved childhood lives - vaccines (my favourite subject) in particular.
I was by no means suggesting doing that but simply saying ,no more no less - that the statistic of life expectancy of only 30 - 40 years needs to be seen as a from birth statistic heavily skewed by huge infant and child mortality.
Once one reaches 5, ones life expectancy, especially if one does not die in childbirth, was not 40 years less than it is today.
3 -
Most antibiotics reduce the intensity or duration of an infection which is different than saving a life. For example, treating acne is a major reason to take it (impacts quality of life, not duration). I've never taken it to save my lifeWhat about vaccines for diseases? Or antibiotics for infections? Or surgery because of accidents?What about vaccines for diseases? Or antibiotics for infections? Or surgery because of accidents? Or treatments for cancer or poisoning?
Majority would mean that the majority of people go to hospitals for what you mentioned when most are in there because they are sick, injured or need medical attention.
If you are saying zero medical intervention, probably the life of women would be noticeable shortened due to increased death from child birth.
For reference, the most common OR procedures are:
1. cesarean section (saves some lives though many would go fine with natural birth)
2. circumcision (no impact to length of life)
3. Arthrosplasty knee (quality of life, not length)
4. Hip replacement (quality of life, not length)
5. Spinal fusion (quality of life, not length)
6. Coronary angioplasty (does extend length of life)
Poisoning is very rare in our modern world and very few people per capita go to hospital for life saving surgery following an accident.
Wow l. Just. Wow.
I work in a hospital. Antibiotics SAVES lives, asks anyone who had sepsis.
Angioplasty saves lives.
Also I'd argue quality of life extends life. People who are in chronic pain die earlier. They literally give up on life.
Your arguments are without knowledge or basis in reality.3 -
Most antibiotics reduce the intensity or duration of an infection which is different than saving a life. For example, treating acne is a major reason to take it (impacts quality of life, not duration). I've never taken it to save my lifeWhat about vaccines for diseases? Or antibiotics for infections? Or surgery because of accidents?What about vaccines for diseases? Or antibiotics for infections? Or surgery because of accidents? Or treatments for cancer or poisoning?
Majority would mean that the majority of people go to hospitals for what you mentioned when most are in there because they are sick, injured or need medical attention.
If you are saying zero medical intervention, probably the life of women would be noticeable shortened due to increased death from child birth.
For reference, the most common OR procedures are:
1. cesarean section (saves some lives though many would go fine with natural birth)
2. circumcision (no impact to length of life)
3. Arthrosplasty knee (quality of life, not length)
4. Hip replacement (quality of life, not length)
5. Spinal fusion (quality of life, not length)
6. Coronary angioplasty (does extend length of life)
Poisoning is very rare in our modern world and very few people per capita go to hospital for life saving surgery following an accident.
Wow l. Just. Wow.
I work in a hospital. Antibiotics SAVES lives, asks anyone who had sepsis.
Angioplasty saves lives.
Also I'd argue quality of life extends life. People who are in chronic pain die earlier. They literally give up on life.
Your arguments are without knowledge or basis in reality.
Agreed! I work in a sepsis center and see this every day!1 -
This observation is going to be a little bit out there, but I think some of you may understand what I'm trying to say.
In some threads like this about the sweep of history, I feel like some people are like fish who are unaware that there's water, while others are aware of the water, but can't even begin to clearly imagine how other creatures can live without water enveloping them.
Whenever we grow up, live, we tend to take a lot of things for granted, not really even realize how different circumstances change things, yet how humans now and in different times are similar in the ways we react to our circumstances. (I'm not excepting myself. Over the years, I've made a lot of assumptions about my parents' and other eras, that I now know were inaccurate. I'm *sure* it hasn't all sunk in; I learn more all the time, including in this thread.)
So much has changed, even in my lifetime, medically: As just one example, exploratory surgery used to be moderately common in my youth (1960s), when people had extreme symptoms (often it turned out to be a cancer diagnostic); now, that's almost entirely replaced by CT scans, MRIs, that sort of thing. A consequence is earlier diagnosis of many conditions (you don't do exploratory surgery until symptoms are pretty dire!), and I'm sure that has implications for lifespan, without even considering the mortality risk of anesthesia or infection in the "exploratory surgery" scenario. (Anesthesia safety has improved, too, I suspect.)
Some effects won't show up in overall population mortality statistics, because some earlier-mortality causes are reduced (like cancer diagnosis and survivability, especially childhood cancers having a statistical effect), while others are increased (consequences of obesity, or opioid overdoses, say). It's so multi-factorial, so interwoven and complicated.
In my social circle, it's more common for across-the-board vaccine opponents to be younger than me (I'm 65 b. 1955), and for people my age to be willing to at least consider vaccinations (certainly for the childhood illnesses for which vaccinations have been widely available since 1960s/70s, maybe less true for the fast-developed Covid vax). People my age are kind of at the trailing edge of those who vividly remember the giant iron-long wards for polio patients and post-polio crippling, people (especially children) dying from things like measles or tetanus, etc. To younger people, the horror is not vivid, more theoretical. The risk doesn't seem real to them, I think. One young acquaintance became a crusading anti-vaccine advocate when her child had a reaction (couple of days of flu-y stuff, swelling at the site, fatigue, fever, headache) after a vaccination. Her mom, with a clear memory of deaths and crippling, was pretty horrified. People base perceptions and decisions more on what they've personally seen and experienced, vs. even pretty clear historical data.3 -
ANN, yes!!
You have possibly heard the saying 'Vaccination is a victim of its own success' meaning exactly what you said - some people are more concerned about minor side effects like little bit of redness and swelling, than they are about the vaccine preventable disease itself.
And then you get the completely debunked notion of autism and MMR - in parts of UK this led to massive under vaccinating followed by - surprise surprise! - outbreaks of measles, including at least 1 death.
Needless to say people suddenly decided to get their children vaccinated after all - as you do when faced with the actual disease.
4 -
Not quite as old. Don't have time to track down a source atm but, before modern medicine, the life expectancy if you survived to adulthood would have been in the 60s (varied by period and place). But yeah, there was never anything unusual about someone living into his 80s.wunderkindking wrote: »(...) But that once out of childhood and removing accident/severe injury people still lived about as long as they do today (70-80, with some outliers), which makes sense to me.
It wasn't an uninterrupted upward trend, btw. Health markers declined sharply in the early days of the industrial revolution, for instance.1 -
Not quite as old. Don't have time to track down a source atm but, before modern medicine, the life expectancy if you survived to adulthood would have been in the 60s (varied by period and place). But yeah, there was never anything unusual about someone living into his 80s.wunderkindking wrote: »(...) But that once out of childhood and removing accident/severe injury people still lived about as long as they do today (70-80, with some outliers), which makes sense to me.
It wasn't an uninterrupted upward trend, btw. Health markers declined sharply in the early days of the industrial revolution, for instance.
Accidents play a big role here in lowering the average, too. Some have been prevented due to safety technology and regulation, and some have been made less deadly or easier to treat (especially since we know to avoid infection). But I think accidents still rank pretty highly as cause of death, especially for men.
Re: polio, I read a news story a couple of years ago about the few people still alive who use iron lungs today. It's very hard to get parts now because they're no longer widely used and the ingenuity used to keep them going was pretty amazing. Every now and then I wonder if those people are still alive and how they're doing. Iron lungs really were a very impressive technology.
My IRL social circles are full of vaccine skeptics. I am not one. As far as I'm concerned, they're probably the greatest medical innovation ever. I'm skeptical of some other practices in contemporary medicine, I like to think with good reason, but vaccines have never been one of those things (I do have concerns sometimes about the ethics of testing and manufacturing, but I regard that as separate from concern about the technology itself). I am young enough to not have personally experienced or seen the effects of those diseases, but I've read enough history and that's enough to persuade me.3 -
Most antibiotics reduce the intensity or duration of an infection which is different than saving a life. For example, treating acne is a major reason to take it (impacts quality of life, not duration). I've never taken it to save my lifeWhat about vaccines for diseases? Or antibiotics for infections? Or surgery because of accidents?What about vaccines for diseases? Or antibiotics for infections? Or surgery because of accidents? Or treatments for cancer or poisoning?
Majority would mean that the majority of people go to hospitals for what you mentioned when most are in there because they are sick, injured or need medical attention.
If you are saying zero medical intervention, probably the life of women would be noticeable shortened due to increased death from child birth.
For reference, the most common OR procedures are:
1. cesarean section (saves some lives though many would go fine with natural birth)
2. circumcision (no impact to length of life)
3. Arthrosplasty knee (quality of life, not length)
4. Hip replacement (quality of life, not length)
5. Spinal fusion (quality of life, not length)
6. Coronary angioplasty (does extend length of life)
Poisoning is very rare in our modern world and very few people per capita go to hospital for life saving surgery following an accident.
I have to disagree about your stance on antibiotics. They save lives, and regularly. I say that as an ER PA. My hospital is a sepsis center. What may start as a small infection, UTI, for example, or foot would can quickly become life threatening if not treated. Even with antibiotics available, many patients come in and die from life threatening bacterial infections.
I never said they don't save lives. My point was that most uses of antibiotics were not in a save life situation. If they were gone, the average life expectance would be reduced, but not as much as some people here are implying. Clean water and a stable/safe food supply have done far more to extend our life span.
My departed uncle (an MD) talked about how the local doctor practiced when he was a child, this was pre- WW1. The guy would nail chicken gizzards on the barn door and wash his hands in a puddle before a home birth. We've come a long way the past 100yrs just by implementing good hygiene practices that combat germs rather than spread them.1 -
Most antibiotics reduce the intensity or duration of an infection which is different than saving a life. For example, treating acne is a major reason to take it (impacts quality of life, not duration). I've never taken it to save my lifeWhat about vaccines for diseases? Or antibiotics for infections? Or surgery because of accidents?What about vaccines for diseases? Or antibiotics for infections? Or surgery because of accidents? Or treatments for cancer or poisoning?
Majority would mean that the majority of people go to hospitals for what you mentioned when most are in there because they are sick, injured or need medical attention.
If you are saying zero medical intervention, probably the life of women would be noticeable shortened due to increased death from child birth.
For reference, the most common OR procedures are:
1. cesarean section (saves some lives though many would go fine with natural birth)
2. circumcision (no impact to length of life)
3. Arthrosplasty knee (quality of life, not length)
4. Hip replacement (quality of life, not length)
5. Spinal fusion (quality of life, not length)
6. Coronary angioplasty (does extend length of life)
Poisoning is very rare in our modern world and very few people per capita go to hospital for life saving surgery following an accident.
I have to disagree about your stance on antibiotics. They save lives, and regularly. I say that as an ER PA. My hospital is a sepsis center. What may start as a small infection, UTI, for example, or foot would can quickly become life threatening if not treated. Even with antibiotics available, many patients come in and die from life threatening bacterial infections.
I never said they don't save lives. My point was that most uses of antibiotics were not in a save life situation. If they were gone, the average life expectance would be reduced, but not as much as some people here are implying. Clean water and a stable/safe food supply have done far more to extend our life span.
My departed uncle (an MD) talked about how the local doctor practiced when he was a child, this was pre- WW1. The guy would nail chicken gizzards on the barn door and wash his hands in a puddle before a home birth. We've come a long way the past 100yrs just by implementing good hygiene practices that combat germs rather than spread them.
I definitely agree that clean water and better hygiene practices play a role too.
Yes, antibiotics are overused a lot for viruses. Lots of people come into the ER or primary clinic or urgent care wanting an antibiotic for their viral infections and if you tell them no and explain why, some understand, but others just get upset and say you didn’t do anything for them. Overuse is part of why we have resistant bacteria.
Everyone wants a quick fix. That is our culture.
However, antibiotics have played a big role in saving lives too. They save lives on the regular.2 -
Revisiting the OP, here is an article on preventable death - https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2014/p0501-preventable-deaths.html
I believe it implies universally improved physical health could take a big chunk out of these deaths due to heart disease, cancer, chronic respiratory disease, etc. In addition to being at a healthy weight, I'm including exercise, not smoking, and moderate alcohol use.
0 -
Most antibiotics reduce the intensity or duration of an infection which is different than saving a life. For example, treating acne is a major reason to take it (impacts quality of life, not duration). I've never taken it to save my lifeWhat about vaccines for diseases? Or antibiotics for infections? Or surgery because of accidents?What about vaccines for diseases? Or antibiotics for infections? Or surgery because of accidents? Or treatments for cancer or poisoning?
Majority would mean that the majority of people go to hospitals for what you mentioned when most are in there because they are sick, injured or need medical attention.
If you are saying zero medical intervention, probably the life of women would be noticeable shortened due to increased death from child birth.
For reference, the most common OR procedures are:
1. cesarean section (saves some lives though many would go fine with natural birth)
2. circumcision (no impact to length of life)
3. Arthrosplasty knee (quality of life, not length)
4. Hip replacement (quality of life, not length)
5. Spinal fusion (quality of life, not length)
6. Coronary angioplasty (does extend length of life)
Poisoning is very rare in our modern world and very few people per capita go to hospital for life saving surgery following an accident.
Except that if the intensity and/or duration of an infection is reduced, the body is much more able to fight it off, preventing death, i.e., saving a life.
1 -
As I mentioned though, this WASN'T things they were doing before the 1900s. Hence higher death rates at lower ages.Revisiting the OP, here is an article on preventable death - https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2014/p0501-preventable-deaths.html
I believe it implies universally improved physical health could take a big chunk out of these deaths due to heart disease, cancer, chronic respiratory disease, etc. In addition to being at a healthy weight, I'm including exercise, not smoking, and moderate alcohol use.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions