Health risks of travel in early-modern Britain(dralun.wordpress.com)
dralun.wordpress.com
Health risks of travel in early-modern Britain
https://dralun.wordpress.com/2023/02/17/the-health-risks-of-travel-in-early-modern-britain/
70 comments
In Ben Franklin's autobiography, he described his journey from Philadelphia to Boston. It took two weeks by boat, traveling down the Delaware River and up the Atlantic coast. The shipped wrecked off the coast of Massachusetts, and he had to swim to shore. I guess the TSA lines don't seem so bad in comparison.
The distance from Philadelphia to Boston is not much greater than Paris to Lyon which takes two hours by train today.
If the US had reasonable train service, you’d get from central Philly to central Boston in the time it today takes just to get to the airport, go through security and board the plane.
If the US had reasonable train service, you’d get from central Philly to central Boston in the time it today takes just to get to the airport, go through security and board the plane.
s/reasonable/world-class
Any particular reason why the country which prides itself as the world's largest economy, largest democracy, and a technological leader shouldn't reasonably have a world-class transportation system?
Because everybody has a world class vehicle of their own? It's a different and reasonable system of transportation.
I'm sure others may disagree. They can cry all they want. Reality has demonstrated that this is a reasonable system, even if it isn't rational by their standards.
I'm sure others may disagree. They can cry all they want. Reality has demonstrated that this is a reasonable system, even if it isn't rational by their standards.
Because "we ain't number 1 by catering to poor people"
High-speed rail tends to be a premium service.
In Europe, routes often cost more than equivalent air routes. Though for some, comfort, convenience, and environmental considerations trump costs.
In Europe, routes often cost more than equivalent air routes. Though for some, comfort, convenience, and environmental considerations trump costs.
Not as premium as a private jet.
Health risks of travel in post-modern Britain.
A nation awash with sewage and corrupt leaders leading to episodes of ill-health and death.
A nation awash with sewage and corrupt leaders leading to episodes of ill-health and death.
Pretty much everything could kill you back then.
I’ve been ill for about a month now, so I’ve been reading a lot. I’m going to add the danger of wolves.
There is a French account of how packs used to raid villages and this one knight in full armor fought a wolf for hours, and they wound up killing each other in combat.
I don’t know if that’s true but apparently it was quite commonplace
I’ve been ill for about a month now, so I’ve been reading a lot. I’m going to add the danger of wolves.
There is a French account of how packs used to raid villages and this one knight in full armor fought a wolf for hours, and they wound up killing each other in combat.
I don’t know if that’s true but apparently it was quite commonplace
Wolves fight in packs too, for hunting prey.. a single wolf sticking and fighting to death, and a knight with a sword in armor not managing to seriously wound it earlier? Tbh doesn't sound realistic at all, given also todays knowledge about the behaviour of wolves. They had also plenty of food and other opportunities back then. Given how fatal any injury can be any predator is taking on any unnecessary fight very carefully.
I don't think so either but I thought it was cool. But wolves were an ever-present danger in Europe, that's why they hunted them to extinction. Especially during plague times, plenty of carrion to scavenge and habituation makes them lose their fear of humans.
Let me see if I can find the story, I was feverish yesterday so I didn't, but I can today.
The behavior of wolves as we currently think of it has been influenced a lot by politically correct thought forms. "In France, historical records compiled by rural historian Jean-Marc Moriceau indicate that during the period 1362–1918, nearly 7,600 people were killed by wolves, of whom 4,600 were killed by nonrabid wolves."
Let me see if I can find the story, I was feverish yesterday so I didn't, but I can today.
The behavior of wolves as we currently think of it has been influenced a lot by politically correct thought forms. "In France, historical records compiled by rural historian Jean-Marc Moriceau indicate that during the period 1362–1918, nearly 7,600 people were killed by wolves, of whom 4,600 were killed by nonrabid wolves."
I also strongly recommend reading up on the Beast of Gévaudan for a uniquely bloody and strange case of a supposed 18th century village terrorized by a wolf, or at least some large beast. I say supposedly because there were also historical rumors that the real butcher of at least some of the victims in the region was the very man who killed the supposed culprit wolf for a reward from the French king, and as a way to cover up his crimes.
It might have been a rabid wolf, which would explain the aggression. And the duration was probably exaggerated. If the fight lasted a while, like 10 minutes, then the knight could've died from exhaustion or heat stroke afterwards. If we assume "died in the fight" was also exaggerated, we could include blood loss that went untreated (everyone else was busy fleeing). If he died that night or the next day, then infections are possible killers.
That’s very plausible. Maybe he was a shit knight. But also there’s the man eating lions that somehow could dodge bullets.
But plate armor has its own weaknesses, like a poor field of vision and all the weight slows you down. Likely died from blood loss like you said.
I’m trying to find it, it was a project Gutenberg tome.
I don’t know how I got into this rabbit hole but I’m still a little feverish so back at it again
But plate armor has its own weaknesses, like a poor field of vision and all the weight slows you down. Likely died from blood loss like you said.
I’m trying to find it, it was a project Gutenberg tome.
I don’t know how I got into this rabbit hole but I’m still a little feverish so back at it again
> knight in full armor fought a wolf for hours
There’s very little a wolf can do to a person in armor. A fight between an armored knight armed with any kind of sword and a single wolf would probably only last a minute and would end very badly for the wolf. Wolves are extremely careful, cowardly and their only fighting move is to approach you and bite you. Source: have spent a lot of time with various wolfdogs, wolf hybrids and actual wolves.
There’s very little a wolf can do to a person in armor. A fight between an armored knight armed with any kind of sword and a single wolf would probably only last a minute and would end very badly for the wolf. Wolves are extremely careful, cowardly and their only fighting move is to approach you and bite you. Source: have spent a lot of time with various wolfdogs, wolf hybrids and actual wolves.
I was struck while recently reading David Grann's "The Wager" by how little people understood scurvy at the time. Grann writes about how some doctors believed it to be a reaction of the body to being away from solid land for too long, and attempted a treatment by burying patients up to their necks in soil.
[deleted]
Travel is still risky. Automobile accidents are, by a substantial margin, the leading cause of death in young people.
It may have been somewhat more risky back then -- in terms of fatalities per mile traveled, if not fatalities per hour traveled -- but I don't think that's perfectly clear. A fall from a horse, which has happened to me more than once, is a lot less injurious than an automobile accident. It would be interesting to see a comparison table.
Besides, the risks didn't stop every enterprising English and Protestant German youth from embarking upon the Grand Tour: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Tour
It may have been somewhat more risky back then -- in terms of fatalities per mile traveled, if not fatalities per hour traveled -- but I don't think that's perfectly clear. A fall from a horse, which has happened to me more than once, is a lot less injurious than an automobile accident. It would be interesting to see a comparison table.
Besides, the risks didn't stop every enterprising English and Protestant German youth from embarking upon the Grand Tour: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Tour
I don't have a dog in this fight, honest! /s
but I got curious, so as a fun math exercise: go crazy!
> According to the research (2002) on horseback riding danger statistics, the rate of hospital admissions for equestrians is 11.8/1000 riders or, assuming one hour per day riding on average, 0.49/1000 hours of riding. (1)
> 7. 81% of equestrians get injured at some point in their riding career.
we have some numbers that don't quite compare:
>In 2020, Americans had a 1 in 63 chance of getting in a car accident.
> At least one driver or passenger is injured in 43% of car crashes. There were 2,282,015 injuries reported in 2020 — that's 6,252 per day, or four per minute.
but I got curious, so as a fun math exercise: go crazy!
HORSES:
> According to the research (2002) on horseback riding danger statistics, the rate of hospital admissions for equestrians is 11.8/1000 riders or, assuming one hour per day riding on average, 0.49/1000 hours of riding. (1)
> 7. 81% of equestrians get injured at some point in their riding career.
CARS:
we have some numbers that don't quite compare:
>In 2020, Americans had a 1 in 63 chance of getting in a car accident.
> At least one driver or passenger is injured in 43% of car crashes. There were 2,282,015 injuries reported in 2020 — that's 6,252 per day, or four per minute.
So cars are roughly 10 times safer than riding horses? And that's without accounting for the difference in distance travelled. The number of injuries for the car are staggeringly high because of how common they are. I bet if we enacted policies that made owning a horse as likely as owning a car, we would also find that every minutes a several horse riders get injured.
I would also make a guess that cars operated at the same speed (with current safety equipment) that cars would be closer to 100 times safer than horses. The entire velocity squared multiples quickly.
I think so too. Motorcycles are the closest thing we have to a very fast horse and according to [1] they are 35 times more likely to result in a fatal crash than a car.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_safety
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_safety
It's complicated the other way because we design our environment to be safe for cars; horses on the other hand tend to go everywhere, including jumping over stuff.
> So cars are roughly 10 times safer than riding horses?
Well, all of that refers to injury -- which may be serious, but may also be very mild. A sprained ankle is an injury. Horseback riding is a lot like a contact sport; it's very easy to pick up musculoskeletal injuries from getting pulled or thrown (or kicked, which has also happened to me once,) but only a very small proportion of those lead to serious and lasting disability.
If we look solely at fatalities, a different picture might emerge. Automobile injuries are, I surmise, more likely to be very serious or fatal. And, of course, motorcycles are in a different plane of existence entirely.
Well, all of that refers to injury -- which may be serious, but may also be very mild. A sprained ankle is an injury. Horseback riding is a lot like a contact sport; it's very easy to pick up musculoskeletal injuries from getting pulled or thrown (or kicked, which has also happened to me once,) but only a very small proportion of those lead to serious and lasting disability.
If we look solely at fatalities, a different picture might emerge. Automobile injuries are, I surmise, more likely to be very serious or fatal. And, of course, motorcycles are in a different plane of existence entirely.
The problem with horses is that you tend to fall on your back from a moderate height, which makes them very good at causing paralysis.
Also, even the sketchiest car is far more predictable than a cranky or barn sour horse.
I had a brake failure once (which did not caused damage due to luck and reaction). It was a old car, but it was checked before.
That’s pretty hard to do. Out of curiosity - how old, and how did the brakes fail?
20 years old and the break strings(?) just snapped. I suppose the mechanic did a sloppy job before (never went there again).
It was flat where it happened, but we have mamy quite steep roads here as well. So could have ended badly. (So it was just a allmost crash)
It was flat where it happened, but we have mamy quite steep roads here as well. So could have ended badly. (So it was just a allmost crash)
By contrast, the sketchiest horse will avoid collisions with other horses.
For the record, the sketchiest horse will suddenly kick out hard at the head height of a 12 year old if they approach it 'wrong' (that's a dice roll).
Horses are more dangerous than you might credit them to be.
Horses are more dangerous than you might credit them to be.
Granted. The claim was only about other-horse collisions.
Yes and no. If my 70 year old mother is thrown from a horse, she’s in real trouble, probably worse than most accidents in modern cars.
the denominator is clearly the big question. Is it "miles traveled" or "time spent doing it"?
or in practical terms: "what's the likelihood you'll be injured if you do it every day"?
or in practical terms: "what's the likelihood you'll be injured if you do it every day"?
Much, much higher for the horse. Horses are far less predictable, temperamental, harder to manage and keep healthy, etc.
And more than powerful enough to kick someone in the head and end them in an instant if they really wanted to.
And more than powerful enough to kick someone in the head and end them in an instant if they really wanted to.
although they will avoid colliding with other horses, AFAIK
Cars will also avoid eating random things and pooping in public, thankfully!
I see a YouTube video here! $$$$$$
We can also look at which is the most dangerous to pedestrians (probably the car by a wide margin), or even which is the most dangerous when not ridden/in use. For that last point I would expect the horse to be the most dangerous, while you have the occasional death due to being crushed by a car I bet stable accidents are more frequent.
Good point on pedestrians. Cars can roll down hills, although that's probably infrequent. They can also catch fire.
I'm not even horse-experienced, so my knowledge is mainly from TV.
I'm not even horse-experienced, so my knowledge is mainly from TV.
Trains: 5 railway passengers killed in the EU in 2021, and around 20 seriously injured. 261 billion passenger-km travelled. 0.02 deaths per billion km.
Cars: the best EU country has 3.3 per billion-km, the worst 9.8.
(Not included: deaths from people not travelling, like trespassers on the railway, maintenance staff.)
Cars: the best EU country has 3.3 per billion-km, the worst 9.8.
(Not included: deaths from people not travelling, like trespassers on the railway, maintenance staff.)
A horse can also injure you when you're not riding it. A friend of mine was badly hurt by her horse when she tried to lead it into a trailer and it went nuts. Similar types of incidents can potentially happen with cars, but anecdotally seem quite rare. There probably aren't any good statistics on this, though.
I'm sure the modern equestrian statistics aren't comparable, as the people putting the most hours in tend to be doing sports, rather than daily work as in the past.
Modern horses are dramatically larger than what was available in the past, which means some injuries have more force involved.
Modern horses are dramatically larger than what was available in the past, which means some injuries have more force involved.
Looking at pre-car city street scenes, not many people rode horses. Most horses pulled carts and coaches. Of course, a shying horse attached to one of those can still kill people.
A fall from a horse, with mild injury, was far more serious though.
No antibiotics, and geneally no operating for internal body cavity injuries.
No antibiotics, and geneally no operating for internal body cavity injuries.
One might argue that a fall from a horse in the 17th century is more injurious than an automobile accident in the 21st
we don't have much data for then, but we do have it for now. See my other comment.
[deleted]
s/enterprising/independently wealthy/
[deleted]
I’m pretty sure the opioid epidemic is the leading cause of death in the US. Enormous numbers of Americans are dying from fentanyl and other poisons, but the media doesn’t like to cover it and the Government doesn’t like to talk about it.
I have no sense of its general coverage in the zeitgeist, but this month the White House announced Overdose Awareness Week "to focus the nation’s attention on the devastation caused by illicit fentanyl and other drugs" and also announced funding for a variety of things to attempt addressing it. Their recap links to media coverage in a variety of sources.
Of course, people and front pages quickly tire of 'boring' things like that and unfortunately get more excited about other events prone to popping up in a large country.
Of course, people and front pages quickly tire of 'boring' things like that and unfortunately get more excited about other events prone to popping up in a large country.
Among young people it is currently guns, until recently was cars, and drugs is about half of either, but rising. Drugs has recently risen to be about the same as cancer.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2201761#:~:text=T....
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2201761#:~:text=T....
A lot has changed since 2016.
"Poisoning was the leading cause of preventable death for all ages, combined, for the ninth consecutive year and was the leading cause of preventable death for every age from 22 to 68. This is largely due to the opioid epidemic affecting millions of people in the United States."
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/deaths-by-demograph...
"Poisoning was the leading cause of preventable death for all ages, combined, for the ninth consecutive year and was the leading cause of preventable death for every age from 22 to 68. This is largely due to the opioid epidemic affecting millions of people in the United States."
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/deaths-by-demograph...
The data I used was up to 2020 (see the chart) and your link says that for people under 22 the leading cause was vehicle accidents in 2021.
But your point is made: drug poisonings are now the scourge of adults in the main years of life.
But your point is made: drug poisonings are now the scourge of adults in the main years of life.
The leading cause of death among young people is not guns. It's not even firearm-related injury, which is what your link talks about. The thing at the link (it's not a study) you point to has gotten a lot of press. It is deliberately deceptive.
It uses an age range of 1-19, excluding children 0-1 years old and including adults who are in their 18th and 19th years. So sure, when you do this bullshit maybe you can produce the answer your audience wants to see / which will play well in the press / which will lead to clicks. But it's not honest. The honest statistic for the U.S. is 0-18(exclusive) years old, and when you do the honest thing you see that death by firearm-related injury is not the leading cause of death for minors in the U.S.
The deliberately deceptive statistic is driven by including as many 15-35 year old males as possible. This is the age range when males in gangs are extra killy.
It uses an age range of 1-19, excluding children 0-1 years old and including adults who are in their 18th and 19th years. So sure, when you do this bullshit maybe you can produce the answer your audience wants to see / which will play well in the press / which will lead to clicks. But it's not honest. The honest statistic for the U.S. is 0-18(exclusive) years old, and when you do the honest thing you see that death by firearm-related injury is not the leading cause of death for minors in the U.S.
The deliberately deceptive statistic is driven by including as many 15-35 year old males as possible. This is the age range when males in gangs are extra killy.
I find it curious that the age cut off for that study was under 20 years of age.
Why not 18 or under? That's what we've typically used as the cutoff between childhood and adulthood.
I think I know why.
Why not 18 or under? That's what we've typically used as the cutoff between childhood and adulthood.
I think I know why.
They are comparing with a paper from four years earlier that used that age range.
If your implication of some skulduggery is about guns, the previous paper showed vehicle accidents as the leading cause.
If your implication of some skulduggery is about guns, the previous paper showed vehicle accidents as the leading cause.
The earlier paper they cite has the same authors.
The point stands, why are they using 20 years old as a cut off for adulthood, when generally it’s 18 and below?
And interesting she published a paper in 2010 that had a cutoff of 18.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20370746/
I can tell you why - the data looks significantly different and tells a different story than the authors want to tell.
The point stands, why are they using 20 years old as a cut off for adulthood, when generally it’s 18 and below?
And interesting she published a paper in 2010 that had a cutoff of 18.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20370746/
I can tell you why - the data looks significantly different and tells a different story than the authors want to tell.
If understand you correctly, you are unhappy to see attention drawn to the number of gun related deaths among young people.
Why hint rather than say what you mean?
Why hint rather than say what you mean?
No, you don't understand correctly.
I'm unhappy with a doctor playing games with statistics by manipulating the data, under the guise of actual science, in order to advance a political agenda.
Everyone should be unhappy with that.
But interesting you didn't comment on the other statements in my reply.
I'm unhappy with a doctor playing games with statistics by manipulating the data, under the guise of actual science, in order to advance a political agenda.
Everyone should be unhappy with that.
But interesting you didn't comment on the other statements in my reply.
The US has significantly higher rate of car fatalities than peer nations, which you're correct in this case shadows its (far more significantly higher than peer nations) rate of gun deaths.
Over all age groups? Definitely not, cardiovascular diseases and cancer get ~everybody in the end: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-number-of-deaths-b...
You're right for 15-49 year olds, where drug overdoses only recently (around 2015) overtook cancer: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/causes-of-death-in-15-49-...
You're right for 15-49 year olds, where drug overdoses only recently (around 2015) overtook cancer: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/causes-of-death-in-15-49-...
I wonder how much this generalizes across cultures. Early-modern Brits weren’t known for their hygiene, nutrition, or general medical aptitude.
Compared to who? Modern day, of course they weren't. 1500's Britain was quite poor, but not more so than many other places.
If you look at the general populace for basically anywhere before modern times, they all had bad hygiene nutrition and medial aptitude by modern standards. Looking at what the 0.1% could manage doesn't tell you much about a society.
If you look at the general populace for basically anywhere before modern times, they all had bad hygiene nutrition and medial aptitude by modern standards. Looking at what the 0.1% could manage doesn't tell you much about a society.
Not compared to present day, no, but most of the folks who interacted with Europeans at that time (including the natives in the Americas) commented on how sickly they looked and how badly they smelled. Nobody was springtime fresh, but early modern Brits were apparently notable even then.
[deleted](1)
Very true, and let’s not forget inbreeding