oops.
Anyway, here’s an interesting question:
captain_spalding said:
Erotic asphyxia.
captain_spalding said:
I’d say that you could have, if we were both there at the same time.
dv said:
captain_spalding said:Erotic asphyxia.
roughbarked said:
captain_spalding said:I’d say that you could have, if we were both there at the same time.
Well, i wouldn’t do it in an arbitrary sort of way. Have to have a good reason.
I think i would have made it to about 30-31, when an infection from a cut on my hand was creeping up my arm, but antibiotics put the kibosh on it.
The doc said, ‘y’know, fifty years back (this was in the late 1980s), all i could have done was try to make you comfortable and kid you along as i watched you slowly die’.
captain_spalding said:
roughbarked said:
captain_spalding said:I’d say that you could have, if we were both there at the same time.
Well, i wouldn’t do it in an arbitrary sort of way. Have to have a good reason.
I think i would have made it to about 30-31, when an infection from a cut on my hand was creeping up my arm, but antibiotics put the kibosh on it.
The doc said, ‘y’know, fifty years back (this was in the late 1980s), all i could have done was try to make you comfortable and kid you along as i watched you slowly die’.
Which is why I said you could have killed me. Not because you wanted to or had means and motive.
We didn’t have N95 masks back then.
roughbarked said:
We didn’t have N95 masks back then.
And only the crudest (and usually incorrect) ideas about transmissible diseases.
It’s a little daydream to wonder how many people you could have saved if you were able to travel back in time, and introduce basic ideas of sanitation, antitsepsis, and simple things like the use of sulfa powders on wounds.
Appendicitis – aged 11.
I had mumps at the age of 6. It doesn’t usually kill, but it can.
buffy said:
I had mumps at the age of 6. It doesn’t usually kill, but it can.
Well, yes, mumps or measles might have done for a lot of us at an early age.
Probably be well dead by now, probably died of septicemia or some such.
Or in a duel defending a maidens honour.
Most of us would have died at birth.
Woodie said:
Most of us would have died at birth.
Even as recently as the early 20th century, parents fully expected that 50% of children born to them would die at or soon after childbirth, and 50% of the rest would never reach adulthood.
3. Rheumatic fever.
sibeen said:
Appendicitis – aged 11.
Same, aged 12.
If not a childhood disease beforehand.
btm said:
3. Rheumatic fever.
Didn’t kill me but then that was in the 20th century.
Kingy said:
sibeen said:
Appendicitis – aged 11.
Same, aged 12.
If not a childhood disease beforehand.
If you didn’t die you’d likely be crippled from rickets.
nothing.
The quinsy.
kii would have been burned as a witch.
(runs away quickly)
JudgeMental said:
nothing.
and that is why tou are still with us today?
Neophyte said:
kii would have been burned as a witch.(runs away quickly)
That’s amusing in that we just watched episode 1 of series 4 of “Ghosts”. Mary is still in the cast and still sometimes has smoke coming off her.
I was born with a bilateral squint. It was repaired when I was approaching my fourth birthday. I remember some stuff from before that but post op everything was so amazingly crisp that I have crisp memories of it. So I would have spent my life in fog. I don’t think I would have lived through a kidney infection I got in my 20s without antibiotics. I spent days in labour with sarah even with them dialling up more chemicals into me all the time.so i might not have lived through that.
sarahs mum said:
I was born with a bilateral squint. It was repaired when I was approaching my fourth birthday. I remember some stuff from before that but post op everything was so amazingly crisp that I have crisp memories of it. So I would have spent my life in fog. I don’t think I would have lived through a kidney infection I got in my 20s without antibiotics. I spent days in labour with sarah even with them dialling up more chemicals into me all the time.so i might not have lived through that.
Sadly I doubt you or Sarah would have survived in 1400.
captain_spalding said:
Anyway, here’s an interesting question:
A difficulty with this question concerns vaccination and the unknown of whether or not one would’ve been exposed to the disease.
I’ve actually have considered such a question before and, ignoring the vaccination unknown, I believe I would still be alive because, to the best of my knowledge, I have not experienced any life-threatening conditions that required medical intervention.
However, there is one thing that has probably extended my modern life compared to old times even without medical treatments… soap, which I regard as the greatest invention of all time.
KJW said:
However, there is one thing that has probably extended my modern life compared to old times even without medical treatments… soap, which I regard as the greatest invention of all time.
…….. and by implication, don’t you mean the bathtub?
Woodie said:
KJW said:
However, there is one thing that has probably extended my modern life compared to old times even without medical treatments… soap, which I regard as the greatest invention of all time.…….. and by implication, don’t you mean the bathtub?
Well, there is the washing of the whole body, but also the washing of the hands, as well as other things that might be helpful to have clean.
A simple scratch could give you a bacterial infection that could kill you, likewise a glass of water could give you a multitude of diseases and if you had a physical ailment and needed surgery, your heart could give out due to the pain, or an infection via the surgeon’s dirty hands or knife could see your demise.
PermeateFree said:
a glass of water could give you a multitude of diseases
I suppose if you boil out the demons, you’d be ok.
PermeateFree said:
A simple scratch could give you a bacterial infection that could kill you, likewise a glass of water could give you a multitude of diseases and if you had a physical ailment and needed surgery, your heart could give out due to the pain, or an infection via the surgeon’s dirty hands or knife could see your demise.
Oh, no-one drank water back then. Lethal stuff, and known to be so.
Everyone drank alcohol, literally morning, noon, and night. At the very least, it was ‘small beer’, beer with 2%-3% alcohol, just enough to kill the bugs in the liquid; even if they weren’t aware of germs, they knew it was safer than drinking water. Even small children had beer for breakfast.
In the ‘Supersizers ‘ series, where two people lived, dressed, behaved, ate, and drank according to a particular period of history, comedian Sue Perkins said in the ‘Elizabethan’ show that the steady consumption of alcohol was wearing. In a piece to camera, she said “I have been off my face since 9 o’clock this morning”.
Our ancestors may not have been so ‘adventurous’ as history portrays them: they may have simply been shitfaced.
we are all related to those who survived.
KJW said:
PermeateFree said:
a glass of water could give you a multitude of diseases
I suppose if you boil out the demons, you’d be ok.
But no-one knew about germs, so no-one knew that boiling it would render it safe.
captain_spalding said:
KJW said:
PermeateFree said:
a glass of water could give you a multitude of diseases
I suppose if you boil out the demons, you’d be ok.
But no-one knew about germs, so no-one knew that boiling it would render it safe.
They knew that using water in a boiled soup made it safer than water on its own. They weren’t stupid. Plus the Chinese and tea.
captain_spalding said:
KJW said:
PermeateFree said:
a glass of water could give you a multitude of diseases
I suppose if you boil out the demons, you’d be ok.
But no-one knew about germs, so no-one knew that boiling it would render it safe.
I didn’t mention germs. I saw a tv program not long ago about the Great Plague of London from 1665 to 1666. One thing that was striking was that, in spite of their lack of knowledge about what caused the plague, their treatments were surprisingly effective.
Witty Rejoinder said:
They knew that using water in a boiled soup made it safer than water on its own. They weren’t stupid. Plus the Chinese and tea.
The question there is, to what did they attribute the ‘making safe’ of the soup? The boiling, or perhaps the infusion of herbs, vegetables, and meats into the liquid?
If you were born in China, then, yes, tea would have been an option as something to drink. But tea didn’t arrive in Europe until the mid-1500s, and its use didn’t really begin to spread widely in Europe until the early- to mid-1600s. So, the regular practice of boiling water for purpose of a drink may not have been seen as useful until then.
KJW said:
However, there is one thing that has probably extended my modern life compared to old times even without medical treatments… soap, which I regard as the greatest invention of all time.
Soap has been known for thousands of years. It may not have been as readily available in the year 1400 but you could always make you own.
captain_spalding said:
Witty Rejoinder said:They knew that using water in a boiled soup made it safer than water on its own. They weren’t stupid. Plus the Chinese and tea.
The question there is, to what did they attribute the ‘making safe’ of the soup? The boiling, or perhaps the infusion of herbs, vegetables, and meats into the liquid?
If you were born in China, then, yes, tea would have been an option as something to drink. But tea didn’t arrive in Europe until the mid-1500s, and its use didn’t really begin to spread widely in Europe until the early- to mid-1600s. So, the regular practice of boiling water for purpose of a drink may not have been seen as useful until then.
gotta boil the crap outta root vegies to make them edible. and root vegies were basically all you have.
In any case, the rule held firm: don’t drink the water. At least, not as just water.
sibeen said:
KJW said:
However, there is one thing that has probably extended my modern life compared to old times even without medical treatments… soap, which I regard as the greatest invention of all time.Soap has been known for thousands of years. It may not have been as readily available in the year 1400 but you could always make you own.
fairly new in england. we used a strigil when we were kids.
sibeen said:
KJW said:
However, there is one thing that has probably extended my modern life compared to old times even without medical treatments… soap, which I regard as the greatest invention of all time.Soap has been known for thousands of years. It may not have been as readily available in the year 1400 but you could always make you own.
The yardstick of civilisation
Any sort of infection over the years where the GP has prescribed antibiotics. From boils and ingrown toenails in my childhood to various cut and injuries, Then in my mid 40s I got diabetes, since then I have had a toe amuptated due to injection, plus another close call that was resolved with ABs.
wookiemeister said:
sibeen said:
KJW said:
However, there is one thing that has probably extended my modern life compared to old times even without medical treatments… soap, which I regard as the greatest invention of all time.Soap has been known for thousands of years. It may not have been as readily available in the year 1400 but you could always make you own.
You can get free fat in plastic bags in the bio bins behind the liposuction clinics.The yardstick of civilisation
there were those guys some years ago that did a trans tasman powered by their own fat.
Life is fragile
No doubt there’s statistics somewhere that guess at what was most likely to kill you – deciding factor would be where you lived, town or city, rich or poor.
sibeen said:
Appendicitis – aged 11.
me too, but I was 12.
KJW said:
captain_spalding said:
KJW said:I suppose if you boil out the demons, you’d be ok.
But no-one knew about germs, so no-one knew that boiling it would render it safe.
I didn’t mention germs. I saw a tv program not long ago about the Great Plague of London from 1665 to 1666. One thing that was striking was that, in spite of their lack of knowledge about what caused the plague, their treatments were surprisingly effective.
not that effective, it still killed a third of Europe
Arts said:
sibeen said:
Appendicitis – aged 11.
me too, but I was 12.
I went to school first day of year 6. Second day I was in hospital and missed the rest of the term. When I woke up, complaining I was ill on day 2, my mother really thought I was trying it on. Mind, using historical precedent, she had fairly good reason :)
sibeen said:
Arts said:
sibeen said:
Appendicitis – aged 11.
me too, but I was 12.
I went to school first day of year 6. Second day I was in hospital and missed the rest of the term. When I woke up, complaining I was ill on day 2, my mother really thought I was trying it on. Mind, using historical precedent, she had fairly good reason :)
I was coming off a long bout of glandular fever that made me miss 3/4 of year seven… so maybe that would have got me first. shrug
Arts said:
KJW said:
I saw a tv program not long ago about the Great Plague of London from 1665 to 1666. One thing that was striking was that, in spite of their lack of knowledge about what caused the plague, their treatments were surprisingly effective.
not that effective, it still killed a third of Europe
It’s a deadly disease. In terms of the effectiveness of treatments, the number of deaths is meaningless without a comparison with the absence of such treatments. The effectiveness of such treatments was examined through a modern lens, and even compared to the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, which I might add killed a lot of people in spite of the technology we currently possess.
KJW said:
Arts said:
KJW said:
I saw a tv program not long ago about the Great Plague of London from 1665 to 1666. One thing that was striking was that, in spite of their lack of knowledge about what caused the plague, their treatments were surprisingly effective.
not that effective, it still killed a third of Europe
It’s a deadly disease. In terms of the effectiveness of treatments, the number of deaths is meaningless without a comparison with the absence of such treatments. The effectiveness of such treatments was examined through a modern lens, and even compared to the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, which I might add killed a lot of people in spite of the technology we currently possess.
but the plague is easily treated now.
sarahs mum said:
KJW said:
Arts said:not that effective, it still killed a third of Europe
It’s a deadly disease. In terms of the effectiveness of treatments, the number of deaths is meaningless without a comparison with the absence of such treatments. The effectiveness of such treatments was examined through a modern lens, and even compared to the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, which I might add killed a lot of people in spite of the technology we currently possess.
but the plague is easily treated now.
What were the treatments in the 1660s?
sarahs mum said:
KJW said:
Arts said:not that effective, it still killed a third of Europe
It’s a deadly disease. In terms of the effectiveness of treatments, the number of deaths is meaningless without a comparison with the absence of such treatments. The effectiveness of such treatments was examined through a modern lens, and even compared to the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, which I might add killed a lot of people in spite of the technology we currently possess.
but the plague is easily treated now.
Of course. And as far as the treatment of the disease itself, they really didn’t have an effective treatment. But what I was referring to above were the measures used to stem the transmission of the disease.
sibeen said:
sarahs mum said:
KJW said:
It’s a deadly disease. In terms of the effectiveness of treatments, the number of deaths is meaningless without a comparison with the absence of such treatments. The effectiveness of such treatments was examined through a modern lens, and even compared to the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, which I might add killed a lot of people in spite of the technology we currently possess.
but the plague is easily treated now.
What were the treatments in the 1660s?
The tv program was produced against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, measures such a social distancing and isolation were naturally compared to such measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. But the tv program also challenged the commonly held view that the plague was transmitted by rats, and provided evidence for human-to-human transmission via fleas and lice. Also, the tv program suggested that the measures used to stem the spread of the plagued targeted a human-to-human transmission rather than a spread by rats.
KJW said:
The tv program was produced against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, measures such a social distancing and isolation were naturally compared to such measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. But the tv program also challenged the commonly held view that the plague was transmitted by rats, and provided evidence for human-to-human transmission via fleas and lice. Also, the tv program suggested that the measures used to stem the spread of the plagued targeted a human-to-human transmission rather than a spread by rats.
Has it ever been thought it was spread by rats? I thought it had always (ie last 100+ years, at least) been accepted that it spread by fleas, though the fleas were (mostly) carried by rats.
btm said:
the fleas were (mostly) carried by rats.
That is what was challenged.
Neophyte said:
kii would have been burned as a witch.(runs away quickly)
Whooping cough at 3 would have taken me before then :)
communism
captain_spalding said:
Witty Rejoinder said:They knew that using water in a boiled soup made it safer than water on its own. They weren’t stupid. Plus the Chinese and tea.
The question there is, to what did they attribute the ‘making safe’ of the soup? The boiling, or perhaps the infusion of herbs, vegetables, and meats into the liquid?
If you were born in China, then, yes, tea would have been an option as something to drink. But tea didn’t arrive in Europe until the mid-1500s, and its use didn’t really begin to spread widely in Europe until the early- to mid-1600s. So, the regular practice of boiling water for purpose of a drink may not have been seen as useful until then.
In Sam Pepys time they put alcohol in the water to kill the greebs.
Peak Warming Man said:
captain_spalding said:
Witty Rejoinder said:They knew that using water in a boiled soup made it safer than water on its own. They weren’t stupid. Plus the Chinese and tea.
The question there is, to what did they attribute the ‘making safe’ of the soup? The boiling, or perhaps the infusion of herbs, vegetables, and meats into the liquid?
If you were born in China, then, yes, tea would have been an option as something to drink. But tea didn’t arrive in Europe until the mid-1500s, and its use didn’t really begin to spread widely in Europe until the early- to mid-1600s. So, the regular practice of boiling water for purpose of a drink may not have been seen as useful until then.
In Sam Pepys time they put alcohol in the water to kill the greebs.
Booze.
Is there anything it can’t do?
Peak Warming Man said:
captain_spalding said:
Witty Rejoinder said:They knew that using water in a boiled soup made it safer than water on its own. They weren’t stupid. Plus the Chinese and tea.
The question there is, to what did they attribute the ‘making safe’ of the soup? The boiling, or perhaps the infusion of herbs, vegetables, and meats into the liquid?
If you were born in China, then, yes, tea would have been an option as something to drink. But tea didn’t arrive in Europe until the mid-1500s, and its use didn’t really begin to spread widely in Europe until the early- to mid-1600s. So, the regular practice of boiling water for purpose of a drink may not have been seen as useful until then.
In Sam Pepys time they put alcohol in the water to kill the greebs.
Beer was safe than drinking the water. Mainly because the water and ingredients were boiled first.
party_pants said:
Beer was safe than drinking the water. Mainly because the water and ingredients were boiled first.
Didn’t know that. Know nothing of late-Middle Ages brewing. Must ask the aficionados at the home-brew shop about it.
A sword.
To be specific, a longsword, also known as a bastardsword.
Complications from diabetes.
Or maybe executed for banging Anne Boleyn or Catherin Howard or something