4.6 Review

History of the Plague: An Ancient Pandemic for the Age of COVID-19

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
卷 134, 期 2, 页码 176-181

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2020.08.019

关键词

Bioterrorism; Black Death; Bubonic plague; COVID-19; Evolutionary adaptation; Familial Mediterra-nean fever (FMF); Pneumonic plague; Pyrin; Yersinia pestis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The article discusses the devastating impact of the Black Death in the fourteenth century, highlighting the causative agent, transmission methods, and treatment options of the plague. It also explores historical events related to the plague, such as the blaming of Jews, and points out the repercussions of scapegoating minorities in current epidemics.
During the fourteenth century, the bubonic plague or Black Death killed more than one third of Europe or 25 million people. Those afflicted died quickly and horribly from an unseen menace, spiking high fevers with suppurative buboes (swellings). Its causative agent is Yersinia pestis, creating recurrent plague cycles from the Bronze Age into modern-day California and Mongolia. Plague remains endemic in Madagascar, Congo, and Peru. This history of medicine review highlights plague events across the centuries. Transmission is by fleas carried on rats, although new theories include via human body lice and infected grain. We discuss symptomatology and treatment options. Pneumonic plague can be weaponized for bioterrorism, highlighting the importance of understanding its clinical syndromes. Carriers of recessive familial Mediterranean fever (FMF) mutations have natural immunity against Y. pestis. During the Black Death, Jews were blamed for the bubonic plague, perhaps because Jews carried FMF mutations and died at lower plague rates than Christians. Blaming minorities for epidemics echoes across history into our current coronavirus pandemic and provides insightful lessons for managing and improving its outcomes. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据