Black Death targeted the weak

[Primus Pilus]

The Black Death, which killed one person in every three in Europe, was not as indiscriminate as thought, according to studies of remains in mass grave in East Smithfield.

 

The toll was so high during its height in the 1300s that many have concluded that anyone and everyone who came into contact with the agent, thought to be a bacterium, was doomed.

 

But research published today shows that people who were physically frail and malnourished before the epidemic were more likely to die from the disease than healthy individuals...

 

Telegraph.co.uk

[Primus Pilus]

Though on the surface this doesn't exactly seem like an earth-shattering revelation... that the poor and/or frail were more likely to die than those of health and/or means... but its an interesting counter to conventional thought nonetheless.

[spittle]

Were the healthy less likely to catch it or more likely to survive it?

 

What percentage did manage to survive?

[Primus Pilus]

Were the healthy less likely to catch it or more likely to survive it?

 

What percentage did manage to survive?

 

It appears they are only suggesting survival rates. I'm attempting to find some further information on the study with little luck.

[Gaius Octavius]

Assuming that they still exist, wouldn't parish records tell who, (which classes), tended to die as a result of 'plague'?

[sonic]

It makes sense that the weak were more affected by the disease. The grave itself has a higher proportion of 'weak' than 'strong' people, but 'strength' is hard to quantify, as descriptions of who are 'strong' tend to be based around skeletal remains, which only contain some of the information about the deceased, not all of it.

 

My greatest worry is that the entire course and effect of the Black Death is being analysed via one mass grave. I have seen somewhere that estimates of the population in the Middle Ages reach as high as 2,000,000 people. As a consequence, this single grave contains a very small proportion of the c. 600,000 people (one third being the usual estimate of the deaths caused!!) who died and is, as a result, not a numerically valid sample on which to base a hypothesis, however much it appeals to logic.

 

It reminds me of the adverts for cosmetics being shown on British TV!! : "In tests, 75% of women agreed", then you read at the bottom that 95 women were asked for their opinion - hardly a 'scientific' approach!!

 

Or maybe it's just that I'm a cynical old &*^$

[Klingan]

I wonder if they took into consideration that the upper classes probably had no terrible problem getting decent burials even during the epidemic. People of noble birth are not commonly thrown into mass graves.