User:Sdarkaus/sandbox

Medicine in the 19th Century
Epidemics of the 19th century were faced with[out] the medical advances that made 20th-century epidemics much rarer and less lethal. Micro-organisms (viruses and bacteria) had been discovered in the 18th century, but it was not until the late 19th century that the experiments of Lazzaro Spallanzani and Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation conclusively, allowing germ theory and Robert Koch's discovery of micro-organisms as the cause of disease transmission. Thus throughout the majority of the 19th century, there was only the most basic, common-sense understanding of the causes, amelioration, and treatment of epidemic disease.

Addition[The 19th century did, however, mark a transformation period in medicine. This included the first uses of chloroform and nitrous dioxides as anesthesia, important discoveries in regards of pathology and the perfection of the autopsy, and advances in our understanding of the human body. Medical institutions were also transitioning to new hospital styles to try to prevent the spread of disease and stop over crowding with the mixing of the poor and the sick which had been a common practice. With the increasing rise in urban population, disease and epidemic crisis became much more prevalent and was seen as a consequence of urban living. Problems arose as both governments and the medical professionals at the time tried to get a handle on the spread of disease. They had yet to figure out what actually causes disease (in fact many denied the existence of disease). So as those in authority scrambled to make leaps and bounds in science and track down what may be the cause of these epidemics, entire communities would be lost to the grips of terrible aliments.

Exploring Potential Cures
During these many outbreaks, members of the medical professional rapidly began trying different cures to treat their patients. During the cholera epidemic of 1832 in London one doctor had found a cure. His name was Thomas Latta and he figured out that by injecting saline solutions into the arms of those infected, they would survive the disease. But, because of the chaos of cures and treatments you could find being tried out on the streets, his cure was sub sequentially lost to the chaos of the times. In fact, a lot was lost this way. At this time, with the increasing circulation of mass media and no form of content review in medical journals, almost anyone with or without proper education could publish a potential cure for disease. Actual practicing medical professionals also had to compete with the ever expanding pharmacy companies that were all to ready to provide new elixirs and promising treatments for the epidemics of the time.

Emerging from the medical chaos were legitimate and life changing treatments.] The late 19th century was the beginning of widespread use of vaccines. The cholera bacterium was isolated in 1854 by Italian anatomist Filippo Pacini, and a vaccine, the first to immunize humans against a bacterial disease, was developed by Spanish physician Jaume Ferran i Clua in 1885, and by Russian-Jewish bacteriologist Waldemar Haffkine in July 1892.

Note: Antibiotic drugs did not appear until the middle of the 20th century. Sulfonamides did not appear until 1935, and penicillin, discovered in 1928, was not available as a treatment until 1950.

[A big response and potential cure to these epidemics were better sanitation in the cities. Sanitation prior to this was very poor and sometimes attempts to get better sanitation often exacerbated the diseases, especially during the cholera epidemics because their understanding of diseases relied on the miasma (bad air) theory. During the first cholera epidemic, Edwin Chadwick made an inquiry into sanitation and used quantitative data to link poor living conditions and disease and low life expectancy. As a result, the Board of Health in London took measure to improve drainage and ventilation around the city. Unfortunately, the measures helped clean the city but it further contaminated the River Thames (the primary drinking water for the city) and the epidemic got worse. ]

Beliefs about the Causes
During the second cholera pandemic of 1816–1837, the scientific community varied in its beliefs about its causes. In France, doctors believed cholera was associated with the poverty of certain communities or poor environment. Russians believed the disease was contagious and quarantined their citizens. The United States believed that cholera was brought by recent immigrants, specifically the Irish. Lastly, some British thought the disease might arise from divine intervention.

During the third pandemic, Tunisia, which had not been affected by the two previous pandemics, thought Europeans had brought the disease. They blamed their sanitation practices. The prevalence of the disease in the South in areas of black populations convinced United States scientists that cholera was associated with African Americans. Current researchers note they lived near the waterways by which travelers and ships carried the disease and their populations were underserved with sanitation infrastructure and health care.

The Soho outbreak in London in 1854 ended after the physician John Snow identified a neighborhood Broad Street pump as contaminated and convinced officials to remove its handle. Snow believed that germ-contaminated water was the source of cholera, rather than particles in the air (referred to as "miasmata"). His study proved contaminated water was the main agent spreading cholera, although he did not identify the contaminant. Though Filippo Pacini had isolated Vibrio cholerae as the causative agent for cholera that year, it would be many years before miasma theory would fall out of favor.

Disinfection team in the 1892 cholera outbreak in Hamburg.

In London, in June 1866), a localized epidemic in the East End claimed 5,596 lives, just as the city was completing construction of its major sewage and water treatment systems. William Farr, using the work of John Snow, et al., as to contaminated drinking water being the likely source of the disease, relatively quickly identified the East London Water Company as the source of the contaminated water. Quick action prevented further deaths.

During the fifth cholera pandemic, Robert Koch isolated Vibrio cholerae and proposed postulates to explain how bacteria caused disease. His work helped to establish the germ theory of disease. Prior to this time, many physicians believed that microorganisms were spontaneously generated, and disease was caused by direct exposure to filth and decay. Koch helped establish that the disease was more specifically contagious and was transmittable through the contaminated water supply. The fifth was the last serious European cholera outbreak, as cities improved their sanitation and water systems.

Medical Response (Sarah)
The 19th century actually marked a transformation period in medicine. This included the first uses of chloroform and nitrous dioxides as anesthesia, important discoveries in regards of pathology and the perfection of the autopsy, and advances in our understanding of the human body. Medical institutions were also transitioning to new hospital styles to try to prevent the spread of disease and stop over crowding with the mixing of the poor and the sick as seen prior to the 1800s. With the increasing rise in urban population, disease and epidemic crisis became much more prevalent and was seen as an consequence of urban living. A main problem arose as both governments and the medical professionals at the time tried to get a handle on the spread of disease, they had yet to figure out what actually causes disease (in fact many denied the existence of disease). So as those in authority scrambled to make leaps and bounds in science and trace what caused these epidemics, entire communities would be lost in Europe and North America. Sdarkaus (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

During these massive outbreaks, men within the medical professional rapidly began trying different cures to treat their patients. During the cholera epidemic of 1832 in London one doctor had found a cure. His name was Thomas Latta and he figured out that by injecting saline solutions into the arms of those infected, they would survive the disease. But, because of the chaos of cures and treatments you could find being tried out on the streets, his cure was sub sequentially lost to times. Actually a lot was lost this way because this was during the advent of mass media (newspapers) and no form of content review in medical journal, almost anyone with or without proper education could publish a potential cure for disease. Actual practicing medical professionals also had to compete with the ever expanding pharmacy companies that were all to ready to provide new elixirs and treatments for the epidemics of the time. Sdarkaus (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Introduction paragraph from article
Diseases and epidemics of the 19th century included long-standing epidemic threats such as smallpox, typhus, yellow fever, and scarlet fever. In addition, cholera emerged as an epidemic threat and spread worldwide in six pandemics in the nineteenth century. The third plague pandemic emerged in China in the mid-nineteenth century and spread worldwide in the 1890s.

Bolded words are addition/ change

Scarlet Fever Addition (Shelby)
Haemolytic streptococcus, which was identified in the 1880s, causes scarlet fever, which is a bacterial disease. Scarlet fever spreads through respiratory droplets and children between the ages of 5-15 years were most affected by Scarlet Fever. Scarlet fever had several epidemic phases, and around 1825 to 1885 outbreaks began to recur cyclically and often highly fatal. In the mid-nineteenth century the mortality caused by Scarlet Fever rose in England and Wales. The major outbreak in England and Wales took place during 1825-1885 with high mortality marking this as remarkable. There were several other notable outbreaks across Europe, South America, and the United States in the 19th century.

Europe
In Europe scarlet fever was considered benign for two centuries, but fatal epidemics were seen in the 1700s. Scarlet fever broke out in England in the 19th century and there were enormous amounts of death in the 40 year period from 1825-1885; decades that followed had lower levels of annual mortality from Scarlet fever. In NW England there was a heavy mortality in Liverpool. Babies born in Liverpool with a birthday in 1861 were only expected to live 26 years and in larger cities life expectancy was less than 35 years. Overtime the life expectancy changed as well as the amount of fatalities from Scarlet Fever. There was a reduction in child mortality from scarlet fever when you compare the decades,1851-60 and 1891-1900. The decline of mortality seen for Scarlet Fever was noticed after the identification of streptococcus, but the decline was not associated with a treatment. A treatment wouldn't be available until the introduction of sulphonamides in the 1930s, and the decline in mortality was due to the quality of air, food, and water changing. Outbreaks of Scarlet Fever also took place in Dublin in 1986 with 1,354 cases and 149 deaths, Norway from 1862-1884, Scotland in 1861, and in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom saw cases in Canterbury from 1839-1865 with 305 deaths, Bristol in 1870 with 106 deaths and in 1875, and Manchester in 1886 with 6 cases.

South America
Chile reported Scarlet fever the first time in 1827 and highest rates were seen during winter months. The disease spread from Valparaiso to Santiago from 1831-1832 ad claimed 7,000 lives. There were multiple outbreaks in different locations of Chile, including Copaipo in 1875 and Caldera in 1876.

United States
Similarly to Europe, America considered scarlet fever to be benign for two centuries. In the early 19th century the scarlet fever impact drastically changed and lethal epidemics started to arise in the United states. The United States had a notable outbreak of Scarlet Fever in Minnesota in 1847 and Augusta, Georgia had a lethal epidemic in 1832-1833. Scarlet fever had low mortality rates in New York for many years before 1828, but remained high for long after. Cases of scarlet fever were also seen in Boston during a period of decreasing severity after 1885. Boston City Hospital opened a scarlet fever pavilion in 1887 to house patients with infectious diseases and saw nearly 25,000 patients during 1895-1905. In the mid 1800s more specific epidemiological information was emerging and incidence in infants were found to be low. In 1870 the US census showed a decrease in scarlet fever mortality in children below the age of one.

Peer Review by K8shep (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
1. What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? You're doing a good job explaining the medical response and the outbreaks of Scarlet Fever, but the coverage is really lopsided. Lots of great detail on treatments for general disease, and good work on explaining what causes many of these diseases.

2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? Add more to the Scarlet Fever section and try to make sure the article chunk you're both working on is organized how you want it to be. When you polish the article (later) you'll be able to organize the rest of the article. Don't remove the part about antibiotics--it's extremely relevant in an article about the treatment of epidemics! You might move it, but it's definitely relevant. When you make a statement about, say, people not believing disease is a thing, you either explain that or link to another wiki page.

3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Keep up the good work. Even out coverage here and make sure you're continuing to add information, reorganize, and don't forget to proofread!

I will add a part about people not believing in disease. I hadn't thought about adding that to my paper but it will definitely help I think! I just think the antibiotic part was more 20th century but I will keep it because you think it is important to the paper. I also agree I need proofreading and I am going to continue adding on to the section to make it more cohesive. I do have a question about what you mean by lopsided, is that for the medical treatment part? How should I fix that? Sdarkaus (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the change of adding more to the Scarlet fever section, that is the main section I am working on and I plan to continue improving it, adding more information, and taking the information I currently have and new information and organizing it into sections such as outbreaks and death rates. As I add the new information this will also help with lopsided problem because the Scarlet Fever section will become larger.

Analysis of article
"Diseases and epidemics of the 19th century"


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Everything seems relevant but the formatting and contradictions to things said previously in the article was very distracting. Also in the section medical responses, there seems to be more of a focus on potential origin (which is underdeveloped) than the actual treatment/ response to the epidemic.


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The article seems neutral to me. It's is very much just presenting facts.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

A few of the links tried no longer exist. A lot of citations appear missing to me. Whole paragraphs are not cited at all. This need a lot of improvement.


 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

A lot is missing in medical responses. The summaries about the edpidemics are just statistics about number and a little bit about what we know about the disease now. This could be expanded on a lot more.

[Good start here--try to be a bit more specific. It will be helpful later on.]
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

The above is the assigned article.

Questions (why this article)
Why I picked this article: I picked this because it seemed to go along with the themes of pandemics/epidemic for this semester and the article seems to need a lot of work. It appears to be poorly written and I thought I could add beneficial content to it. What it is missing: as I mention above there is a lack of information on the section of medical responses. I'd like to elaborate a lot on the medical treatment of the 19th century. It is also missing a lot of citations that could be looked at.

Improvements
The 19th century actually marked a transformation period in medicine. This included the first uses of chloroform and nitrous dioxides as anesthesia, important discoveries in regards of pathology and the perfection of the autopsy, and advances in our understanding of the human body. Medical institutions were also transitioning to new hospital styles to try to prevent the spread of disease and stop over crowding with the mixing of the poor and the sick as seen prior to the 1800s.