Mowque said:
Thanks for your help. Epidemics you say?. Ok,mostly i want to know exactly what factors increase/decrease rate of transmission among the populace. Not biological but societal, governmental,economic.
Very dependent upon the disease, since the vector that transmits the disease is usually an organism with a set of conditions on how it survives.
You can't absolutely divorce biology from the question, and do a serious modeling at the same time. E.g. check out this game simulation Pandemic 2.
http://www.crazymonkeygames.com/Pandemic-2.html
In terms of social issues---social contact habits will increase or decrease the chances of spreading some vectors. E.g. A sexually-transmitted vector is more likely to spread in a promiscious society. E.g. A culture that has lots of close physical contacts--hugging/kissing/etc.. may have a higher chance of spreading a respiratory or mucusal membrane vector. E.G. Ebola was spead in some cases due to graveside rituals where the living hugged the dead. E.g. Cannibalism might expose individuals to infected tissues that they wouldn't get exposed to normally.
In terms of government----mainly embracing policies of segregation of patients (quarantine) can help stop the spread of some diseases. Especially when apropriate physical barriers are used. Public education by the government might make inroads against social behaviors that increase the transmission of vectors. Centralized government initiatives can also improve the infrastructure faster than the natural economic market can, in some cases; Improving infrastructure (e.g. creating separate public sewage and garbage lines way from food and water lines, sanitizing sewage and garbage) can prevent some vector transmissions.
Obviously a government could also have a consipiracy to do the opposite.
Economics would mostly play a role to the extent that government doesn't play a role. If there is poverty in society and government, then obviously there will be minimal means of pre-empting transmission vectors. If a society is wealthy, it's free market may have some role in preventing disease transmission; A decent free market could respond to epidemic issues, especially if they become periodic/seasonal events. I wouldn't trust a free market to prepare for infrequent emergencies however; Inadequate capacity would probably be the result of epidemic emergency testing a free market (e.g. people trying to buy out antibiotics during the 2001 anthrax scare). And still there are shortfalls even with preventing seasonal illness (e.g. occasional scarcity of vaccine supplies for flu).
Poverty, the flipside, would likely encourage disease spread, especially if a poor society embraces it's low standards of infrastructure and population growth continues unchecked. That's not to say immunity can't evolve over time, and periodic epidemics, but an emergent disease would probably enjoy rapid spread in a highly populated, poor society with poor infrastructure. A poor society that survived regular epidemics of a disease might have such a large population of immune/resistant peoples, that it might create 'herd immunity' situations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity, where vulnerable peoples are socially isolated from a disease thanks to a large number of immune peoples; That situation would inhibit disease transmission.
Edit: In terms of things people could buy in market to aid themselves: a. prophylactics, b. vaccines, c. symptom cures. There might also be an issue of partially functional folk cures, and even harmful 'remedies'. The first two would affect the spread of transmission of a disease, while an odd folk cure might actually randomally spread disease.
Edit Edit: Also forgot to mention War. File it under Society and Government, and classically War is a major source of the spread of disease. Not necessarily from biological warfare, or wounding, but from forcing large numbers of people to live together under poor infrastructure conditions.
Edit Edit Edit: And you might also get into zoonotic diseases, like Jared Diamond. But that'd probably be beyond the scope of an ATL for the near future.
) and an idea about the antics of one A. Q. Khan.
