When did native immune systems catch up with European settlers?

when the rape-babies survived

>>2840378

Yeah I've heard that, but would that mean once they started living around domesticated animals they got ruffly the same immunity as Europeans? I don't know much about this sort of thing but wouldn't immunity be heritable? And thus they wouldn't just impatiently catch up as soon as they started living with animals.


>>2840360

Obviously not a serious answer but I doubt that's true because what about the natives with little to no Europian ancestors?

>>2840421
>little to no
Proofs, did they die after the photographer found them

>>2840421
I misheard the OP. I read "Why didn't native immune systems catch up with Europeans settlers"

>>2840569
*misread
fuck

Rape babies surviving
Either those captured by the natives and lived in their tribe or vice versa

>>2840255
Not really.
They died and survivors mixed. There were plenty of Europeans going native or even abducted by indios.

>>2840664

Do you have any source for this being the cause?

>>2840255
Survivors.

>>2840255
"catching up" is kind of a misleading metaphor to use in this case.

those who weren't immune (the majority) died. some coincidentally had a genetic disposition that allowed them to survive the epidemics and survived, passing on their genetic material. so natives living today are all immune.

there are still physiological differences between natives and descendants of european immigrants and africans slaves though, resulting in natives being more susceptible to alcoholism and diabetes

>>2840737

So then at which point did all the natives that didn't have a genetic disposition allowing them to survive die off? Was it almost as soon as they came into contact with Europian diseases? Wouldn't there have been some that didn't have this genetic disposition but still managed to survive for at least a generation or two? And do you have any source?

>>2840255

in the 1600s in Spanish America, not the first decades, but at some point in the XVII century the population of natives stopped falling (although, to some degree, the population of natives fell before because they were producing mestizo offspring instead of native offspring)

File: DürerSyphilis1496.jpg (221KB, 500x1292px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 500x1292px

When did syphilis stop melting people's faces off?

>>2840763
no source other than "this is how evolution/immunity development works".

>Wouldn't there have been some that didn't have this genetic disposition but still managed to survive for at least a generation or two?
yeah, probably.

>>2840763
There are two forms of immunity: genetic and adaptive.

Genetic immunity tends to grow within a population as those without the immunity die off or become less fit overall. It's worth noting that a genetic immunity does not often mean that the the population cannot get the disease, only that it will have less severe effects on that population in general.

Adaptive immunity occurs when an individual is exposed to a disease and then survives it. Often this makes them much more resistant to it in the future. Vaccines are an example of this in action.

Native Americans' lack of adaptive immunity meant that there were very few people who couldn't be infected when the diseases first arrived and their lack of genetic immunity meant that when infected, the diseases would be more be more serious than they might be for a European. The result was an initial wave of disease that was extremely lethal and very easy to spread. After that, you'd have a generation or two where the remaining population would have adaptive immunity. The relative number of people with a genetic immunity would have increased as well. Consequently, Native Americans in most areas experienced "aftershocks" once the individually immune died off. This would once again kill a large portion of the population and strengthen their genetic immunity.

Historically speaking, Native Americans were still more susceptible to these diseases well into the 19th century. They likely still are today, although modern healthcare and vaccines make that largely irrelevant.

>>2840928
I know in the amazon natives are susceptible to diseases and this is why they've had to limit tourism to some areas.

>>2840928
>They likely still are today, although modern healthcare and vaccines make that largely irrelevant.


Is there any specific year range when modern medicine made this irrelevant?

>>2841160
It depends a little bit on the disease and place, but generally around 1800 is when things began to change.

In the United States, the government began vaccinating Native Americans in the first years of the 19th century. For example, Lewis & Clark carried a vaccine with them to give to the tribes they encountered (although it was ruined before that could happen). The government did restrict access to vaccines when it came to tribes hostile to the United States though.

Another example is Mexico, then still part of Spain, which began vaccinating their indigenous population around the same time as the United States. Their program was largely driven by the fact that natives were an important part of the labor market, which was rather erratic due to the effect of outbreaks.

>>2840694

Plenty, theres a rather famous one of a harvard professor or something getting captured with his sister. He eventually went free, but his sister stayed behind of her own (stockholm) volition and had many, many native babies.