Board Thread:Timeline Discussions/@comment-24473740-20140515123108/@comment-32656-20140516122404

Right about the problem to some degree, but wrong about the blame. You are falling into the very common misconception about that era in history. Despite what the public thinks, it was in fact an era of advancement, and the majority of things people "know" about the time period are in fact false.

For advancement in the medical field, you don't simply need things like medical schools, wealth, research, or knowledge. Those things have been around for thousands of years, and even during the so-called "Dark Ages" were still around.

You need to remember all of the technological achievements that have to happen before anything like antibiotics or vaccines can develop. It is a lot more than you think. Much more than just about any other field, in truth. There's a good reason why timelines with similar concepts to yours still develop it late, not to far off otl.

There is also a major difference between early vaccines and ones of any real use. Remember, the first vaccines were formed from animal diseases similar to human ones, such as using cowpox to attempt to inoculate smallpox.

You aren't going to see even that simple one for centuries after you seem to think they would be out there.

Your tech, overall, needs to scale back. As noted, you're operating from misconceptions. Remember, what you likely learned in the past - in school, or whatnot - is far from accurate.

Vaccines, up until the last few decades otl, were made from either dead or weakened versions of the bacteria/virus, or something like cowpox in one way or another.

The difference between babies and Native Americans is a question of immunity. Even babies in the "Old World" had/have immunity. Native Americans did not. The babies, it was through a combination of genetics giving them some immunity/resistance, their mothers having immunity/resistance for one reason or another and passing it along, or the mother getting the disease while pregnant and giving the child immunity.

Those factors mean that at the very least, the babies have some resistance to the diseases. As such, they can be immunized successfully, and antibiotics will have some effects. Those early vaccines, fyi, still had much higher death rates even for old world babies than you think.

Native Americans, until the disease hits, don't even have a smidgen of resistance to them. That took centuries to come into being otl, and wiped out at least 95% of the population in the process. The survivors are worse off than those babies with the "ugly marks," and unlike the babies in question, can still catch other strains of the disease and die.

Now, picture what would happen if you give a dead or weakened virus/bacteria, or one made from something like cowpox, to someone with such an immune system. Even the dead ones would give catastrophic side effects, and not give any immunity. Astronomical death rates. Would be better off doing nothing, really.

Would be about as effective as giving a so-called "Bubble Boy" in a hospital even a single cold virus. Death.

Heck, even today native populations are more susceptible to these things. Less than a century ago tribal units up north were even still being devastated, and there are tribes in the Amazon basin today that can't be contacted because the common cold will kill them all.

Yes, the Maya did have roads. Jungle - kind of have to have something like that. Most of year, without a road, it is barely passable at best. Mud and water. Wheels are far less important than you think. Remember, this is an area where wheels and horses don't get used much otl.

What's the name of the article? Can fact-check it.