Encyclopedia of Opinion
Question
How does coronavirus compare to other pandemics?
Position‹3 of 6›
The bubonic plague is the worst pandemic in history
Argument1 of 2›

The bubonic plague killed more people than any other

The bubonic plague killed roughly 200 million people in the 14th century.

The argument

Proponents of this position measure a pandemic's severity first by the number of lives it takes, and on that measure they hold the bubonic plague to stand alone. The disease, remembered as the Black Death, emerged in the 14th century and passed to humans from rats before spreading between people. On the figures cited for it, the pandemic killed roughly 200 million people, about half of Europe's population, a loss so deep that the continent took more than 200 years to return to its former numbers. That last point is central to the argument. Other outbreaks are counted in deaths alone; this one is counted in the centuries a civilisation needed to repopulate itself. A society that loses half its people loses not only those people but the households, trades and villages they composed, which is why recovery is measured in generations rather than years. Set against the next-deadliest pandemic on this reckoning, smallpox at 50 million, the Black Death's toll is several times larger — not a marginal lead but a gap of a different order, which is what proponents mean in calling it the worst by a significant margin. The plague's character, on this view, explains the scale. It was held to be so contagious that simply touching a sick person was said to be enough to infect someone else, and so swift that people who were healthy in the evening could be dead by the morning. A disease that transmits on casual contact and kills within hours leaves no interval in which a pre-modern community might isolate the sick or organise care, so the infection outruns every response available to it. Proponents conclude that no later pandemic has combined that transmissibility, that lethality and that demographic devastation, and that the Black Death therefore remains unprecedented in its deadliness.

Premises

[P1]The 14th-century Black Death killed roughly 200 million people—about half of Europe's population—taking over 200 years for the continent to recover. [P2] This far exceeds the next-deadliest pandemic, smallpox at 50 million, and the disease was terrifyingly contagious, with the healthy sometimes dead by morning. [C] Therefore, because it killed more people than any other, the bubonic plague is the worst pandemic in history.

Counter-arguments

The figures do not hold together. Europe's fourteenth-century population is generally estimated at well under 100 million, so a toll that was 'about half of Europe's population' cannot also be 200 million; the two numbers in the same sentence are incompatible. Mainstream estimates put European deaths from the Black Death in the tens of millions, with wider and much more speculative ranges when Asia and the Middle East are included. The comparison that follows is also mistaken. Smallpox is not a 50-million-death pandemic: conventional estimates credit it with hundreds of millions of deaths in the twentieth century alone, before counting the centuries preceding it or the catastrophic mortality it caused in the Americas after 1492. On absolute deaths, then, the claimed margin runs the other way. The contagion detail is inaccurate too. Bubonic plague is transmitted by fleas rather than by touch; person-to-person spread by droplet occurs in the pneumonic form, which is a different presentation of the same bacterium. 'Simply touching a sick person' describes fourteenth-century belief, not the mechanism. Underneath all of this sits the question's real difficulty: 'worst' is metric-dependent, and the argument silently picks one metric. On proportion of a population killed, the Black Death has a strong case in Europe — as does the Plague of Justinian, and as do the post-contact epidemics in the Americas. On absolute deaths, smallpox leads. On duration and continuing burden, HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis compete. Each rival position in this debate is defending a different measure, and asserting one of them is not an argument for it.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The figures are internally inconsistent: Europe's fourteenth-century population is estimated at well under 100 million, so half of it cannot be 200 million. Mainstream estimates place European deaths in the tens of millions. [Rejecting P2] Smallpox is credited with far more than 50 million deaths — conventional estimates run to hundreds of millions in the twentieth century alone — so the claimed margin over the next-deadliest pandemic does not hold. The contagion description is also wrong: bubonic plague spreads through flea bites, with person-to-person transmission confined to the pneumonic form.