#############

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/20/opinion/covid-vaccines-truth-life-death.html

By Francis Collins

Dr. Collins is a former director of the National Institutes of Health and the author of “The Road to Wisdom: On Truth, Science, Faith, and Trust,” from which this essay is adapted.


I am a physician and a scientist. Over 12 years, I had the privilege of serving Presidents Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden as the director of the National Institutes of Health. Before that, I led the U.S. component of the Human Genome Project.

I am amazed by the medical progress that has been possible in the past few decades, both in alleviating suffering and saving lives. But I am also deeply troubled by the growing distrust of science in our society, just at the time when its insights are most needed. No recent experience highlights that disconnect more starkly than the last five years of the Covid pandemic. From my vantage point on the front lines of that battle against a dangerous virus, let me highlight both the triumphs and tragedies and propose some actions that we can all take to re-anchor our troubled society to truth, science, faith and trust — and put us back on an individual and collective journey that might be called the road to wisdom.

***

While the deterioration of confidence in scientific evidence and the rise of “alternative facts” did not start with Covid, it accelerated in the face of this frightening global pandemic. It is also present in our disturbing disagreements about the reality of climate change, when the evidence for human activity as the main source of significant global warming since 1950 is overwhelming.

We are in serious trouble when some believe that their faith requires them to distrust science or when others believe that political allegiances are a better source of wisdom than truth, faith or science. This is not just a problem of one end of the political spectrum; no political party has a monopoly on virtue or vice. But something deeper in our culture is wrong. In many aspects of our daily lives, the anchor to objective truth seems to have been lost.

"We are in serious trouble when some believe that their faith requires them to distrust science or when others believe that political allegiances are a better source of wisdom than truth, faith or science. This is not just a problem of one end of the political spectrum; no political party has a monopoly on virtue or vice. But something deeper in our culture is wrong. In many aspects of our daily lives, the anchor to objective truth seems to have been lost."

COMMENT: When Francis Collins talks science, as he does here, he is compelling. "Faith" is only passively mentioned. However, when faith is front and center, as it was in Collins' first book, *The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief,* he gets into serious logic trouble, much like Stephen J. Gould did when *he* tried to reconcile science and religion by separating them into ad hoc "magisteria".

Here is the problem: Evangelical Christians --like Collins himself -- are committed to the idea that 'truth' transcends science, and that divine revelation is a serious vehicle for ascertaining such truth. Science, by definition, is fallible and incomplete, and at times even wrong, and also disingenuous. The treatment of evangelicals by scientists in the evolution/intelligence design debate is an example, where intelligent design and its practitioners were not just refuted, but unfairly ridiculed.

For the religious, scientific "pronouncements" are per se suspicious. When truth is concerned, science takes a back seat to religious doctrine and revelation, and even religious intuitions. Collins cannot dismiss all this by simply declaring his faith in one aspect of science (molecular biology, and a vaguely reconciled and forced view of evolution) and expect that the religious right will fall into line.

Moreover, vaccine acceptance is complicated by statistics. Although it is the case that vaccines are safe and effective statistically, they are not safe and effective for everyone. Some will die from the vaccine for one reason or another. For them, the vaccine was manifestly NOT safe and effective. So, in this context, science does not guarantee universal results, as does, for example, the measurement of gravity.

It is like air travel. It is overwhelmingly safe statistically. But by definition of "safe" it was not safe for those who died in a plane crash. This statistical element invites intuitive and religious reflection as to how a decision will come out for the individual person, independent of statistics. God may whisper to the believer not to get on that plane, or not to take that COVID shot, statistics be damned. God might also whisper to the believer that the science is defective, however scientifically compelling. This is the fundamental problem in reconciling science and religion. When is science sufficiently certain such as to make God irrelevant?

Collins never addresses any of this. He tries with his idea of concentric circles of certainty and reliability. But even here God is not part of the equation. However certain science might be with respect to an issue, like COVID vaccinations and climate change, the certainty never reaches a point where God's judgment can be set aside as irrelevant. Moreover, not taking an action -- like getting on a plane, or taking a COVID shot -- is passive. It is easier. God's whisper need not be very loud.

Given the above, it is a bit irritating that Collins expresses his scientific views as related to faith, without understanding what science is up against in matters of religion. As a scientist, he cannot dictate by fiat where science should trump God or religious dogma. The answer for the religious, of course, is never. Consider the example of Christian Science practitioners who refuse medical treatment in life and death contexts. Welcome to the wild, wild, west of religious faith.

I lurked on a nurse's message board during the pandemic because I wanted to hear their stories from the front. The nurses who worked in the ER or ICUs took the hardest hit. What boggled my mind was the level of idiocy that they faced from family members. The family members would yell and scream at them that they would not be vaccinated and would not tolerate the patient being vaccinated. The ever-so-patient nurses would have to explain that a) their hospitals were not dispensing any vaccinations, and b) it was way too late for the patient to be vaccinated in any event. Then the families would yell at them for not giving the patent Ivermectin, a veterinary drug. The nurses would then have to explain that Ivermectin was not on the hospital's formulary, or list of approved drugs.

Then when the patient started to go downhill or even died, as they often did, the families would yell at the nurse yet again for not being able to save their loved one.

And nurses stated that while there was a certain profile that Covid tended to strike hard more often (male, over 50. overweight, and with other serious health conditions,) some of the cases were puzzling to them. Covid also killed young, healthy people -- just not in such large numbers.

And the nurses warned that surviving Covid might not necessarily be the better outcome. Some of their patients lost limbs. Some went into long term care, never to recover.

And even today if you tell people that, some people double down hard on denial.

The truth doesn't care how you feel or what you believe.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2025 06:59PM by summer.

"... Ivermectin, a veterinary drug."

That's not the whole truth.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34466270/

If you’re open to persuasion, see this BBC article that describes why the article you cited is the result of invalid data collection. In addition, there were studies where the data was basically made up.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58170809

It is unfortunate that we are still having this discussion. Results of studies published in the last couple of years are all in agreement that it provides no significant benefit.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801827

"Among outpatients with mild or moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, with a targeted maximum dose of 600 μg/kg daily for 6 days, was not shown to improve time to sustained recovery compared with placebo. These findings do not support the use of ivermectin in outpatients with COVID-19."

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869

"Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19."

https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(24)00064-1/fulltext

"The most recent Cochrane review on ivermectin for COVID-19 identified low certainty evidence that ivermectin treatment for outpatients does not reduce death or hospital admission over 28 days, and low certainty evidence of no improvement on symptom resolution up to 14 days. The results from our trial add to the certainty to findings on these outcomes and support the position that ivermectin should not be used to treat SARS-Cov-2 infection in the community in high-income countries with a largely vaccinated population. Furthermore, given our findings in an open label trial of no differences in hospital admission, a modest reduction in first-reported time to recovery, and no impact work or studies at three, six and 12 months, we consider that additional studies of ivermectin in this population should not be a priority for research."

https://www.jiac-j.com/article/S1341-321X(23)00316-1/fulltext

"This study (IVERMILCO Study) evaluated the efficacy and safety of ivermectin (0.3–0.4 mg/kg), an antiparasitic drug, in the treatment of COVID-19. No statistically significant differences in efficacy were observed between the ivermectin and placebo groups. Similarly, there were no statistical differences in the incidence of adverse events and adverse drug reactions. The safety results of ivermectin at a dosage of 0.3–0.4 mg/kg, including in minor participants (≥12 years of age), are significant and may be important for new developments, including drug repositioning of ivermectin in response to novel infectious disease pandemics."

Don't these studies point out a flaw in the science? Double blind studies are no good on drugs that work by amplifying the placebo effect. They treat the placebo effect as noise, not signal. Any drug or technology that works at the mitochondrial level is dependent on faith and belief for its effectiveness.

That's assuming it's an honest mistake, which it isn't. These researchers know better than to bite the hand that feeds them. They rely on getting funded in the future.

> Any
> drug or technology that works at the mitochondrial
> level is dependent on faith and belief for its
> effectiveness.

Would it be asking too much to request that you document that evidently absurd contention?

It comes from the far fringes of the wooniverse.

It doesn’t mean anything if applied to ivermectin since it doesn’t work at the mitochondrial level anyway.

https://www.chemicalbook.com/article/ivermectin-indications-onset-of-action-mechanism-of-action-and-side-effects.htm

“ Avermectins enhance neurotransmission by disrupting glutamate-gated chloride channels and have a mild effect on gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptors. They disrupt neurotransmission in nerve and muscle cells, causing hyperpolarisation of neuronal membranes and paralysis of somatic muscles (especially the pharyngeal pump), which kills the parasite. GABA-related channels are common in nematodes and insects, whereas in mammals, GABA receptors and neurons are restricted to the central nervous system. Therefore, ivermectin is very safe for vertebrates because it does not cross the blood-brain barrier. Once paired, adult filarial worms (macrofilariae) do not require significant movement or pharyngeal aspiration. Therefore, ivermectin treatment rapidly and almost completely (98 %) reduces the number of immature worms (microfilariae) inhabiting the skin, but has limited bactericidal effect on female macrofilariae.
The primary target of ivermectin is the glutamate-gated chloride channel, but it is also active on other invertebrate neurotransmitter receptors, including GABA, histamine and pH-sensitive chloride channels. In addition, exposure to ivermectin alters the expression of genes involved in the reproductive machinery of female worms, even at low concentrations.”

I don't believe these guys can produce relevant studies anyway: they seem to get their information processed, through tendentious secondary sources, rather than from actual science.

The penchant for faith-based thinking clearly survives the departure from Mormonism.

The impact of placebo effects are considered. The success rate must surpass what is already anticipated from the placebo effect (at a statistical and replicable margin).

As for your statement about "mitochondrial level," I'm scratching my head. I hope that was someone's attempt to imply energy was spent or something clever.

Scientific literacy appears to be waning at an alarming pace. All opinions are NOT equal. All "truth" is not equal.

> As for your statement about "mitochondrial level,"
> I'm scratching my head.

It does seem capriciously cruel to a single organelle, doesn't it?

Sort of like how some people think DNA-based vaccines are fine but RNA ones are evil.


-------------------
> Scientific literacy appears to be waning at an
> alarming pace.

Perhaps it never waxed in the first place.

The impact of placebo effects are considered. The success rate must surpass what is already anticipated from the placebo effect (at a statistical and replicable margin).

COMMENT:

Consider:

"The problems raised for medicine by placebo phenomena, however, are not only ethical; they are also epistemological. Placebos are the ghosts that haunt our house of biomedical objectivity, the creatures that rise up from the dark and expose the paradoxes and fissures in our own self-created definitions of the real and active factors in treatment. On the one hand, we acknowledge the power and ubiquity of placebo responses by our requirement that all new drugs be tested in double-blind placebo-controlled situations; however, we then define the same responses as the "non-specific noise" in the treatment to subtracted out of the picture. We often fail to notice that these factors are not *inherently* nonspecific but are so because insufficient energy and attention has been spent on specifying them."

(Anne Harrington, *The Placebo Effect* (1997) p.1)

In other words, what, as you say, is "already anticipated by the placebo effect," is "non-specific noise" and as such is only marginally, speculatively, quantifiable. This makes any accommodation or offset to the placebo effect in any given experiment questionable at best.
___________________________________

"Scientific literacy appears to be waning at an alarming pace. All opinions are NOT equal. All "truth" is not equal."

COMMENT: See my post above as to the role of religion in scientific judgments. For the religious, scientific literacy is not the problem, it is the level of scientific trust, particularly in the context of their religious faith commitments. Generally, the religious would readily agree that "all opinions are not equal," and "all truth is not equal." They rarely say, well there is your truth and my truth. What they say is that "my truth" is *the* truth.

And for the most part they base this judgment of truth on cherry-picked science -- not pseudoscience. Thus, for example, if *any* single competent, properly credentialed, climate scientist denies climate change based upon rational assessment of facts and evidence, such opinion is not pseudoscience, it is just a "fringe" opinion outside of the mainstream. The religious, then, can add their own religious precommitments to such an opinion while claiming a commitment to "scientific literacy."

Thus, it is the religious commitment that is the problem, not scientific literacy. The same applies to evolutionary theory. Intelligence design is not pseudoscience; it is a rational assessment of facts and evidence by qualified academics. It is science coupled with, and directed by, a religious commitment in the context of genuine uncertainty, however thin that uncertainty might be.

When you equate "scientific literacy" with a presumption of scientific certainty or definitiveness, you are making false metaphysical claim that begs the question as applied to religion. Religion is like putting your foot into the crack of an always open scientific door and barging through. Science cannot just slam the door shut that think the matter is resolved.

It likely doesn't need to be said but - you never know.

Yelling at nurses because they won't give a patient a drug the relative or friend, who is not a medical practitioner, thinks they should have is the height of idiocy because:

1. Physicians are the ones with the power to prescribe medications. Pharmacists then dispense the med/s and nurses administer them (in hospital. If the person isn't hospitalized then they or a helpful relative, mate or friend can do so).

2. Physicians obtain a complete record of a patient's presenting complaint/s, examine the patient, diagnose their ailment using their extensive medical and scientific knowledge and experience and, if deemed necessary, prescribe medications that are approved after scientific research and testing has shown them to be safe and effective for the specific condition from which the patient suffers.

3. Nurses cannot dispense medications unless they have been prescribed for the patient by licensed medical personnel (aka an MD or nurse practitioner or any other type of medical practitioners who are trained and licensed to do so).

So yelling won't get you very far at all because professional medical people don't contravene their ethics just because you get all up in their face, in your ignorance, and think you have any right to tell them how to render medical treatment.

It is certainly clear that some people cannot "handle the truth", like that movie once said. In fact they are terrified of it.

Plato's Philosopher Kings don't get their title unless they buy into the prevailing dogma. As a result, their truth is in a silo. Or rather, within the walls of their kingdom.

They can only speculate about the beliefs of the barbarians.

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Plato's Philosopher Kings don't get their title
> unless they buy into the prevailing dogma. As a
> result, their truth is in a silo. Or rather,
> within the walls of their kingdom.
>
> They can only speculate about the beliefs of the
> barbarians.

A lot of people today think they're like Galileo, when in fact they're more like the Catholic inquisition mocking his radical ideas.

All revolutionary ideas face brutal rejection and ridicule from the status quo. The lotus flower needs the mud to grow. Very few see the lotus before it blooms.

So, are the "facts" the mud or are they the flower?

> A lot of people today think they're like Galileo,
> when in fact they're more like the Catholic
> inquisition mocking his radical ideas.

Applause.

The problem is that nearly everyone, especially the tin-foil hat crowd, are convinced that they are Galileo. Being mocked by the larger world does not constitute proof that one is right.

Indeed. And if you study how scientific advances were achieved, it was almost never by lone geniuses, but by people working with other people, on the basis of previous work by "other other" people...

In related news, here's a Utah news item that just popped up in my mailbox.:

H.B. 084: This Year’s Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Bill

Rep. Trevor Lee (R, Layton) is pushing H.B. 084, a bill that would classify any food containing “vaccine material” as a drug. Now, that might sound ridiculous to you, but that’s because it is.

This bill isn’t about protecting public health, it’s a conspiracy-fueled stunt. It’s based on the completely unfounded idea that vaccines are being secretly added to food as part of some shadowy government plot. There is zero scientific basis for this. No one is putting vaccines in your lettuce. Also, that’s not a joke, Lee actually talked about lettuce vaccines in his committee speech. That’s where we’re at in 2025.

The real-world impact of this kind of fearmongering? Falling childhood vaccination rates and the return of preventable diseases (Texas has a huge measles outbreak right now). Utah is already seeing a rise in vaccine hesitancy, thanks in part to right-wing misinformation. Bills like H.B. 084 only pour fuel on the fire, making it harder for health officials to combat deadly outbreaks and protect public health. Unfortunately, this bill has passed the House and is headed for the Senate.

Good grief!

>> Unfortunately, this bill has passed the House and is headed for the Senate.

I'd say that's unbelievable, but these are the times we live in.

Trevor Lee also sponsored a bill to ban fluoridation.

He also sponsored this bill

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2025/02/14/utah-anti-pride-flag-bill-amended/

"A bill that originally aimed to ban pride flags in schools and on government property was amended Thursday night — hours after sponsor Rep. Trevor Lee said the legislation would let schools display Nazi and Confederate flags in some instances — to allow flags part of a public school district or charter school’s approved educational curriculum to be displayed in a classroom.

The changes to the bill come after The Salt Lake Tribune reported that the Layton Republican said in a hearing Thursday that the legislation that would allow teachers to display Nazi and Confederate flags in the classroom. “There are instances where in classrooms, you have curriculum that is needed to use flags such as World War II, Civil War,” he said. “You may have a Nazi flag. You may have a Confederate flag, and so you are allowed to display those flags for the purpose of those lesson plans if it’s part of the curriculum, and that is okay.”

[|] Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... sponsor Rep. Trevor
> Lee said the legislation would let schools display
> Nazi and Confederate flags in some instances

> “There are
> instances where in classrooms, you have curriculum
> that is needed to use flags such as World War II,
> Civil War,” he said. “You may have a Nazi
> flag. You may have a Confederate flag, and so you
> are allowed to display those flags for the purpose
> of those lesson plans if it’s part of the
> curriculum, and that is okay.”

What about using pictures or old films rather than displaying the actual flags? That would seem to be a reasonable alternative to giving the things a second life by displaying them, especially in the nation's schools.

It goes deeper than just flags

https://ksltv.com/politics-elections/this-isnt-about-race-rep-trevor-lee-responds-to-backlash-over-liked-twitter-comments/569201/

https://www.abc4.com/news/politics/utah-leaders-call-out-racially-charged-social-media-posts-by-house-of-representatives-member/

Meanwhile, in Canada, we're stocking up:

From the Public Health Agency of Canada:

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/news/2025/02/government-of-canada-purchases-avian-influenza-vaccine-to-protect-individuals-most-at-risk.html

Excerpt:

"The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) and its partners are focused on keeping people and animals in Canada safe and ensuring Canada is ready for any potential health threats. This includes taking proactive measures to protect the health of people in Canada by authorizing and securing the supply of a human vaccine against avian influenza as part of our readiness and potential use, as needed, based on risk conditions. Leveraging an existing agreement, PHAC has secured an initial supply of 500,000 doses of GSK’s human vaccine against avian influenza – ArepanrixTM H5N1 A/American wigeon clade 2.3.4.4b. This vaccine will be used as part of Canada’s contingency planning to protect people who may be at increased risk of being exposed to the virus through animals infected with avian influenza.


"While the current risk to the public remains low, individuals with higher-level exposure to infected animals are at increased risk and should take appropriate precautions. Canada reported its first domestically acquired human case of avian influenza A(H5N1) on November 9, 2024, and continued vigilance will help prevent additional human cases. To date, there has been no evidence of sustained person-to-person spread of the virus in any of the cases identified globally. However, avian influenza has the potential to cause serious illness in people."


I don't think I'm at "higher risk exposure" but depending on recommendations I'll get in line.

I'm grateful for every childhood and follow up vax I've ever received. To date, the only contagious scourge I've suffered as an adult is the aptly named common cold which is around and about at fearsomely frequent intervals and despite all precautions I succumb every single time. I would prefer not so to do. If there was a vax for that I'd be first in line. But I won't hold my breath. It's a tricky one.

Meanwhile, I hope people read up on science and medicine news from verified trustworthy sources (like qualified scientists and MDs) and then make the most scientifically literate choices for themselves and others whose health and well-being are in their hands.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2025 07:12PM by Nightingale.

Curious, didn't see in the article if the vaccine being discussed was off the MRNA type of vaccine or not. Anyone know?

It is not an mRNA vaccine.


https://www.fda.gov/media/182872/download?attachment

"The vaccine is supplied as a vial of inactivated, split-
virion, A/H5N1 influenza antigen suspension and a vial of AS03 adjuvant emulsion that must be combined prior to administration.
The A/H5N1 antigen suspension of AREPANRIX is manufactured according to the same process as that used to produce the antigens contained in FLULAVAL (Influenza Vaccine) and
FLULAVAL QUADRIVALENT (Influenza Vaccine), which are unadjuvanted seasonal influenza vaccines licensed in the United States.

Thank you for that information. That's good to know. From reading what has been discussed here on the recovery board it looks like they have more time to study and test these vaccines properly before (if needed) they are needed. Pepper vaccine rollout a as opposed to emergency authorizations. This makes me more comfortable if it is needed.

Thanks again for the info.

I don’t think Facts which most consider scientific fit into conservative or Right-wing ideologies so they discount - deny - disparage them.

If this continues, it’s horrible news for everyone especially medical research findings.

Influenza 1918

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/influenza-chapter-1/

An excellent article on this subject.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/b3bbc99e-e2dc-480e-92fc-bbd7c7c3abc0?fbclid=IwY2xjawIj_e9leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHbn_Nquc9-kB-s6uKDQDU1GA5Ps_Q0sxn3d9df1Fgo6WeBWschlamHdr5A_aem_CKIYt970M-Ytn1Xj_wiRcg

Some antivaxers owe their children’s lives to those they loathe as sheeplike conformists. But they and other 21st-century fools may not be able to rely on the protection of a sane society for much longer.

One of the less frequently noticed luxuries of the postwar liberal order was the license to be a fool. For the better part of a century, prosperous, scientifically minded countries have tolerantly sustained an underbelly of madmen and extremists — medical sceptics, conspiracy types and anti-democratic fantasists who would quickly have come to grief in less congenial surroundings.

Indeed, those who imagine themselves the most fearless critics of modern civilization are often its most coddled children. America’s new antivaxer health secretary Robert F Kennedy — the amateurish, purposeless scion of a modern American aristocracy — is a perfect symbol of the decadence of the attitude. Kennedy’s carelessness is a function of his pampered insulation from anything resembling real life.

People forget just how short life was in the 19th Century.

Many women died in childbirth, many children didn't survive infancy, infection and disease cut lives short and many people didn't live past forty or fifty.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> People forget just how short life was in the 19th
> Century.
>
> Many women died in childbirth, many children
> didn't survive infancy, infection and disease cut
> lives short and many people didn't live past forty
> or fifty.


Yet in British electronic media, people (actors) are sometimes portrayed as elderly.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy


In the 19th century, life expectancy at birth varied by region and country, but was generally around 29–40 years.
Life expectancy in different regions

England
In the early 19th century, life expectancy at birth was around 40 years.

British India
In the 19th century, life expectancy at birth was 25.4 years.

United States
In 1850, life expectancy at birth was 40.4 years for white males and 43.0 years for white females.

France
In 1810, life expectancy reached 37 years, partly due to smallpox vaccination.

People in the 1600s and 1700s frequently were elderly. Average life expectancies were low because a lot of children died before age 5, often before age 2, and a dead infant really pulls down the average life expectancy. Many people lived way beyond the average.

They sometimes gave 2 figures for life expectancy - one at birth, and the other, life expectancy for people age 20 or 25, who have made it past all the childhood diseases. They often made it into their sixties and beyond.

Three pretty famous people from the 1700s:
Thomas Jefferson, died age 83
Benjamin Franklin, died age 84
John Adams, died age 89

(assuming I did the math right in my head. I hate subtracting dates :-/ )

The difference between mean and median is important here, so too the standard deviation.

There were people in their fifties and early sixties even in hunter-gatherer societies; and the upper class in first century BCE Rome and Greece frequently lived into their seventies. If Pliny is to be believed, there were in that era people who lived past one hundred.

What has happened in recent times--the "miracle" of modern medicine and vaccines--is that childhood mortality has decreased greatly, thereby raising the mean human lifespan markedly but having a much smaller effect on the median.

“You can have extremely low average life expectancy, because of, say, pregnant women, and children who die, and still have people to live to 80 and 90 at the same time. They are just less numerous at the end of the day because all of this attrition kicks in.”

--Walther Scheidel, Professor of History, Stanford University

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181002-how-long-did-ancient-people-live-life-span-versus-longevity

I've related this here before, but a recap won't hurt.

All four of my grandparents were born within a year of 1890. My dad's parents had 6 children, all before 1925 iirc, and 2 of the 6 died as infants. This was becoming less common by the 20th century, but in the 19th century, losing a third of your children to disease was basically normal. My paternal grandparents just had bad luck. In addition, my dad and his mother both had polio. He had few permanent aftereffects, but my grandmother ended up with a paralyzed arm. I'm old enough to remember iron lung wards in hospitals.

On my mother's side, her parents had 12 children, 2 of which died in infancy. Two more died in early middle age. [And yes, that's the Mormon side of the family. How ever did you guess? :) ]

That was just 100 years ago, give or take. Sixty years before that infant mortality was around 40%. Whether a child would make it to adulthood was only slightly better than coin-toss odds.

And it was immunizations, starting around USA Civil War time (1860) and really taking off at the turn of the 20th century, that drove infant mortality down to the levels we see today. Now a child not making it to adulthood is shocking.

As a child, I used to walk my dog through a local cemetery each day. 19th century cemeteries are instructional in teaching about early death. There were lots of babies and kids, and lots of younger people, period.

I also appreciated that the inscriptions on the gravestones were for lack of a better word, colorful. 19th century people did not hold back their feelings or thoughts about the deceased.

I grew up just a few blocks from a cemetery as well. Lots of young people in the oldest section of the cemetery. I was surprised at how much the headstones had weathered. Some were quite hard to read.