Fact Check: Humans survived a pandemic that wiped out 2/3 of the population of Europe

Humans Survived a Pandemic That Wiped Out 2/3 of the Population of Europe

Introduction

The claim that "humans survived a pandemic that wiped out 2/3 of the population of Europe" suggests a catastrophic event in which a significant majority of the European population perished. This assertion appears to be referencing historical pandemics, particularly the Black Death, which occurred in the 14th century. However, the specifics of the claim—namely, the figure of 2/3—require careful examination against historical data and scholarly research.

What We Know

The Black Death: The Black Death, which swept through Europe from 1347 to 1351, is often cited as one of the deadliest pandemics in human history. Estimates of its death toll vary, with most sources indicating that it killed approximately one-third to half of Europe's population at the time, which was around 25 to 50 million people out of an estimated population of 75 to 100 million in Europe 1 4 5 10.
Population Impact: While the claim suggests a 2/3 mortality rate, credible historical accounts indicate that this figure is exaggerated. The most widely accepted estimates suggest that the death toll was closer to 30-50% of the population, rather than 66% 6 8 9.
Historical Context: The Black Death was caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis, transmitted through fleas and rodents. It led to profound social and economic changes in Europe, including labor shortages and shifts in power dynamics between classes 2 8.
Subsequent Pandemics: While the Black Death was devastating, other pandemics, such as the Spanish flu in 1918, also had significant impacts but did not reach the same levels of mortality in Europe as the Black Death 3 6.

Analysis

The claim of a pandemic wiping out 2/3 of Europe's population appears to stem from a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of historical data.

Source Reliability: The sources consulted include peer-reviewed articles and reputable historical accounts. For instance, the article by Glatter 1 is published in a medical journal and provides a scholarly overview of the Black Death, while Wikipedia 3 offers a comprehensive list of pandemics, though it is important to note that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, which may affect its reliability.
Bias and Conflicts of Interest: Many historical accounts of the Black Death aim to highlight its impact on society, which may introduce bias in interpreting the scale of mortality. Articles from history-focused websites 5 6 10 may also have a narrative agenda to emphasize the catastrophic nature of the pandemic, potentially leading to inflated figures.
Methodology: The estimates of mortality rates during the Black Death are derived from historical records, which are often incomplete or inconsistent. This variability in historical documentation can lead to differing interpretations and conclusions about the scale of the pandemic's impact.
Contradicting Evidence: While some sources do mention mortality rates as high as 50%, none provide credible evidence to support the claim of a 66% mortality rate. The consensus among historians and epidemiologists is that the death toll was significant but did not reach the levels suggested by the claim 4 9.

Conclusion

Verdict: False

The assertion that a pandemic wiped out 2/3 of the population of Europe is not supported by credible historical evidence. The most widely accepted estimates indicate that the Black Death resulted in the death of approximately 30-50% of Europe's population, significantly lower than the claimed figure. This conclusion is based on a review of historical records and scholarly research, which consistently show that while the Black Death was indeed catastrophic, the mortality rate was exaggerated in the claim.

It is important to recognize that historical estimates can vary due to incomplete records and differing interpretations. While the impact of the Black Death was profound, the claim of a 66% mortality rate lacks substantiation. Readers should remain critical of such assertions and consider the context and sources of information when evaluating historical claims.