4 ms·
Probably a mix; for respiratory conditions, the _abysmal_ air quality in London (look up the "Great Stink" of 1858) and other industrial(izing) cities meant a m
by variaga 6y ago
Probably a mix; for respiratory conditions, the _abysmal_ air quality in London (look up the "Great Stink" of 1858) and other industrial(izing) cities meant a move to somewhere the air was cleaner would have a rapid, measurable effect on health. (The Victorian understanding of the word "climate" would have included "air quality" as a factor.)
Other medical conditions (Cholera) that were exacerbated by poor sanitation would also show lower prevalence in the countryside, but the "climate" would be correlation, instead of causation.
And some of it was undoubtedly just a way of showing off in an "I spend 4 months a year on the French Riviera for the climate, on advice of my Doctor. PS I am wealthy enough to summer in France and have a personal Doctor." sort of way.
- flukus 6y ago> but the "climate" would be correlation, instead of causation. Two I've heard in the modern era are asthma and allergies. I'm not sure if it helps with asthma but different climates definitely affect allergies, particular the prevalence of more evergreen trees in warmer climates means there's a reduced/missing allergy season.
- mc32 6y agoPeople like Keats were told Mediterranean climates were good for his tuberculosis. Quite a few people would take that sort of advice when that was a prevailing ailment.
- leoc 6y agoMoving would also mean a change of diet or at least a change of food suppliers, and given how horribly adulterated things like bread could be especially in the big cities, that might have been a (probably mostly unnoticed) contributing factor to some people's recoveries too.
- dumbfoundded 6y agoAllergies are certainly one factor that changes with climate.