Flurin Condrau

Epidemics and Infections in Nineteenth-Century Britain

We would like to thank Graham Mooney and Andrew Noymer and Beth Jarosz for their responses to our ‘Second Opinion’ on ‘Infectious Disease and the Epidemiological Transition in Victorian Britain’.1 Mooney offers a robust attack on our general claim that the importance of infectious diseases as a cause of death in the nineteenth century has been overstated, while seeming to accept what we say about epidemics, while Noymer and Jarosz take us to task on what counts as an infectious disease and also provide a critique of the specific limitations of our claims when applied to New England. We are pleased that our piece generated such reactions and hope that the debate will continue.

'Final Response: Epidemics and Infections in Nineteenth-Century Britain'

We would like to thank Graham Mooney and Andrew Noymer and Beth Jarosz for their responses to our ‘Second Opinion’ on ‘Infectious Disease and the Epidemiological Transition in Victorian Britain’.1 Mooney offers a robust attack on our general claim that the importance of infectious diseases as a cause of death in the nineteenth century has been overstated, while seeming to accept what we say about epidemics, while Noymer and Jarosz take us to task on what counts as an infectious disease and also provide a critique of the specific limitations of our claims when applied to New England. We are pleased that our piece generated such reactions and hope that the debate will continue.