0
Yes and no... Fire burns buildings, people, rats and fleas - so yes it wiped out a large part of the Bubonic Plague bacteria. The destruction of the crowded medieval streets of London removed the unsanitary conditions that had allowed the rats (and thus the fleas) to thrive. The design of London streets by Christopher Wren that was used (with modifications) by the King to rebuild the city greatly improved living conditions. There are still cases of plague today in areas with poor sanitation and personal hygiene, but most can be treated with antibiotics.
Wiki User
∙ 15y ago
Wiki User
∙ 14y agoAn outbreak of plague in London ended at the same time as the Great Fire happened, many people believe the two events are related; and it may well be true. ---- The year was 1666. London broke out on fire. The plague was triggered by rats getting sick by the ticks they carried. Hygiene would have prevented more cases but the never proved conspiracy could be seen for miles away as the city burned. It took little time to burn since the fire probably started in several areas together. It could have never spread out so fast starting in only one area.
Wiki User
∙ 13y agono it had already died away when the fire started
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Did the fire in London kill the Black Death?
In academia, the Black Death refers to the plague of 1347-1353. The Great Fire of London happened in 1666. Although the bubonic plague had sporadic outburst across Europe throughout the following centuries, the actual Black Death and the Great Fire occurred 300 years apart. The outbreak in London in 1665, the year before the Fire, was known as the Great Plague. It killed an estimated 1/5 of London's population. However, it had peaked by the spring of 1666, and the King returned to the city. The problem was that in London the old medieval housing was very crowded. This meant that not only were conditions unhygienic, but that an infected person would very quickly pass the disease on to many others. It is unclear whether this Great Plague was indeed the bubonic plague like the Black Death had been. If it was a virulent disease, it may have been spread by air rather than relying on rats to transmit fleas who would spread the infection by biting people. The Great Fire destroyed around 13,000 buildings in a very crowded part of the city. When this area was rebuilt, streets were widened, access to the river was improved (London had fire engines but they had been unsuccessful as they could reach neither the river, nor the fire in its fierce heat), and basic sewage regulations were introduced. Thatched roofs were banned, which would further have reduced the rat population. Houses were rebuilt of brick rather than wood, reducing the fire risk. These measures would all have improved the general hygiene levels in the city, although there were always outbreaks of various diseases up until modern times. Most of these were spread by water rather than by rats, though. It wasn't until the Great Stink of 1858 that Parliament ordered sewers to be built, and this issue of public hygiene was addressed. The Great Plague of London was the last major outbreak of what has been assumed to be the bubonic plague. The measures taken when rebuilding the city and the death of countless rats would have helped this. However, bear in mind that rats are escape artists, and the fire would not have wiped them all out. This is too simple an explanation. The plague had already peaked, and across Europe, the great plagues were coming to an end. The Fire certainly helped sanitize London, but it continued to be racked with poverty, poor hygiene and disease right up to modern times.
Did sweating the plague out by the fire work?
Well, sweating didn't actually kill the plague in the first place , the fire killed the fleas which held the virus (most of them anyway) and although there was some more breakouts it was stable. :) hope that helped
How many people did the Great Fire of London kill?
Officially 6 people were killed in the great fire of london. However, modern thinking suggests the death toll was much higher; the deaths of the poor and homeless would not have been recorded, nor would those cremated to ash. Nor those, supposedly, who died later from diseases which we now know to be associated with toxic substance/smoke inhalation.Around 6-9 people died.
How did they kill the germs from the plague?
Depends which plague you are referring to.
What was the result of Londoners killing thousands of the city's cats and dogs?
During the great plague of London in 1665, tens of thousands of dogs and cats were killed out of fear they were the source of the contamination. The plague was actually carried by fleas on rats so killing the domestic animals known to kill rats, actually worsened the situation.
What did they kill off to stop the plague spreading?
They did not know that plague was spread by vermin, so the did not kill off anything.
What animal did people kill in the plague?
I don't think they didn't kill.
What are some plague myths?
Ignorance and myths helped the plague kill many more people than is should have. First myth is that the plague was only managed with fire. As a matter of fact, no matter what history says, experts are convinced that the Paris fire of 1666 was done in order to prevent a new plague. Running away as fast as possible from a place where an infected surfaced was another myth that helped the plague kill many more persons than it should really had. Fully washing clothes and bathing worked better than trying to run away since soap killed the bacteria that was able to travel with the persons running away.
Where did the great Baltimore fire at?
I dont know dont kill me please thihdb
How many people did the Great Chicago Fire kill?
Between 200 and 300.
How did people react to the plague?
kill them selves
When did a plague kill cattle in Europe?
in the 1600's
