There might be some fundamental challenges in this question. The first would be that I am not sure anyone could or would be able to write an introduction for you in this forum. Much of this has to come from your own research, what you have argued, and what you have developed. Some argue that the introduction should be one of the last parts of the paper written because it has to take into account what was proven in the body of the paper. If this is the case, then I think you need to survey what you have argued and what you have claimed and reflect that in the introduction. The other issue in play here is the idea of an "eye catching" introduction. I mean, you are writing about a disease that wiped out many people. How much more "eye catching" is that? When terms like this are employed, it creates the impression of surface and glib interpretations to writing. I think that it might be more effective to compose an introduction that takes into account what is argued in the paper, what its implications might be, and a these statement that demonstrates clear and precise focus within the paper. I think that this might be more powerful than anything else.