Antibiotic Resistance Will Kill 300 Million People by 2050

[shunyadragon]

Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antibiotic-resistance-will-kill-300-million-people-by-2050/?WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20141217

Antibiotic Resistance Will Kill 300 Million People by 2050
New report says pharma companies make more money from other drugs, so shy away from new antibiotic development

The true cost of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) will be 300 million premature deaths and up to $100 trillion (£64 trillion) lost to the global economy by 2050.


The true cost of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) will be 300 million premature deaths and up to $100 trillion (£64 trillion) lost to the global economy by 2050. This scenario is set out in a new report which looks to a future where drug resistance is not tackled between now and 2050.

The report predicts that the world’s GDP would be 0.5% smaller by 2020 and 1.4% smaller by 2030 with over 100 million premature deaths. The Review on Antimicrobial Resistance, chaired by Jim O’Neill, is significant in that it is a global review that seeks to quantify financial costs.

This issue goes beyond health policy and, on a strictly macroeconomic basis, it makes sense for governments to act now, the report argues. "One of the things that has been lacking is putting some pound signs in front of this problem," says Michael Head at the Farr institute, University College London, UK, who sees hope in how a response to HIV came about. "The world was slow to respond [to HIV], but when the costs were calculated the world leapt into action."

He recently totted up R&D for infectious diseases in the UK and found gross underinvestment in antibacterial research: £102 million compared to a total of £2.6 billion. Other research shows that less than 1% of available research funds in the UK and Europe were spent on antibiotic research in 2008–2013.

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

Well that should make the liberals happy - less people to contribute to global warming.

[klaus54]

Well that should make the liberals happy - less people to contribute to global warming.

Fewer not less...

100 trillion U.S. is more than the sum of the current global GDPs. That sounds a little out of whack.

K54

[shunyadragon]

Well that should make the liberals happy - less people to contribute to global warming.

Thinning the herd down to 144,000

[Cow Poke]

Well that should make the liberals happy - less people to contribute to global warming.

But also MUCH less tax revenue for them to spend on the solution up with which they have not come.

[Epoetker]

But also MUCH less tax revenue for them to spend on the solution up with which they have not come.

And fewer vote banks to empower the Al Sharptons of the world to influence the spending of the revenue that remains.

[Irate Canadian]

Doing some research into this, it's mainly because of the fact that doctors are forced to prescribe anti-biotics for every situation due to patients repeatedly demanding them.

[robrecht]

Newer antibiotics, especially fluoroquinolones, are also considerably more dangerous. If governments want to encourage more corporate R&D spending, they will probably need to grant longer patent exclusivity and perhaps even greater liability protections. No easy answers.

[fm93]

Well that should make the liberals happy - less people to contribute to global warming.

You're really so bitter against a group of people and so resistant to accepting what overwhelmingly appears to be the case that you would say things like this. I'm speechless.



Please consider how you might react to the following hypothetical scenario.

Thread title: "Toxic Waste Leak in Major American Rivers Will Kill 300 Million People by 2050."

Liberal version of seer: "Well that should make the conservatives happy--fewer people to mooch off government welfare."


Have a heart for once, seer.

[mossrose]

Perhaps Prince Phillip will get his wish!

[Roy]

Thinning the herd down to 144,000

I asked some JWs about this last time they interrupted me doorwise - they now have some indecipherable gobbledegook* that allows them to keep those JWs beyond the first 144,000 content.

Roy

*The person telling me was unable to explain it, so either it's indecipherable gobbledegook or it's decipherable gobbledegook they were too dim to understand.

[Leonhard]

Well that should make the liberals happy - less people to contribute to global warming.

Global warming is happening even if we cut CO2 today, and depending on how great the potential costs of several antibiotic resistant bacterial strains running around, we might not have the capability to make the transition from coal and oil, which is only going to make the problem worse, especially since oil by the end of the century is going to be fairly expensive resource.

There isn't an infinite amount of oil out there, it is not a renewable resource.

[phank]

Interesting that we have a post about growing resistance to antibiotics, and the first reaction is that it will kill off the evil members of the OTHER political party! Talk about a one-track mind.

[lilpixieofterror]

Sounds rather inaccurate to me (after all, we've heard this song and dance before). Problem with the logic is that even assuming there is low development in antibiotics because of profits, it would become more profitable to create new ones due to a greater demand for antibiotics. Plus, how do you determine the cause of death was due to resistant bacteria? I know COD's are not always obvious or easy to determine.

[Darth Executor]

Interesting that we have a post about growing resistance to antibiotics, and the first reaction is that it will kill off the evil members of the OTHER political party! Talk about a one-track mind.

I agree, we should be dicussing how liberal push for promiscuous behavior has added to this through unnecessary STDs.