Antibiotic Resistance Will Kill 300 Million People by 2050

[phank]

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

Or maybe how liberal deployment of hospitals has created a fabulous incubator for superbugs. Or maybe how conservative budget boosts to scientific research will help us with this issue.

[lilpixieofterror]

Or maybe how liberal deployment of hospitals has created a fabulous incubator for superbugs. Or maybe how conservative budget boosts to scientific research will help us with this issue.

Yep, talk about how bad it is to blame others and here you are... blaming others. How quaint.

[pancreasman]

Yep, talk about how bad it is to blame others and here you are... blaming others. How quaint.

Um, I think he's mocking DE.

[lilpixieofterror]

Um, I think he's mocking DE.

Perhaps, but I've seen how phank acts towards those who disagree with him.

[pancreasman]

Perhaps, but I've seen how phank acts towards those who disagree with him.

You mean, like you?

[lilpixieofterror]

You mean, like you?

Than I'm sure you could explain why I'm currently defending those I don't always agree with, in Civics right now, eh?

[Darth Executor]

Or maybe how liberal deployment of hospitals has created a fabulous incubator for superbugs. Or maybe how conservative budget boosts to scientific research will help us with this issue.

I'm not sure what you mean by liberal deployment of hospitals, liberals are busy trying to shut down hospitals by demanding the religious ones perform abortions. With regards to american style fiscal conservatives, I'm not one so I agree completely. It seems to me though that science can and has progressed without government help, so while the conservative method may leave a few corpses behind, conservatives don't actively promote destructive behavior like liberals do.

[phank]

Um, I think he's mocking DE.

That was the initial intent, but I seem to have run afoul of Poe's Law here.

[pancreasman]

Than I'm sure you could explain why I'm currently defending those I don't always agree with, in Civics right now, eh?

I'm only kidding with you. You're not nasty all the time.

[shunyadragon]

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.

We have heard about this before, and we are on track.

[lilpixieofterror]

We have heard about this before, and we are on track.

We've been 'on track' for many disasters that have never materialized. Problem with trying to figure out things that are decades away is you have to go with assumptions that assume no changes will take place. If deaths, due to antibiotic resistant bacteria, go on the rise; demand to do something about it will rise, and since that equals more profits, more efforts will be made in antibiotic research. That is the problem with assumptions, they usually never pan out as you expect.

[Cow Poke]

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

I really do hate it when I have to amen you.

[phank]

We've been 'on track' for many disasters that have never materialized. Problem with trying to figure out things that are decades away is you have to go with assumptions that assume no changes will take place. If deaths, due to antibiotic resistant bacteria, go on the rise; demand to do something about it will rise, and since that equals more profits, more efforts will be made in antibiotic research. That is the problem with assumptions, they usually never pan out as you expect.

Good point. Linear extrapolations are rarely correct, due to lots of feedback effects. If a problem gets serious, it gets addressed. Nonetheless, lead times matter. The problem of falling off a cliff is serious just before the fall, not just before the landing. Halfway down, it's human nature to say "no problem so far" and get distracted.

[shunyadragon]

We've been 'on track' for many disasters that have never materialized. Problem with trying to figure out things that are decades away is you have to go with assumptions that assume no changes will take place. If deaths, due to antibiotic resistant bacteria, go on the rise; demand to do something about it will rise, and since that equals more profits, more efforts will be made in antibiotic research. That is the problem with assumptions, they usually never pan out as you expect.

OFF TOPIC, we are not talking about many disasters that never materialized. Start a thread on each one and document your case. The growing problem and potential future impact has been known for a long time, as well as many anti-biotic resistant and immune diseases we are dealing with now as predicted.

[lilpixieofterror]

OFF TOPIC, we are not talking about many disasters that never materialized. Start a thread on each one and document your case. The growing problem and potential future impact has been known for a long time, as well as many anti-biotic resistant and immune diseases we are dealing with now as predicted.

It's perfectly on topic shuny because that is the problem with these doom's day views. They have to assume things do not change in decades time. The fact is that as more antiboitic resistant and immune diseases come about, that creates a reason to dig into research because it becomes more and more important (as well as profitable) to dive into new meds to combat these diseases. It is currently 2014 (almost 2015), how much have things changed since 1979? Is medical technology at the same level in 1979 as it is today? My grandfather died from a diseases that today, is quite treatable. That is the problem with these doom's day views, they assume too much.