I feel like I've been hearing about how the era of antibiotics is fleeting if we don't ramp them down because bacteria will grow resistant to it, it's starting to feel like the claims about the ice caps (which have vanished entirely 4 separate times in the last 40 years every 10 years if their estimates were ever correct).But the reality is antibiotics usage is only growing rapidly, both in cattle farming and for use in medicine in third world countries like India. We're not slowing down. But how I understand it is that antibiotic resistance is genetic bloat, it makes a bacteria less competitive compared to bacteria without the resistance, so in any environment where antibiotics are not present, they are expected to get out-competed and go extinct. So with that in mind, do we actually expose enough bacteria to antibiotics to cause them to gain a permanent foothold on earth? Assuming that, even after the last 50 years, take any individual strain of bacteria, and the % of the organisms being exposed to antibiotics at any given hour of any given day has grown from maybe 0.00000001% to 0.0003%, it's still utterly insignificant in the overall ecosystem, isn't it? And even if antibiotic resistance became a widespread issue, due to the competition thing, even if we simply stopped using them even for just a few years, wouldn't things "reset" and be like we never used them in the first place eventually?I just don't think humans can put enough evolutionary pressure on bacteria to force a widespread adaptation like this. I could be wrong. What do you guys think?
>>17038666Antibiotic use has been declining rapidly among livestock over the past decade, with the US and China leading the decline in usage. That and they're getting smarter about how to use them. Antibiotic cocktails drive broad resistance. Cycling specific antibiotics in and out of the system allows them each to stay effective and avoids resistance to build up over time.Much like with the climate change thing you alluded to, the doomsday predictions were the media either fixating on absolute worst case scanarios which were mitigated through collective government action or were deliberate misrepresentations of what the scientists were saying in the first place.
Partially ticking time bomb for poor countries that don't have resources to test every bacteria onfection for all sort of antibiotics to figure out which one works.Otherwise, the future is specialized antibiotics that kill only a specific type of bacteria, while being harmless to others.
>>17038666>if their estimates were ever correctAt one point you will see what it is i stop to even ignore it. Needs some time to realizethat science is filled with absolute subhumans vomiting into the papers what the gained by a**licking the ones in power. Not all but many such cases.
>>17038666The thing satan is that they colonise hospitals. And things like C.diff can sporulate and dosent die to normal disinfectants (also wery antibiotic res.) E.coli( in your ass and gets into catheters) and S.aureus(on your skin lmao so gets into operation wounds). The thing whit bacterial infections tho is that they mostly kill children/weaklings/boomers so i for one hope they get nice and resistant so that i might be able to afford a house pre the age of 50
>>17038666ITS JEWS THREATENING TO RELEASE GMO BACTERIA IF NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE STAY SICK
Each reply gets slowly more insane than the last
>>17038666TL; DRif mamaged sensibly it is a non issue. Therw is a tradeoff to evolutionary adaptions. Hence a new adaption will quickly revert once the selective pressure is removed. It follows that periodically cycling through known antibiotics and keeping others in reserve avoids the issue entirely.
