Answer:
The fight against racism!
This seems like a government failure to me. I believe the pharmaceuticals gave up most if not all research into antibiotics because it's not profitable (and, you know, they are supposed to be). Antibiotics are an area where governments can really get a lot of bang for the buck by subsidizing such research, IMHO.
edit: I'll note that I'm one to shoot down a lot of alarmism when it comes to things like Ebola, Nuclear accidents and the like. But, this is one of my great fears. I think this is one of the biggest societal level risks that we'll face in our lifetimes.
(12-18-2014 06:33 PM)I45owl Wrote: [ -> ]This seems like a government failure to me. I believe the pharmaceuticals gave up most if not all research into antibiotics because it's not profitable (and, you know, they are supposed to be). Antibiotics are an area where governments can really get a lot of bang for the buck by subsidizing such research, IMHO.
edit: I'll note that I'm one to shoot down a lot of alarmism when it comes to things like Ebola, Nuclear accidents and the like. But, this is one of my great fears. I think this is one of the biggest societal level risks that we'll face in our lifetimes.
Several new antibiotics have been released over the last several years. Many are now generic but there is still money to be had
it's only a matter of time before mother earth reclaims what is hers....
I don't care who does what....
overpopulation is the real problem....be it through starvation, dehydration, pandemic, cataclysmic event....it will be harnessed at some point....
I love the 100 trillion figure.....does one just pull that out of their arse at will like scrubbing those turd nuggets in the shower???
One of the things that is often missed by people who don't deal in this specific area is that infectious disease control isn't about small, measured responses. You'll note that when Ebola was detected in one place, the CDC put virtually the entire country on alert. Many people called this an over-reaction.... but to those who understand infectious diseases, they would note that the slower and more measured the response, the more time the disease has to morph and adapt to our attempts to counter it. Instead, the answer is to completely isolate the diseases and then come in with overwhelming 'force' so that it cannot adapt before you can completely eradicate it.
Antibiotics... cold remedies... anti-bacterial soaps etc... They actually CAUSE some of the problems. No, I'm not suggesting we should stop using them because they are still effective on most bugs, but we also need to understand the economics of them. In some ways, by the time a treatment gets all the way through the approval process and into the mainstream, its significance has been greatly reduced as the 'bug' has changed. That is why every year, the flu shot is slightly different than the previous one... and yet people still often get the flu.
(12-19-2014 11:23 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]One of the things that is often missed by people who don't deal in this specific area is that infectious disease control isn't about small, measured responses. You'll note that when Ebola was detected in one place, the CDC put virtually the entire country on alert. Many people called this an over-reaction.... but to those who understand infectious diseases, they would note that the slower and more measured the response, the more time the disease has to morph and adapt to our attempts to counter it. Instead, the answer is to completely isolate the diseases and then come in with overwhelming 'force' so that it cannot adapt before you can completely eradicate it.
Antibiotics... cold remedies... anti-bacterial soaps etc... They actually CAUSE some of the problems. No, I'm not suggesting we should stop using them because they are still effective on most bugs, but we also need to understand the economics of them. In some ways, by the time a treatment gets all the way through the approval process and into the mainstream, its significance has been greatly reduced as the 'bug' has changed. That is why every year, the flu shot is slightly different than the previous one... and yet people still often get the flu.
I agree. Not even sure anti-bacterial soaps are even necessary and Dr's prescribe antibiotics way to much mainly as a crutch when they don't really know what the problem is.
(12-18-2014 06:11 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote: [ -> ]Superbugs could kill millions & cause turmoil
Who is going to mitigate this problem? Well there is only one answer, those greedy pharmaceutical companies.
You'd had better hope there is profit in treating those maladies. The pharmaceutical industry has already proven that it isn't interested in producing drugs that won't make much profit no matter how many lives it might save.
(12-19-2014 11:42 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote: [ -> ] (12-18-2014 06:11 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote: [ -> ]Superbugs could kill millions & cause turmoil
Who is going to mitigate this problem? Well there is only one answer, those greedy pharmaceutical companies.
You'd had better hope there is profit in treating those maladies. The pharmaceutical industry has already proven that it isn't interested in producing drugs that won't make much profit no matter how many lives it might save.
Last time I looked...these companies are "for profit" organizations. There are a few things I believe government does well and are necessary. Subsidizing the production of low profit medications that involve public health safety would be one of them.
We freak out over Ebola..but..a Million people still die annually from Yellow Fever.
(12-20-2014 06:48 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]We freak out over Ebola..but..a Million people still die annually from Yellow Fever.
I think your number is greatly inflated. The WHO says it's more like 30,000
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs100/en/
There is an effective and low cost vaccine for Yellow fever alreadt, but the problem is that unlike Ebola, the disease is not transferred human to human, but mosquito to human... and despite spending massive sums of money, we don't yet have a 'safe' (for humans and other wildlife) way to kill mosquitoes.
We were right to freak out over ebola, and Yellow fever is completely different and unrelated in its means of transmission or means of prevention
I think we dodged a bullet with the Ebola scare. I wonder if Col. Nancy and Jerry Jax have made any public comments about it?
(12-20-2014 06:41 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: [ -> ]I think we dodged a bullet with the Ebola scare. I wonder if Col. Nancy and Jerry Jax have made any public comments about it?
good god magnum......please tell me you aren't serious.....just please....
(12-20-2014 06:35 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-20-2014 06:48 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]We freak out over Ebola..but..a Million people still die annually from Yellow Fever.
I think your number is greatly inflated. The WHO says it's more like 30,000
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs100/en/
There is an effective and low cost vaccine for Yellow fever alreadt, but the problem is that unlike Ebola, the disease is not transferred human to human, but mosquito to human... and despite spending massive sums of money, we don't yet have a 'safe' (for humans and other wildlife) way to kill mosquitoes.
We were right to freak out over ebola, and Yellow fever is completely different and unrelated in its means of transmission or means of prevention
help me out....why was it "right to freak out"
disclaimer: was rhetorical response....would take too long to debate.....but you understand what I'm driving at.....c'mon man, you're smarter than that...
(12-20-2014 11:24 PM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ]help me out....why was it "right to freak out"
disclaimer: was rhetorical response....would take too long to debate.....but you understand what I'm driving at.....c'mon man, you're smarter than that...
No, I actually don't. If you are questioning my choice of adjectives... fine. Otherwise, I don't think I get it at all.
We were right to react aggressively... what some people called 'freaking out' but what those involved in infectious disease control call an appropriate response.
90% of the population (and most who say our reaction to ebola was overbolown) don't understand the very concept alluded to in the OP here. Slow, measured responses give diseases time to morph and adapt and live, often becoming resistant to the treatments we use. 'Overwhelming force' keeps it from happening.
No, not all diseases warrant that sort of a response... but ones with such a high kill rate do. The only 'power' we have over Ebola is that it is relatively hard to contract/spread because it doesn't live long outside a host.
You do have to give credit to our health care system. The fact that the two nurses that were infected are still on the right side of the roses speaks volumes. I didn't suspect that from the things I have read.
(12-20-2014 06:35 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-20-2014 06:48 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]We freak out over Ebola..but..a Million people still die annually from Yellow Fever.
I think your number is greatly inflated. The WHO says it's more like 30,000
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs100/en/
There is an effective and low cost vaccine for Yellow fever alreadt, but the problem is that unlike Ebola, the disease is not transferred human to human, but mosquito to human... and despite spending massive sums of money, we don't yet have a 'safe' (for humans and other wildlife) way to kill mosquitoes.
We were right to freak out over ebola, and Yellow fever is completely different and unrelated in its means of transmission or means of prevention
Sorry...I misspoke...I meant to say Malaria...not Yellow Fever. Thanks for the correction. I was going by something I heard on a recent podcast and my memory is evidently poor now with old age.
As you point out...with YF...Malaria is also transmitted differently. My comment was just in regard to numbers of deaths...not particularly that we should not be concerned with Ebola.
(12-22-2014 02:08 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: [ -> ]You do have to give credit to our health care system. The fact that the two nurses that were infected are still on the right side of the roses speaks volumes. I didn't suspect that from the things I have read.
You mean our "completely dysfunctional" and "hopelessly broken" health care system that was so bad we had to kill it and replace it with Obamacare?
This is where the left's comments are truly exposed for their hypocrisy.
What we had before was not a perfect health care system. But the problems could and should have been addressed in ways that did not lead to the disruptions that are now going on and will intensify in the future.
Bismarck would have taken the best of what we had and added things to address the problem. Obamacare keeps the worst features of what we had and adds the worst features of a single-payer/single-provider system.
(12-22-2014 02:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-22-2014 02:08 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: [ -> ]You do have to give credit to our health care system. The fact that the two nurses that were infected are still on the right side of the roses speaks volumes. I didn't suspect that from the things I have read.
You mean our "completely dysfunctional" and "hopelessly broken" health care system that was so bad we had to kill it and replace it with Obamacare?
This is where the left's comments are truly exposed for their hypocrisy.
What we had before was not a perfect health care system. But the problems could and should have been addressed in ways that did not lead to the disruptions that are now going on and will intensify in the future.
Bismarck would have taken the best of what we had and added things to address the problem. Obamacare keeps the worst features of what we had and adds the worst features of a single-payer/single-provider system.
Yep. I hope the first thing the new congress does is open up the insurance marketplace to competition across state lines. I should be able to purchase products and services where ever I wish.