On 1) I agree, but it's a hard ask in the face of antibiotics being markedly superior as treatments. Because it's not really "a secondary method if the primary

On 1) I agree, but it's a hard ask in the face of antibiotics being markedly superior as treatments. Because it's not really "a secondary method if the primary fails" (that would be a 2nd class of antibiotics) it's an entirely different paradigm, and one that works less well on the ground. 2) "There will simply be a need to develop a quick but reliable method to test..." is a really big ask. We don't have quick but reliable tests for some common human pathogens. You can't simply posit that a great test will work. You're right about antibiotic stewardship, which is something I work on, but that's orthogonal to how good phage are as a clinical treatment. 3) While yes, in some particularly strict senses they're not alive, the actual point of that is there's currently no phage preparation technique that is not extremely lab intensive at the site of treatment. 4) Agreed - and the Russians and Georgians have some really cool work, but even there, it's for what are, clinically, extremely difficult edge cases, rather than the kinds of things antibiotics are routinely used for.