4 ms·

> When they invented antibiotics, people began predicting "the end of disease." Fast forward a few decades and we have the rise of scary antibiotic-resistant in

> When they invented antibiotics, people began predicting "the end of disease." Fast forward a few decades and we have the rise of scary antibiotic-resistant infections. > Medical stuff doesn't work the way most people would like to imagine it does. This sounds like a terrible thing to conclude. I'm rather unsettled to see it lauded here on HN. Indeed, this exact thing is headline news in the UK today from our Health Security Agency - don't take antibiotics unless you definitely have something treatable by them: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59310099 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59310099

DoreenMichele 5y ago
Parasites are notoriously hard to treat. They are harder to treat than bacterial infection. Places with lots of parasitic infections need better infrastructure and general hygiene to prevent infection. They don't need all the locals actively breeding drug-resistant parasites. Parasites are enough of a nightmare without cavalierly passing out drugs for funsies.
- yorwba 5y ago
  The WHO's guideline for "preventive chemotherapy to control soil-transmitted helminth infections in at-risk population groups" https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/258983 https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/258983 isn't about "passing out drugs for funsies". They recommend mass drug administration for at-risk groups because hundreds of millions of people are suffering from parasitic worm infections that can easily be treated with a single dose of a cheap anthelmintic drug, but diagnosing every single case beforehand would be much more expensive. Of course improving hygiene to prevent infection is important (that's also stressed in the guideline), but that will take much longer, while mass drug administration has immediate benefits. Fear of drug resistance isn't a good reason to withhold treatment from people who really need it. The WHO's much more sensible strategy is to encourage research into alternative drugs in case drug resistance becomes a significant concern.

DoreenMichele 5y ago

Parasites are notoriously hard to treat. They are harder to treat than bacterial infection. Places with lots of parasitic infections need better infrastructure and general hygiene to prevent infection. They don't need all the locals actively breeding drug-resistant parasites. Parasites are enough of a nightmare without cavalierly passing out drugs for funsies.

yorwba 5y ago
The WHO's guideline for "preventive chemotherapy to control soil-transmitted helminth infections in at-risk population groups" https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/258983 https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/258983 isn't about "passing out drugs for funsies". They recommend mass drug administration for at-risk groups because hundreds of millions of people are suffering from parasitic worm infections that can easily be treated with a single dose of a cheap anthelmintic drug, but diagnosing every single case beforehand would be much more expensive. Of course improving hygiene to prevent infection is important (that's also stressed in the guideline), but that will take much longer, while mass drug administration has immediate benefits. Fear of drug resistance isn't a good reason to withhold treatment from people who really need it. The WHO's much more sensible strategy is to encourage research into alternative drugs in case drug resistance becomes a significant concern.