4 ms·

> One is preventative, other is for acute care Nit: this difference has nothing to do with antimicrobial resistance. If you're concerned about misinformation,

> One is preventative, other is for acute care Nit: this difference has nothing to do with antimicrobial resistance. If you're concerned about misinformation, at least get your facts right.

Eldt 4y ago
When did they make such a claim? Seems you are misinterpreting (or misrepresenting)
- generalizations 4y ago
  >>>> antibiotic resistance issues we are facing due to dishing out antibiotics left and right >>> Vaccines and antibiotics are two completely different things. One is preventative, other is for acute care of a bacterial infection. >> this difference [preventative vs acute care] has nothing to do with antimicrobial resistance > When did they make such a claim? Right there in the parent comment. Ctrl-F might help?
spywaregorilla 4y ago
The statement appears to have been that use of vaccines will contribute to antibiotic resistance, and the counterpoint being that vaccines are not antibiotics and thus irrelevant. What is incorrect about this?
- generalizations 4y ago
  The orignal statement was actually "antibiotic resistance issues we are facing due to dishing out antibiotics left and right", which is pretty clearly not "use of vaccines will contribute to antibiotic resistance".
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    But that is the point being made. These two are not similar. Antibiotics are a general purpose thing. Using them on trivial cases can increase antibiotic resistance which is bad for the cases where we really need antibiotics. Vaccines are specific. You can't accrue "vaccine resistance" as a catch all thing by applying vaccines to everyone. You may create pressure for a virus to work around specific vaccines, but the only risk is that we will need to adjust the vaccine. Unlike with antibiotics where we really just need to try and find a new alternative.
    - Izkata 4y ago
      They are in that the net effect is the same: Antibotics make a given person more resistant to the current version of the bacteria. Bacteria with a mutation that survives against that antibiotic will then become the dominant version because it massively out-competes the rest. Vaccines make a given person more resistant to the version of the virus the vaccine was for. Viruses with a "vaccine escape" mutation will become the dominant version because it massively out-competes the rest. Personally I think this is what happened with Delta. It was first identified in Oct 2020, but didn't become dominant until the vaccine rollouts, which it was better able to survive against.
      - spywaregorilla 4y ago
        No this is not the same. Antibiotics kill bacteria, across the board, indiscriminately. Bacteria can evolve protection from antibiotics. It is not clear that this will help out compete the rest. Taking antibiotics for a minor cold can cause antibiotic resistance to appear in OTHER bacteria unrelated to the cold. Vaccines are specific to the thing they prevent.
        generalizations 4y ago
        > Antibiotics kill bacteria, across the board, indiscriminately. That is not true. You're probably thinking of broad-spectrum antibiotics, which are not the only kind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broad-spectrum_antibiotic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broad-spectrum_antibiotic
        spywaregorilla 4y ago
        This is the second time you've posted a link to wikipedia that you don't seem to really understand. Yes, it is true that there are narrow spectrum antibiotics. However, it is normative to assume that broad spectrum antibiotics are the things we refer to when we refer to antibiotics in the context of overuse fostering antibiotic resistance. You can't blindly give narrow spectrum antibiotics and expect it to do anything. It's the broad spectrum stuff that you see everywhere. Things like cattle especially. The fact that there are other more niche types of antibiotics doesn't materially change anything about the argument being made here.

> One is preventative, other is for acute care Nit: this difference has nothing to do with antimicrobial resistance. If you're concerned about misinformation, at least get your facts right.

Eldt 4y ago

When did they make such a claim? Seems you are misinterpreting (or misrepresenting)

generalizations 4y ago
>>>> antibiotic resistance issues we are facing due to dishing out antibiotics left and right >>> Vaccines and antibiotics are two completely different things. One is preventative, other is for acute care of a bacterial infection. >> this difference [preventative vs acute care] has nothing to do with antimicrobial resistance > When did they make such a claim? Right there in the parent comment. Ctrl-F might help?

spywaregorilla 4y ago

The statement appears to have been that use of vaccines will contribute to antibiotic resistance, and the counterpoint being that vaccines are not antibiotics and thus irrelevant. What is incorrect about this?

generalizations 4y ago
The orignal statement was actually "antibiotic resistance issues we are facing due to dishing out antibiotics left and right", which is pretty clearly not "use of vaccines will contribute to antibiotic resistance".
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  But that is the point being made. These two are not similar. Antibiotics are a general purpose thing. Using them on trivial cases can increase antibiotic resistance which is bad for the cases where we really need antibiotics. Vaccines are specific. You can't accrue "vaccine resistance" as a catch all thing by applying vaccines to everyone. You may create pressure for a virus to work around specific vaccines, but the only risk is that we will need to adjust the vaccine. Unlike with antibiotics where we really just need to try and find a new alternative.
  - Izkata 4y ago
    They are in that the net effect is the same: Antibotics make a given person more resistant to the current version of the bacteria. Bacteria with a mutation that survives against that antibiotic will then become the dominant version because it massively out-competes the rest. Vaccines make a given person more resistant to the version of the virus the vaccine was for. Viruses with a "vaccine escape" mutation will become the dominant version because it massively out-competes the rest. Personally I think this is what happened with Delta. It was first identified in Oct 2020, but didn't become dominant until the vaccine rollouts, which it was better able to survive against.
    - spywaregorilla 4y ago
      No this is not the same. Antibiotics kill bacteria, across the board, indiscriminately. Bacteria can evolve protection from antibiotics. It is not clear that this will help out compete the rest. Taking antibiotics for a minor cold can cause antibiotic resistance to appear in OTHER bacteria unrelated to the cold. Vaccines are specific to the thing they prevent.
      - generalizations 4y ago
        > Antibiotics kill bacteria, across the board, indiscriminately. That is not true. You're probably thinking of broad-spectrum antibiotics, which are not the only kind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broad-spectrum_antibiotic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broad-spectrum_antibiotic
        spywaregorilla 4y ago
        This is the second time you've posted a link to wikipedia that you don't seem to really understand. Yes, it is true that there are narrow spectrum antibiotics. However, it is normative to assume that broad spectrum antibiotics are the things we refer to when we refer to antibiotics in the context of overuse fostering antibiotic resistance. You can't blindly give narrow spectrum antibiotics and expect it to do anything. It's the broad spectrum stuff that you see everywhere. Things like cattle especially. The fact that there are other more niche types of antibiotics doesn't materially change anything about the argument being made here.