6 ms·

Sigh... we knew this was coming for a while. Thankfully they were still able to treat it but it is very concerning. Maybe we can finally get some funding for a

Sigh... we knew this was coming for a while. Thankfully they were still able to treat it but it is very concerning. Maybe we can finally get some funding for a proper vaccine.

stjohnswarts 4y ago
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted, nothing in your statement is incorrect.
- red-iron-pine 4y ago
  If HN is anything like reddit there are 1) bots going through to downvote things, 2) aggressive actors who downvote every one of your posts because you told them their idea was dumb in an unrelated thread, and -- most likely -- is that the site "fuzzies" your score after you post to obfuscate actual upvotes and make the first 2 points harder.
giantg2 4y ago
I'm not exactly sure why you're getting downvoted. While I agree that we knew this was coming (Europe has similar emergence), I don't think a vaccine is really the best option here (although you could expand on that point. We already have proven prophylactic measures to prevent this disease.
- nerdjon 4y ago
  Maybe the "We knew this was coming" thing? I know last time I had to be treated for it (3ish years ago) I remember my doctor mentioning concerns about it and this being why they were attacking it both with a pill and a shot.
  - chimeracoder 4y ago
    > I know last time I had to be treated for it (3ish years ago) I remember my doctor mentioning concerns about it and this being why they were attacking it both with a pill and a shot. Even that is no longer the course of treatment for gonorrhea. Now it's a single shot (no pill). The protocol was updated in Dec 2020 due to... increased antibiotic resistance. You're correct that we knew that this was coming. Unfortunately, much like many other societal problems, knowing about it doesn't actually translate into the necessary actions to address it.
    - nerdjon 4y ago
      I did not know that the treatment plan changed. I guess it makes sense, it sounded like at the time the pill was almost a "just in case" but it really was the shot. But that was me interpreting (and remembering) what the doctor said so not really backing that by anything. But thanks for letting me know about that. Not sure how I missed that news.
      - chimeracoder 4y ago
        > I did not know that the treatment plan changed. I guess it makes sense, it sounded like at the time the pill was almost a "just in case" but it really was the shot. That's correct - the injection was paired with an oral macrolide as a sort of backup. However, macrolides were already not very effective against gonorrhea, and that's gotten worse. Meanwhile, the primary treatment for chlamydia used to be a macrolide, but now resistance is high enough that it's been dropped entirely from chlamydia treatment and replaced with a week-long course of doxycycline. It's a tough balance, because overuse of antibiotics causes resistance, but so does ineffective treatment, and in this case there are two different bacteria that often present as coinfections, both of which are frequently asymptomatic, and both of which are impossible to distinguish from each other from symptomatic presentation (when symptomatic).
  - giantg2 4y ago
    So why would they be downvoted for saying we knew this would be coming if your doctor had the same concerns a few years ago?
- chimeracoder 4y ago
  > I don't think a vaccine is really the best option here (although you could expand on that point. We already have proven prophylactic measures to prevent this disease. Existing prophylactic measures have proven to be a failure in practice. We wouldn't be in this situation if they were successful as a broad public health measure. Moralizing about how people should use condoms or abstain doesn't help; in fact, it's been proven time and again to be counterproductive. Absent discovery of new antibiotic classes, an effective vaccine is the only way out.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    But you think the people who are already irresponsible about prophylactics would be responsible enough to get a vaccine and boosters, if an effective one could even be created? There's no moralizing, just logic here.
    - chimeracoder 4y ago
      > the people who are already irresponsible about prophylactics > There's no moralizing You can't use the phrase "irresponsible about prophylactics" in this context and claim you're not moralizing.
      - giantg2 4y ago
        Please show your reasoning. I could be talking about legal responsibility, not moral responsibility. Irregardless, places like the CDC study what would be effective approaches. What makes you think a vaccine is an effective approach?
        chimeracoder 4y ago
        > Please show your reasoning. I could be talking about legal responsibility, not moral responsibility. You're saying you suddenly and silently shifted the conversation to "legal responsibility" - something which nobody mentioned at all, including you - and didn't reference it? Even if that were plausible (it's not), that would be a form of moralizing. You've made many comments on this post, some of which pass overt and explicit judgements about contracting gonorrhea and condom usage (or lack thereof). There's no need to be coy in this one thread. > Irregardless, places like the CDC study what would be effective approaches. What makes you think a vaccine is an effective approach? What makes you think a vaccine would not be an effective approach, when "places like the CDC" (whom you yourself agree study this topic) uniformly take the opposite stance?
- crystaln 4y ago
  > We already have proven prophylactic measures to prevent this disease. Yes, there's also abstinence. However people aren't going to stop having sex, and they aren't going to use condoms frequently enough to control the disease.
  - jelliclesfarm 4y ago
    That’s like saying ppl aren’t going to stop cutting themselves just because they bleed when they do.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    Especially when most people currently view gonorrhea as "not a big deal, go to the doctor and get a shot". People will be caught off guard by this development.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      That sounds like the same way people today use testing. They have no idea of the limitations and how long some of the detection lag times can be.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    That’s a remarkable assertion, given that there’s plenty of countries where strong taboos on having multiple sexual partners has effectively controlled diseases such as AIDs. For example, AIDS prevalence in Egypt and Pakistan (which have relatively well developed healthcare systems with accurate statistics, and are also the target of extensive western healthcare aid and associated scrutiny) is just 0.1%. In the United States it’s 0.36% and in many countries it’s well over 1%. Many poor countries have largely been spared the ravages of the AIDS epidemic because it is in fact possible for societies to reduce risky sexual behavior if they choose to do so.
    - JamesBarney 4y ago
      While it's possible in theory to undo the sexual revolution in the US, it's also would be practically impossible.

Sigh... we knew this was coming for a while. Thankfully they were still able to treat it but it is very concerning. Maybe we can finally get some funding for a proper vaccine.

stjohnswarts 4y ago

I'm not sure why you're being downvoted, nothing in your statement is incorrect.

red-iron-pine 4y ago
If HN is anything like reddit there are 1) bots going through to downvote things, 2) aggressive actors who downvote every one of your posts because you told them their idea was dumb in an unrelated thread, and -- most likely -- is that the site "fuzzies" your score after you post to obfuscate actual upvotes and make the first 2 points harder.

giantg2 4y ago

I'm not exactly sure why you're getting downvoted. While I agree that we knew this was coming (Europe has similar emergence), I don't think a vaccine is really the best option here (although you could expand on that point. We already have proven prophylactic measures to prevent this disease.

nerdjon 4y ago
Maybe the "We knew this was coming" thing? I know last time I had to be treated for it (3ish years ago) I remember my doctor mentioning concerns about it and this being why they were attacking it both with a pill and a shot.
- chimeracoder 4y ago
  > I know last time I had to be treated for it (3ish years ago) I remember my doctor mentioning concerns about it and this being why they were attacking it both with a pill and a shot. Even that is no longer the course of treatment for gonorrhea. Now it's a single shot (no pill). The protocol was updated in Dec 2020 due to... increased antibiotic resistance. You're correct that we knew that this was coming. Unfortunately, much like many other societal problems, knowing about it doesn't actually translate into the necessary actions to address it.
  - nerdjon 4y ago
    I did not know that the treatment plan changed. I guess it makes sense, it sounded like at the time the pill was almost a "just in case" but it really was the shot. But that was me interpreting (and remembering) what the doctor said so not really backing that by anything. But thanks for letting me know about that. Not sure how I missed that news.
    - chimeracoder 4y ago
      > I did not know that the treatment plan changed. I guess it makes sense, it sounded like at the time the pill was almost a "just in case" but it really was the shot. That's correct - the injection was paired with an oral macrolide as a sort of backup. However, macrolides were already not very effective against gonorrhea, and that's gotten worse. Meanwhile, the primary treatment for chlamydia used to be a macrolide, but now resistance is high enough that it's been dropped entirely from chlamydia treatment and replaced with a week-long course of doxycycline. It's a tough balance, because overuse of antibiotics causes resistance, but so does ineffective treatment, and in this case there are two different bacteria that often present as coinfections, both of which are frequently asymptomatic, and both of which are impossible to distinguish from each other from symptomatic presentation (when symptomatic).
- giantg2 4y ago
  So why would they be downvoted for saying we knew this would be coming if your doctor had the same concerns a few years ago?
chimeracoder 4y ago
> I don't think a vaccine is really the best option here (although you could expand on that point. We already have proven prophylactic measures to prevent this disease. Existing prophylactic measures have proven to be a failure in practice. We wouldn't be in this situation if they were successful as a broad public health measure. Moralizing about how people should use condoms or abstain doesn't help; in fact, it's been proven time and again to be counterproductive. Absent discovery of new antibiotic classes, an effective vaccine is the only way out.
- giantg2 4y ago
  But you think the people who are already irresponsible about prophylactics would be responsible enough to get a vaccine and boosters, if an effective one could even be created? There's no moralizing, just logic here.
  - chimeracoder 4y ago
    > the people who are already irresponsible about prophylactics > There's no moralizing You can't use the phrase "irresponsible about prophylactics" in this context and claim you're not moralizing.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      Please show your reasoning. I could be talking about legal responsibility, not moral responsibility. Irregardless, places like the CDC study what would be effective approaches. What makes you think a vaccine is an effective approach?
      - chimeracoder 4y ago
        > Please show your reasoning. I could be talking about legal responsibility, not moral responsibility. You're saying you suddenly and silently shifted the conversation to "legal responsibility" - something which nobody mentioned at all, including you - and didn't reference it? Even if that were plausible (it's not), that would be a form of moralizing. You've made many comments on this post, some of which pass overt and explicit judgements about contracting gonorrhea and condom usage (or lack thereof). There's no need to be coy in this one thread. > Irregardless, places like the CDC study what would be effective approaches. What makes you think a vaccine is an effective approach? What makes you think a vaccine would not be an effective approach, when "places like the CDC" (whom you yourself agree study this topic) uniformly take the opposite stance?
crystaln 4y ago
> We already have proven prophylactic measures to prevent this disease. Yes, there's also abstinence. However people aren't going to stop having sex, and they aren't going to use condoms frequently enough to control the disease.
- jelliclesfarm 4y ago
  That’s like saying ppl aren’t going to stop cutting themselves just because they bleed when they do.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Especially when most people currently view gonorrhea as "not a big deal, go to the doctor and get a shot". People will be caught off guard by this development.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    That sounds like the same way people today use testing. They have no idea of the limitations and how long some of the detection lag times can be.
- rayiner 4y ago
  That’s a remarkable assertion, given that there’s plenty of countries where strong taboos on having multiple sexual partners has effectively controlled diseases such as AIDs. For example, AIDS prevalence in Egypt and Pakistan (which have relatively well developed healthcare systems with accurate statistics, and are also the target of extensive western healthcare aid and associated scrutiny) is just 0.1%. In the United States it’s 0.36% and in many countries it’s well over 1%. Many poor countries have largely been spared the ravages of the AIDS epidemic because it is in fact possible for societies to reduce risky sexual behavior if they choose to do so.
  - JamesBarney 4y ago
    While it's possible in theory to undo the sexual revolution in the US, it's also would be practically impossible.