3 ms·

Things that use your body to reproduce are difficult to “limit” such that you guarantee “minor exposure”. Instead, you’re gambling that your immune system can m

by jt2190 3y ago

Things that use your body to reproduce are difficult to “limit” such that you guarantee “minor exposure”. Instead, you’re gambling that your immune system can mount a response quickly enough to “limit” the illness. Perhaps the benefit of making your immune system mount a response is that it’s now “trained”. (This is of course the basic concept behind a vaccine: “train” the immune system and “limit” the risk of serious illness.)

chiefalchemist 3y ago
Gambling? That what...my lifelong way of living is going to suddenly kill me? I don't think so. Again, the species developed in a less than sterile environment, and suddenly we're going to clean that up and there are no unintended consequences? People are chugging soda and eating over-processed food are...worried about flushing the toilet? Let's weigh the risks here.
- Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
  > Again, the species developed in a less than sterile environment Yes, and early death from disease was incredibly common. The discovery of penicillin is estimated to have saved over 200 million lives.
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    Early death from what? When? fwiw, if we keep doling out antibiotics as we are, we'll be happy with only losing 200 million. So again, are we making gains or grabbing a balloon?
    - Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
      > Early death from what? When? I literally said "early death from disease". Do you need me to enumerate specifically which diseases penicillin was able to treat? Your comments reek of survivorship bias. Just because we're alive today doesn't mean things weren't terrible before. Imagine how different the 14th century could have been if we had antibiotics to treat the bubonic plague.
      - chiefalchemist 3y ago
        Nonetheless, mentioning penicillin is entertaining, but that's not within the scope of questioning the over-sterilization of our daily living environment. You've gone hyperbolic to make a point - typical ofmn HN - that simply doesn't apply. It doesn't address the question. That question is - again - is too clean a good thing? (Hint: probably not). Thanks for taking the time. But please, let's stay on topic. Thanks.

by jt2190 3y ago

chiefalchemist 3y ago

Gambling? That what...my lifelong way of living is going to suddenly kill me? I don't think so. Again, the species developed in a less than sterile environment, and suddenly we're going to clean that up and there are no unintended consequences? People are chugging soda and eating over-processed food are...worried about flushing the toilet? Let's weigh the risks here.

Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
> Again, the species developed in a less than sterile environment Yes, and early death from disease was incredibly common. The discovery of penicillin is estimated to have saved over 200 million lives.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  Early death from what? When? fwiw, if we keep doling out antibiotics as we are, we'll be happy with only losing 200 million. So again, are we making gains or grabbing a balloon?
  - Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
    > Early death from what? When? I literally said "early death from disease". Do you need me to enumerate specifically which diseases penicillin was able to treat? Your comments reek of survivorship bias. Just because we're alive today doesn't mean things weren't terrible before. Imagine how different the 14th century could have been if we had antibiotics to treat the bubonic plague.
    - chiefalchemist 3y ago
      Nonetheless, mentioning penicillin is entertaining, but that's not within the scope of questioning the over-sterilization of our daily living environment. You've gone hyperbolic to make a point - typical ofmn HN - that simply doesn't apply. It doesn't address the question. That question is - again - is too clean a good thing? (Hint: probably not). Thanks for taking the time. But please, let's stay on topic. Thanks.