5 ms·

It's infectious and deadly, it actually doesn't have to do anything more to scare the bejesus out of people and have profound social and economic effects, shoul

It's infectious and deadly, it actually doesn't have to do anything more to scare the bejesus out of people and have profound social and economic effects, should it show up in numbers in the future.

milesrout 2y ago
As I understand it, it is treatable with antibiotics. I am not saying it isn't serious, but the argument that it poses any real risk of pandemic in the West is absurd.
- perihelions 2y ago
  If you interrupt antibiotic treatment (like we're right now to a few million people, no big deal) you evolve antibiotic-resistant strains that are no longer treatable. - "According to the report, approximately 20% of TB cases globally are estimated to be resistant to at least one of the first- or second-line anti-TB drugs, and 5% are resistant to both isoniazid and rifampicin, the most powerful and commonly used antibiotics in first-line treatment. Of the estimated 480,000 cases of multidrug-resistant (MDR) TB, approximately 10% are either extensively drug-resistant (XDR)—with additional resistance to second-line drugs—or totally drug resistant." - "While TB is curable when patients adhere to the treatment regimen, MDR- and XDR-TB are more problematic. Treatment options are limited, expensive, and often toxic, and drug therapy can last up to 2 years. The report estimates mortality rates of around 40% for MDR-TB and 60% for XDR-TB. And while China, India, Russia, and South Africa have the highest burden of MDR- and XDR-TB, widespread international travel and migration means drug-resistant TB has no borders." https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/antimicrobial-stewardship/report-warns-rise-drug-resistant-tuberculosis https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/antimicrobial-stewardship/report-... (2017)
- kemotep 2y ago
  The infrastructure to help get antibiotics to people is being shut down. This is absolutely an instance of someone tearing down Chesterton’s fence. If TB poses no risk because antibiotics are widely available would it not follow that reducing their availability would increase the risk TB poses?
  - milesrout 2y ago
    Antibiotics are widely available in the US. The claim I was responding to was that taking away this funding risked harm to the US, specifically.
    - kemotep 2y ago
      The United States is not a bubble. Outbreaks overseas can have impacts here not only through possible infection reaching here but also the potential for the disease to develop antibiotic resistance in an improperly handled antibiotic treatment (such has cutting off access to the drug mid treatment) and of course 2nd order effects like outbreaks disrupting global supply chains. The COVID 19 global pandemic was only a few years ago and its impacts lasted years. TB is not as infectious and would have a reduced spread but treating it helps contain possible issues and may one day lead to its eradication. How does cutting funding reduce risk? Reduce suffering?

It's infectious and deadly, it actually doesn't have to do anything more to scare the bejesus out of people and have profound social and economic effects, should it show up in numbers in the future.

milesrout 2y ago

As I understand it, it is treatable with antibiotics. I am not saying it isn't serious, but the argument that it poses any real risk of pandemic in the West is absurd.

perihelions 2y ago
If you interrupt antibiotic treatment (like we're right now to a few million people, no big deal) you evolve antibiotic-resistant strains that are no longer treatable. - "According to the report, approximately 20% of TB cases globally are estimated to be resistant to at least one of the first- or second-line anti-TB drugs, and 5% are resistant to both isoniazid and rifampicin, the most powerful and commonly used antibiotics in first-line treatment. Of the estimated 480,000 cases of multidrug-resistant (MDR) TB, approximately 10% are either extensively drug-resistant (XDR)—with additional resistance to second-line drugs—or totally drug resistant." - "While TB is curable when patients adhere to the treatment regimen, MDR- and XDR-TB are more problematic. Treatment options are limited, expensive, and often toxic, and drug therapy can last up to 2 years. The report estimates mortality rates of around 40% for MDR-TB and 60% for XDR-TB. And while China, India, Russia, and South Africa have the highest burden of MDR- and XDR-TB, widespread international travel and migration means drug-resistant TB has no borders." https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/antimicrobial-stewardship/report-warns-rise-drug-resistant-tuberculosis https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/antimicrobial-stewardship/report-... (2017)
kemotep 2y ago
The infrastructure to help get antibiotics to people is being shut down. This is absolutely an instance of someone tearing down Chesterton’s fence. If TB poses no risk because antibiotics are widely available would it not follow that reducing their availability would increase the risk TB poses?
- milesrout 2y ago
  Antibiotics are widely available in the US. The claim I was responding to was that taking away this funding risked harm to the US, specifically.
  - kemotep 2y ago
    The United States is not a bubble. Outbreaks overseas can have impacts here not only through possible infection reaching here but also the potential for the disease to develop antibiotic resistance in an improperly handled antibiotic treatment (such has cutting off access to the drug mid treatment) and of course 2nd order effects like outbreaks disrupting global supply chains. The COVID 19 global pandemic was only a few years ago and its impacts lasted years. TB is not as infectious and would have a reduced spread but treating it helps contain possible issues and may one day lead to its eradication. How does cutting funding reduce risk? Reduce suffering?