3 ms·
It's safe to say that they were speaking from the perspective of developed countries where the mortality rate of TB is roughly 0.2 per 100,000. Which makes the
by GoatInGrey 1y ago
It's safe to say that they were speaking from the perspective of developed countries where the mortality rate of TB is roughly 0.2 per 100,000. Which makes the case that we know how to make it statistically insignificant, but the infrastructure to apply that knowledge is not perfectly distributed.
- close04 1y ago> they were speaking from the perspective of developed countries But that's just creatively selecting the data that supports the point. You can do that with everything else. We solved a lot of things "in the lab" or "in mice". Did you know that we conquered Alzheimer's? It's safe to say I mean in countries like Guinea-Bissau, Somalia or Chad with under 100 cases per 100k people.
- amluto 1y ago> we know how to make it statistically insignificant TB is weird. We do indeed know how to actively manage it (e.g. screen people regularly and treat detected cases), but countries like the US don’t do that. Nonetheless TB does not cause much disease in the US. Every time I’ve tried to figure out why this is, I’ve come to the tentative conclusion that no one really knows. Maybe it’s the general lack of malnutrition?
- const_cast 1y agoTB is a bacteria and people in developed countries generally get treated when they have symptoms of infections. But underdeveloped countries don't have the resources for that, so infections are just "powered through". In addition, a lot of it comes down to resources we take for granted, like sanitation, running water, soap, population density, etc. We have cleaner air, cleaner water, and are more conscious about spreading diseases because we are wealthier.