6 ms·

The predicted 1/6 death rate for routine surgeries made a big impression on me. A literal roll of the dice. Think of everyone you know who's had a surgery, an

The predicted 1/6 death rate for routine surgeries made a big impression on me. A literal roll of the dice. Think of everyone you know who's had a surgery, and it's obviously a radically bigger problem than terrorism. I'd like to see a comparison to death rates from common cancers or heart disease that some people actually worry about.

hga 13y ago
That might be, shall we say, a somewhat short term problem as the population is culled of less hardy individuals. When I think of the Mayo brothers using the Murphy Button zillions of times to splice together someone's small intestines, I realize that a lot of dangerous surgery was done with enough success in the pre-antibiotic era. One in which my parents, born in the mid-30s, grew up in; their attitudes towards sickness and death are markedly different than people younger who e.g. wouldn't have survived without antibiotics.
- LaGrange 13y ago
  Please, do realize that if resistances were free, we would all be resistant already. We lived with those infections far longer than we did without. TANSTAAFL applies here as well, and even if the evolutionary pressure gets high enough to cause change (which will be far, far later than you'd like it to be, i.e. serious social trouble probably has a significantly lower threshold), it will be at a cost that is hard to predict, though likely it would be lowered resistances to something else, or maybe a higher risk of autoimmune diseases. Or something completely different.
  - lostlogin 13y ago
    For those like me: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
- mikeash 13y ago
  Infectious disease has been a huge killer of humans since humans existed. The idea that this would be a "short term problem" makes no sense. If evolutionary pressures could handle it, there would have been no need for antibiotics in the first place.
  - hga 13y ago
    Errr, I meant to say there would be a high rate of less "hardy" people dying off for "a somewhat short term" until we returned to the pre-antibiotic rate.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      I thought that was the pre-antibiotic rate.
    - marvin 13y ago
      I hope your original comment was tongue-in-cheek - the pre-antibiotic world was a pretty bad place by modern standards.
- Ygg2 13y ago
  > That might be, shall we say, a somewhat short term problem as the population is culled of less hardy individuals You know what's the real problem? The culling will most likely happen in areas that people have no experience with fighting bacterias on their own i.e. the most developed parts of world, that means that a LOT of progress will be lost. Those that read this site are those most likely to be culled. Anyway silly question. If the bacterias are so well at adapting to antibiotics, can't we create some kind of mold that can adapt to the bacteria? E.g. take bacteria A spread it to N + 1 Paetri dishes, put some mold in N dishes and select which is better. Then take the last remaining dish and create a new set of N+1 bacteria dishes.
  - eru 13y ago
    Bacteriophages are pretty good at this. And used in some countries.
    - Ygg2 13y ago
      Don't they have to be stealthy enough to avoid immuno detection but not stealthy enough to mutate into a virus that bypass human immune system?
    - vidarh 13y ago
      The problem with bacteriophages is that they require identifying the specific infection, and then identifying a bacteriophage that is suitable for just that infection. In comparison, part of the reason we're in this situation in the first place is because doctors can't even be bothered to figure out which antibiotic is suitable, or whether or not you actually have a bacteria infection, but often just prescribes first-line antibiotics and tells you to come back if you're still ill afterwards. That means 5-10 minutes per patient many places. If we were to try to switch to bacteriophages, on the other hand, it'd mean blood tests and lab work to identify the specific infection and strain for every patient, with resulting massive cost increases. In it's current state, it's a last way out, but it's far away from being a viable large scale replacement for antibiotics.
      - deleted 13y ago
Ygg2 13y ago
More graphically, imagine you took a game of Russian roulette before every operation.
lostlogin 13y ago
Surgical death rates are already a radically bigger problem than terrorism, particularly in so-called western countries. Without looking it up I'd say with confidence that most causes of death were statistically more likely than death from a terrorist act.

hga 13y ago

That might be, shall we say, a somewhat short term problem as the population is culled of less hardy individuals. When I think of the Mayo brothers using the Murphy Button zillions of times to splice together someone's small intestines, I realize that a lot of dangerous surgery was done with enough success in the pre-antibiotic era. One in which my parents, born in the mid-30s, grew up in; their attitudes towards sickness and death are markedly different than people younger who e.g. wouldn't have survived without antibiotics.

LaGrange 13y ago
Please, do realize that if resistances were free, we would all be resistant already. We lived with those infections far longer than we did without. TANSTAAFL applies here as well, and even if the evolutionary pressure gets high enough to cause change (which will be far, far later than you'd like it to be, i.e. serious social trouble probably has a significantly lower threshold), it will be at a cost that is hard to predict, though likely it would be lowered resistances to something else, or maybe a higher risk of autoimmune diseases. Or something completely different.
- lostlogin 13y ago
  For those like me: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
mikeash 13y ago
Infectious disease has been a huge killer of humans since humans existed. The idea that this would be a "short term problem" makes no sense. If evolutionary pressures could handle it, there would have been no need for antibiotics in the first place.
- hga 13y ago
  Errr, I meant to say there would be a high rate of less "hardy" people dying off for "a somewhat short term" until we returned to the pre-antibiotic rate.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    I thought that was the pre-antibiotic rate.
  - marvin 13y ago
    I hope your original comment was tongue-in-cheek - the pre-antibiotic world was a pretty bad place by modern standards.
Ygg2 13y ago
> That might be, shall we say, a somewhat short term problem as the population is culled of less hardy individuals You know what's the real problem? The culling will most likely happen in areas that people have no experience with fighting bacterias on their own i.e. the most developed parts of world, that means that a LOT of progress will be lost. Those that read this site are those most likely to be culled. Anyway silly question. If the bacterias are so well at adapting to antibiotics, can't we create some kind of mold that can adapt to the bacteria? E.g. take bacteria A spread it to N + 1 Paetri dishes, put some mold in N dishes and select which is better. Then take the last remaining dish and create a new set of N+1 bacteria dishes.
- eru 13y ago
  Bacteriophages are pretty good at this. And used in some countries.
  - Ygg2 13y ago
    Don't they have to be stealthy enough to avoid immuno detection but not stealthy enough to mutate into a virus that bypass human immune system?
  - vidarh 13y ago
    The problem with bacteriophages is that they require identifying the specific infection, and then identifying a bacteriophage that is suitable for just that infection. In comparison, part of the reason we're in this situation in the first place is because doctors can't even be bothered to figure out which antibiotic is suitable, or whether or not you actually have a bacteria infection, but often just prescribes first-line antibiotics and tells you to come back if you're still ill afterwards. That means 5-10 minutes per patient many places. If we were to try to switch to bacteriophages, on the other hand, it'd mean blood tests and lab work to identify the specific infection and strain for every patient, with resulting massive cost increases. In it's current state, it's a last way out, but it's far away from being a viable large scale replacement for antibiotics.
    - deleted 13y ago

Ygg2 13y ago

More graphically, imagine you took a game of Russian roulette before every operation.

lostlogin 13y ago

Surgical death rates are already a radically bigger problem than terrorism, particularly in so-called western countries. Without looking it up I'd say with confidence that most causes of death were statistically more likely than death from a terrorist act.