When We Lose Antibiotics, Here’s Everything Else We’ll Lose Too
Well I guess all hope is lost then. The title isn't, "If We Lose Antibiotics" after all.
So why bring it up at all? There are no (ahem) prescriptions for fixing the problem in the article. Just a clear, terrifying outline of most of the bad things that are going to happen. And a plug for her book that presumably has the cure? I read the Amazon reviews of the book (currently 25) and there isn't much of a mention of what the purpose of reading the book is. In fact the main purpose of reading the book based on the reviews I read is that it is supposed to scare the bejesus out of you. Again, to what purpose?
Should I be advocating against livestock use of antibiotics? Should I be advocating for tighter control of prescribing antibiotics?
This could be the scariest thing in the world but honestly it seems more like sensationalist journalism and an attempt to sell a book than a call to serious action.
You admit that the problem is real and serious, but then ask what is the point of raising the issue, and accuse the author of sensationalism? Really?
Read the last three paragraphs of the article. The point of it and book (which was published almost three years ago) is to raise awareness of the issue. We are so close to the edge here that "scaring the bejesus" out of people might now be worth a try, since nothing else seems to be changing our behaviour?
You seem to be so caught up in this issue that you just aren't listening. Here is my point spelled out again:
There are two parts to a legitimate campaign to fix this. Educate people on the problem and educate people on the solution. Why does this article only focus on the problem and then have an advertisement for her book?
Because we already know what the solution is and it is described in numerous articles, books, papers and reports published over several decades. If you want to know what you should be advocating then read them. Please don't just say "So why bring it up at all?"
This article is just about the consequences of failure to adopt a solution. There is no requirement that every work on antibiotic resistance has to adopt the problem/solution structure that you require.
So the important thing is not to educate people on the solutions. The important thing is apparently to scare people. If they want to find solutions then they have to find them on their own by reading "numerous articles, books, papers and reports published over several decades". Is it a coincidence that scaring people sells books and offering solutions only helps to fix the problem? I wonder what the motives of people who write books like this truly is?
What a load of nonsense. I find it hard to believe you are serious.
Well I guess all hope is lost then. The title isn't, "If We Lose Antibiotics" after all.
So why bring it up at all? There are no (ahem) prescriptions for fixing the problem in the article. Just a clear, terrifying outline of most of the bad things that are going to happen. And a plug for her book that presumably has the cure? I read the Amazon reviews of the book (currently 25) and there isn't much of a mention of what the purpose of reading the book is. In fact the main purpose of reading the book based on the reviews I read is that it is supposed to scare the bejesus out of you. Again, to what purpose?
Should I be advocating against livestock use of antibiotics? Should I be advocating for tighter control of prescribing antibiotics?
This could be the scariest thing in the world but honestly it seems more like sensationalist journalism and an attempt to sell a book than a call to serious action.