Antibiotic resistance was already a pressing problem. Penicillin-V was little more use than a placebo as of 1984; Amoxicillin was in danger, MRSA was already out there. The big short-term hope was Augmentin (Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid) -- clavulanic acid was a beta-lactamase inhibitor, beta-lactamase being the primary pathway for penicillin resistance in bacteria, so it was somewhat effective against penicillin-resistant infections. But resistance was already showing up for almost every antibiotic on the market except vancomycin (which is pretty nasty stuff, toxicity-wise). Today, resistance to vancomycin and other antibiotics of last resort is a thing. So there are infections out there that will kill you gruesomely, just as there were in the 19th century and earlier, because we collectively dropped the ball.
As with anthropogenic climate change, the writing has been on the wall for decades -- and has been systematically ignored by policy-makers. Adding antibiotics to animal feed improves weight gain in farm animals so farmers still shovel the stuff by the bucketload. But it also applies a selection pressure for antibiotic resistance to the bacteria infesting those animals, and when they go to the slaughterhouse the resistant strains migrate into the human reservoir.
And this says nothing about the structural incentives to discount antibiotic R&D in the commercial pharmaceutical industry. (Bluntly: they're not profitable enough to bother with, because bacterial infections are acute disease -- you cure it in a few days or weeks, your customer goes away satisfied. Unlike antidepressants or anti-hypertensives or diabetes meds, which the patient is typically on for years to life.)
We should have restricted access to antibiotics the way we (try) to restrict opiates. Failing that we should have government funded R&D via non-profits. Only now it's too late and corrective action won't take effect for years.
Too late for that, we already have the superbugs. Not to say that reducing antibiotic usage in farms is not worth the effort (because it is), but we need to ramp up investment in basic R&D for antibiotics again - there is almost none of that any more since it is extremely cost-intensive and the medications are low-revenue [1].
ETA: Additionally, we could curb human antibiotic usage by making rapid tests for common viral infections more available. Routinely checking for strep throat and the various flu viruses both at-home and in clinical situations could save people a lot of completely unnecessary antibiotics courses - as well as teaching basic life education like "if it's not a bacterial infection behind your sore throat, an antibiotics course won't help at all, it will go away on itself after three to four days".
Lateral flow rapid tests are incredibly cheap to manufacture and (as the last two years have shown) capable of being self-administered - making them account for multiple sorts of antibodies is already done for COVID tests.
2. Not profitable. They were developed in the Soviet bloc hence not patented but it would have invalidated any patent in the west, so there was no lucrative monopoly to pursue.
After the collapse of the USSR western antibiotics flooded in; the home-grown technique (which was somewhat time-consuming and expensive: matching a phage to an infection requires lab work and specialist facilities) was undermined and fell into disuse.
I even had an experience of treating infection with phages myself, as antibiotics had interactions with my other drugs. It went pretty well.
But in my case, course of treatment with phages is around 100$, while course of treatment with antibiotics is 5-10$.
I linked the original study, but I saw it Spanish national media, and then here: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/19/health/bacterial-antimicr...
Also, here's a BBC article on the topic: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-60058120
I worry this is the same situation as Covid, where health agencies knew for years hospital capacity was stretched thin, and lo-and-behold, thousands of people die unnecessarily when a new virus arrives because hospital capacity was overwhelmed.
They could also address society generally having poor health - If the CDC pounded the table about unhealthy foods/the obesity epidemic I'm sure it could move the needle in some way. Addressing the obesity epidemic would be killing 100+ birds with one stone.
Not like anyone cares.
https://www.rlsnet.ru/tn_index_id_5850.htm
https://www.vidal.ru/drugs/therapeutic_staphylococcal_vaccin...
TB vaccine is troublesome and not that effective, to the point that some debate it should not be used, tetanus seems wildly successful.
(These are the only other bacteria vaccines I know of)
The headline that you wrote phrases this as "died of superbacteria", does this relate to the number where an infection played a role or the number attributable to a given pathogen?
>Microorganisms found in dirt have yielded antibiotics that can kill pathogens resistant to multiple drugs. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-01931-4
and similar stuff? We could do with some government action to develop some and ban using them in farming.
