Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

‘Superbug’ scourge spreads as U.S. fails to track rising human toll

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 134 posts

Re: ‘Superbug’ scourge spreads as U.S. fails to track rising human toll

#91

Post by exDM69 »

daxorid wrote: post #80
exDM69 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not only should every country stop using antibiotics in healthy livestock Antibiotics are not used for healthy livestock in many countries. The US is a very notable exception. It comes down to cutting costs. In the US, it's not typical to clean the facilities between batches of animals like chicken. This mean that the new batch would contract any bacteria left behind the previous animals. It's not even that big of…

This is not the reason antibiotics are given to livestock. A wide class of antibiotics, when delivered in subtherapeutic doses, increase feed conversion efficiency and result in larger animals for the same feed inputs. So yes, it's about costs, but not for the reasons you cite.

It's not the only reason but it is a reason.

But that's irrelevant, it's a cost cutting measure with harmful consequences to the society as a whole. The regulations and producer prices should be adjusted to make small to medium scale farming profitable and stop the antibiotics madness.

Re: ‘Superbug’ scourge spreads as U.S. fails to track rising human toll

#92

Post by [deleted] »

daxorid wrote: post #80
exDM69 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not only should every country stop using antibiotics in healthy livestock Antibiotics are not used for healthy livestock in many countries. The US is a very notable exception. It comes down to cutting costs. In the US, it's not typical to clean the facilities between batches of animals like chicken. This mean that the new batch would contract any bacteria left behind the previous animals. It's not even that big of…

This is not the reason antibiotics are given to livestock. A wide class of antibiotics, when delivered in subtherapeutic doses, increase feed conversion efficiency and result in larger animals for the same feed inputs. So yes, it's about costs, but not for the reasons you cite.

[deleted]

Re: ‘Superbug’ scourge spreads as U.S. fails to track rising human toll

#93

Post by sqeaky »

exDM69 wrote: post #76
pyre wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Farmers do this for a number of reasons: - Constantly feeding livestock antibiotics makes them grow bigger. The mechanism for why this happens is not understood (but who cares because bigger livestock means more money). - It is costly to deal with an animal after it gets an infection rather than just being preventative. - Farmers are scared about diseases sweeping through their herds and causing issues where they are…

This is not the practice everywhere worldwide. The US is particularly bad when it comes to antibiotics in livestock. It's a harmful practice and should be outlawed. Even if it means paying more for your food.

I would much rather pay 1% more for my food than 10% more for may healthcare. For many there will be no amount that can be paid to keep up with antibiotic resistant bacteria, it will kill people.

I am sure that farmer's would rather risk their livestock than risk their children or grandchildren.

I think the only way this practice can exist is when people do not understand or are coerced into doing it. Many of the largest farms just have people following rote instructions and not actually understanding what is happening.

Let's compare to an easier to understand industry, think about fast food. The people in the kitchen at a McDonald's don't need to know how to cook, they follow the instructions and put uncooked meat in a machine and food comes out of the machine. If that process killed kittens somehow the McDonalds worker would never know.

I suspect the near minimum wage workers manning livestock farms and farmers that might not have the benefit of a full education, simply don't or don't accept that antibiotic abuse creates a breeding ground for something will kill some of their children.

Re: ‘Superbug’ scourge spreads as U.S. fails to track rising human toll

#94

Post by maxerickson »

DanBC wrote: post #29
esaym wrote: post #14

I skimmed the article, I only saw mention of MRSA. Is that the "super bug" they talk about? This is for the most part why I won't step foot in a hospital unless I am literally on my death bed. The last research I read about MRSA (years ago) was it was hard to study because lab rats could not be easily infected with it unless it was directly injected into their blood stream. This shows just how nasty hospitals are. No…

> Nobody gets MRSA unless they are in the hospital. You might want to read about Community Acquired MRSA. http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/id-mi/camrsa-eng.php http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/8/6/01-0313_article > To estimate the proportion of community-acquired MRSA, we analyzed previous hospitalizations for all MRSA-positive persons in Finland from1997 to 1999 by using data from the National Hospital Discharge Register.…

It's worth noting that Finland has been aggressive in controlling MRSA in hospitals, so they may have a higher proportion of community infections.

Also from the paper you quote: Based on our study, the proportion (21%) of community-acquired MRSA was relatively high in Finland.

Re: ‘Superbug’ scourge spreads as U.S. fails to track rising human toll

#95

Post by daveloyall »

toss1 wrote: post #82
daveloyall wrote: post #64

Hello. I work for public health. My job is to support the computer systems that allow epidemiologists to track 'superbugs' (and regular ones). Deathcerts is an interesting dataset. It's not the only one. Even if death-by-MSRA isn't tracked, I assure you that MSRA itself is tracked. There's a specific class of lab test called "antibiotic susceptibilities". The results report includes a bunch of numbers that represent…

OK, so somebody's tracking it in secret, doing the 'antibiotic susceptibilities' tests and logging the results, and the state health dept receives the data, but the info is being kept from the patients' relatives and from the public in general? This creates two obvious results. 1) suppression of legitimate claims from relatives, and 2) suppression of valid concern and pressure for govt action such as increased resear…

I'm not saying it is good. I'm just saying that there is more than one thing going on here.

I don't think hospitals have any motivation to hide antibiotic-resistant infections ("superbugs") specifically. HOWEVER, the motive to hide hospital-acquired infections[0] is clear!

Here's some mud in the water: what's the difference between a HAI with some bug that is easily killed by antibiotics vs. an antibiotic resistant bug?

As for "tracking it in secret", that's one way to put it, but it will cloud your thinking. :) Your own medical records--specifically blood test lab results--have your name, address, and phone number on them. Consider replacing the word 'secret' with 'private' and re-working the whole thought.

0: http://www.cdc.gov/hai/

Re: ‘Superbug’ scourge spreads as U.S. fails to track rising human toll

#96

Post by bbcbasic »

dragonwriter wrote: post #68
jethro_tell wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I know it's not, we reap the benefits in lower food prices, but does beef really need to be cheap enough we can eat it 7 days a week? No it is. The total cost to society has to include healthcare costs as well. Saying, 'This lowers our cost at the dinner table' is only looking at part of the equation. Never mind that people don't eat dinner together which is a by product of having super cheap convenient packaged cal…

> It takes 2 calories of fossil fuel to make one calorie of food. We do this because it's still cost effective because of subsidies. I think "we do this because we can't eat fossil fuels no matter how many calories they provide, so trading total energy content for ability to serve as food is valuable, independent of subsidy" would be more accurate.

What about photosynthesis?

Re: ‘Superbug’ scourge spreads as U.S. fails to track rising human toll

#97

Post by Broken_Hippo »

esaym wrote: post #14

I skimmed the article, I only saw mention of MRSA. Is that the "super bug" they talk about? This is for the most part why I won't step foot in a hospital unless I am literally on my death bed. The last research I read about MRSA (years ago) was it was hard to study because lab rats could not be easily infected with it unless it was directly injected into their blood stream. This shows just how nasty hospitals are. No…

> No one gets MRSA unless they are in the hospital.

Completely untrue. I personally know of 2 incidences: My cousins child carries MRSA. He doesn't get symptoms, but the rest of the family has to be extra diligent about picking it up from him.

The second was a lady I worked with. She got what she thought was a spider bite on her upper leg, somewhat near the groin region. When it wasn't healing and looking worse, she went to the doctor. Turns out, it was MRSA. She had the same misconceptions as you, so she asked the doctor how she could have possibly gotten it. Turns out, in a miriad of ways, but judging by the location she probably had contact with it on her hands, and then touched her leg when she used the restroom. He suspected it got in through a small cut from shaving, actually. I know for a long while, she washed her hands both before and after using the toilet in public, and was on different antibiotics for some time.

Re: ‘Superbug’ scourge spreads as U.S. fails to track rising human toll

#98

Post by dredmorbius »

wildmusings wrote: post #36
unfortunate4u33 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP: Government is actively participant in creating this issue. You: Well we should just wait for them to fix this very serious problem they're causing. I'm sure the party that's held social progress at bay for 40 years now is going to suddenly realize they're w... oh wait you're a fool and a coward.

> oh wait you're a fool and a coward. I shouldn't feed the trolls, but the irony of calling someone a coward while posting from a throwaway account is too funny.

And yet ... such labels are often accurate.

I'm aware the HN guidelines are geared at productive discussion, though there are times I strongly suspect that's not possible.

Re: ‘Superbug’ scourge spreads as U.S. fails to track rising human toll

#99

Post by trhway »

sqeaky wrote: post #93
exDM69 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not the practice everywhere worldwide. The US is particularly bad when it comes to antibiotics in livestock. It's a harmful practice and should be outlawed. Even if it means paying more for your food.

I would much rather pay 1% more for my food than 10% more for may healthcare. For many there will be no amount that can be paid to keep up with antibiotic resistant bacteria, it will kill people. I am sure that farmer's would rather risk their livestock than risk their children or grandchildren. I think the only way this practice can exist is when people do not understand or are coerced into doing it. Many of the lar…

>I am sure that farmer's would rather risk their livestock than risk their children or grandchildren.

you're kidding right? sure economical impact today vs. theoretical risk to grand/children tomorrow - Nov 8 will show how many people and of what demographics what choice would make, and I'm somehow sure what choice the farmers would make :)

Re: ‘Superbug’ scourge spreads as U.S. fails to track rising human toll

#100

Post by toss1 »

daveloyall wrote: post #95
toss1 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, so somebody's tracking it in secret, doing the 'antibiotic susceptibilities' tests and logging the results, and the state health dept receives the data, but the info is being kept from the patients' relatives and from the public in general? This creates two obvious results. 1) suppression of legitimate claims from relatives, and 2) suppression of valid concern and pressure for govt action such as increased resear…

I'm not saying it is good. I'm just saying that there is more than one thing going on here. I don't think hospitals have any motivation to hide antibiotic-resistant infections ("superbugs") specifically. HOWEVER, the motive to hide hospital-acquired infections[0] is clear! Here's some mud in the water: what's the difference between a HAI with some bug that is easily killed by antibiotics vs. an antibiotic resistant b…

Yes, I totally get privacy, and I'm glad to read that you're not saying it is good.

It's the hiding it in public records such as Death Certificates, information given to the family, and performance statistics that I find suspicious.

Post reply on HN