Forget anti-vaxers, now we have anti-antibiotics

[Austin]

I don't think anyone here is supporting the idea of taking antibiotics indiscriminately. Most people here have said they take them sparingly and only when a watch and wait approach would be ill-advised. For too many years, the public clamoured for and physicians doled antibiotics out like candy and it has caused huge problems that we're all dealing with now. What concerns me are not cautious consumers of antibiotics but the people at either end of the extreme spectrum: those who won't take antibiotics no matter what and those who want them for everything. As with most things, these are the people who screw things up.

[OkToBeTakei]

I was once (like - 2 years ago) guilty of the "give me a pill" culture. Now I bug out when they want to give amoxicillian to the kids in my life because the "bubble gum medicine" has one of the highest c diff risks. Yes, antibiotics have a place, but the benefits need to be VERY carefully weighed against the risks. Had I known then what I know now, there is no way I would have taken those pills. I was sick, but I felt much better after the IVs and Zofran. I would have gone home and waited to see my doc on monday.

I'm not saying NEVER take them. I'm just saying google MRSA and C. Diff and see what they are and ask your dr if the risk of contracting this type of creature is worth it. If you make an educated decision that it is, then you've made a choice based on all the facts. I didnt get the C. diff in the hospital, I got it in the community and there are more and more cases of community based infections every month. Be careful...

The culture will not change. People will not accept that their own immune systems will deal with most bacterias. Most parents will not want their children to suffer a 2 week illness that could be a 5 day one...myself included. But unless the culture and mindset change the next time you rely on a penicillin for a sore throat, bear in mind it may not be there for you when it's Meningitis.

[Wolfie]

I don't think anyone here is supporting the idea of taking antibiotics indiscriminately. Most people here have said they take them sparingly and only when a watch and wait approach would be ill-advised. For too many years, the public clamoured for and physicians doled antibiotics out like candy and it has caused huge problems that we're all dealing with now. What concerns me are not cautious consumers of antibiotics but the people at either end of the extreme spectrum: those who won't take antibiotics no matter what and those who want them for everything. As with most things, these are the people who screw things up.

This

I am taking them for the infected cyst, but the doctor wants to clear up any infection before she does anything else. One thing I will do is take the entire course, and keep up my yogurt while on them. (Last night I bought a gallon of milk and a little container of yogurt, and made a gallon of yogurt. I may have gone overboard)

People who take them until they feel better and stop, and people who won't take them for contagious bacteria bother me more. (and the most are the people who cause their child to suffer are the ones who make me the most angry.)

[OkToBeTakei]

I don't think anyone here is supporting the idea of taking antibiotics indiscriminately. Most people here have said they take them sparingly and only when a watch and wait approach would be ill-advised. For too many years, the public clamoured for and physicians doled antibiotics out like candy and it has caused huge problems that we're all dealing with now. What concerns me are not cautious consumers of antibiotics but the people at either end of the extreme spectrum: those who won't take antibiotics no matter what and those who want them for everything. As with most things, these are the people who screw things up.

All extremes are just that ..extreme. But yes the public clamoured and the physicians doled. Yes we are dealing with it..but are people actually educated to what we are dealing with? It is a difficult subject to address with your physician who previously was the Candyman. GP's in the UK were advised to letter their patients regarding antibiotic therapy to prevent just that. I am not sure it worked. They have become more and more hardline in regards to prescribing.

[Arete]

Antibiotics used to be available in some European countries without a prescription if you paid cash. British tourists and neurotic Greeks used to be famous for this in Greece. I know they have now been trying to crack down on the pharmacists to not allow them to sell without a prescription.

[B5SnowDog]

Guillain barré-you do understand that this is not an issue with today's vaccine? It's a red herring.

It's an issue if you already have a history of GBS. According to the CDC, those with a history of GBS should avoid the live attenuated nasal mist. Deciding whether or not to use the injected vaccine is more complicated.

For people who don't have a history of GBS, you're right that it shouldn't be a concern.

[Arete]

It's an issue if you already have a history of GBS. According to the CDC, those with a history of GBS should avoid the live attenuated nasal mist. Deciding whether or not to use the injected vaccine is more complicated.

For people who don't have a history of GBS, you're right that it shouldn't be a concern.

Your absolutely right and I should have clarified that more. Some of the more extreme anti vax agtiprop implies GB is a side affect that strikes flu vaccine users randomly.

[B5SnowDog]

Your absolutely right and I should have clarified that more. Some of the more extreme anti vax agtiprop implies GB is a side affect that strikes flu vaccine users randomly.

Yeah, I think some people don't realize how rare it is.

[Sola]

I just did a little math for fun. So, taking the 2008 US numbers of 200,000 hospitalizations for flu cases. Multiple them by a 50,000 dollar hospital stay for 5 days (10,000 a day is not outrageous in my area, trust me), you get a cost of 10 billion dollars.

Vaccinating 80% of the US population (300 million) would cost 7 million dollars at today's going rate. I suspect even adding the cases of flu that will still be seen in this population, 6 million dollars is peanuts as a preventative investment.

Edited to correct information. The US did not have 200,000 flu cases in 2008, it had 200,000 hospitalizations for flu cases in 2008.

On top of the 10 billion you need to add in associated costs such as loss of pay due to hospitalisation. Then you need to add in the costs to business who are down on their manpower because their workers are now hospital patients. When you add in the associated costs that 10 billion rises by a huge amount.

I'm one of the 'lucky' ones who gets the flu jab (and got the swine flu jab) free on the NHS as I have asthma. My daughter gets it too due to the bronchopulmonary dysplasia from being a preemie. Her lungs have improved massively over the years but she still has some scarring and easily gets chesty.

[Deleted03]

I don't think they make revenue per se, but pharmaceutical companies are major lobbyists in Washington.

The CDC and federal government do not, to my knowledge, pay for vaccinations in most cases. So it costs them nothing to recommend it, the way it certainly costs your NHS. I know some state and local governments are paying to vaccinate their public, but those are completely different agencies with completely different funding sources. Remember, the US needs to reinvent the wheel at every level of government. So, with a population in which many people will be buying their own vaccine, and many people will not be seeking medical care unless they are deathly ill, the recommendation makes sense in our population where it might not make sense in some European countries.

I don't think you can just ignore the power of pharma lobbying in many health issues. It is there. It does not mean that they control every outcome, but it's definitely there.

I know it's another debate (well kinda) but after seeing the game of revolving door between Monsanto and the Agriculture Department in the US, I think concerns about the links between industries should exist and be revisited in most US Departments (although as I said earlier Europe does not necessarily do better).

The culture will not change. People will not accept that their own immune systems will deal with most bacterias. Most parents will not want their children to suffer a 2 week illness that could be a 5 day one...myself included. But unless the culture and mindset change the next time you rely on a penicillin for a sore throat, bear in mind it may not be there for you when it's Meningitis.

I don't have kids of my own, so I might not get the extent of how hard it is to see your kids sick for so long, but I have a problem that as a society having to take time off because one is sick is not accepted, or should be extremely limited. Our bodies get sick, and then we get better. We need rest when we are sick, and that's how it goes. Why try to fix every single inconvenience that goes with our body with chemicals that always end up having drawbacks that are important? I just don't get this mentality. Yes find solutions for situations that are bad (long terms effects, or death potential), but for regular stuff, sometimes we need a rest. Anyway.