Antifungal drugs tend to be very toxic for humans too, though luckily most healthy people’s immune systems are pretty good at rejecting them.
Then simply understanding the mechanism might lead to development of new drugs.
Maybe I'm misreading what you wrote - but it kind of sounds like you are suggesting we knowingly infect some developing country with additional diseases, just to see what happens, in the hope it helps us make better medicine for ourselves? That would be kinda ... twisted
> If Norway wants to strive for sustainability they should be installing power plants in India and offering EVs and free charging ports there. In coming days, India is going to surpass all countries when it comes to net pollution.
> I don't know why these rich countries never do anything to improve quality of life on whole planet.
Hypocrisy at it's finest.
I am not suggesting that countries should do this but I am expressing that it might already be in someone's list of strategy to save their country from the deadly virus.
1) Nolan Principles of Public Life https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-...
> 5. Openness
> Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.
> 6. Honesty
> Holders of public office should be truthful.
2) The Professional Standards Organisation's Standards for members of NHS boards and Clinical Commissioning Group governing bodies in England
> Honesty: I will act with honesty in all my actions, transactions, communications, behaviours and decision-making, and will resolve any conflicts arising from personal, professional or financial interests that could influence or be thought to influence my decisions as a board member
> Openness: I will be open about the reasoning, reasons,and processes underpinning my actions, transactions, communications, behaviours,and decision-making and about any conflicts of interest
We could argue that the principle of "Duty of Candour" applies. https://www.cqc.org.uk/guidance-providers/regulations-enforc...
In England I'd be pushing hard for these hospitals to be more open about what's happening and what they're doing to fix it.
Without a public conversation about resistant bugs, the causes (drug overuse) will never be addressed.
Funny, I've been to plenty of conferences and talks about it and I've never seen a journalist.
They just want to churn out articles like this one: FIND OUT ABOUT THIS ONE DEADLY BUG THAT NOBODY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT. No surprise they get few responses.
The article whose reporting this one focuses on  is quite long and strikes me as being well-researched, thorough in its explanations, and not over the top in its take on the issue. Sure, there's a little bit of intrigue, but that just makes for interesting reading.
At least someone is not doing their job, it seems, which is when journalism is most important.
If a restaurant has roaches it's their own fault. If a hospital has to fight back a resistant germ it doesn't show they did anything wrong.
Restaurant's don't create viruses, they just pass them on, usually unwittingly (and sometimes despite good hygiene practices) but one nasty outbreak traced to a restaurant can destroy a reputation (and kill a business).
The classic case being Heston Blumetnthal's 'Fat Duck' restaurant where 240 people suffered gastroenteritis (nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea) due to norovirus, probably carried in Oysters:
Who is to blame here? Maybe the Oyster farmer, but maybe the distributor. It could have been a single employee with norovirus in the restaurant (or anywhere in the distribution chain).
Most likely no-one did anything wrong and this was just "one of those things"
"We also received full support by our insurers who found no fault in our practices following a report from a leading UK independent specialist. There is still no guaranteed safety measure in place today to protect the general public with regards to shellfish and viral contamination. For this reason we still do not serve oysters or razor clams at the Fat Duck."
> Restaurant's don't create viruses
They can dramatically amplify the viral / bacteria presence though. Norovirus is pretty nasty (potentially fatal). Very small amounts of norovirus will cause illness. This is why excellent hygiene is needed in restaurants.
Fat Duck was slow to respond to the incident; they had staff working who should not have been working due to sickness; they were using the wrong cleaning products.
Saying "Fat Duck was criticised for poor food hygiene practices" is a little different to saying "Several weaknesses in procedures at the restaurant may have contributed to ongoing transmission."
The report simply says that they relied too heavily on using alcohol gels which don't work so well on norovirus.
It also says that they are unsure if it was The Fat Duck's staff that continued to infect customers or if the Oysters they continued to use continued to be infected.
Yes, excellent hygiene is needed in Restaurants but excellent hygiene won't always stop a norovirus.
One thing not mentioned here (that I suspect might be a factor) is that restaurants that serve tasting menus are more at risk of causing an outbreak like this. If everyone eats a large number of identical courses each with a diverse number of ingredients the possibility of one of those ingredients infecting a large number of people is surely greatly increased.
> The classic case being Heston Blumetnthal's 'Fat Duck' restaurant...
The Fat Duck is still open, has three Michelin stars and is booked out months in advance. Possibly not the best example of a reputation being destroyed or a business being killed.
It lost a Micehelin star for a while which is often portrayed as a disaster for a restaurant but, as you rightly point out, it bounced back.
(Probably doesn't count as a dupe as this article is more about the secrecy than the infection itself).
Are there any materials can slow or stop fungal growth?
Fungi are one of the big crop killers. Potato blight, black pod disease, panama disease, mildews, … are all fungi.
There's going to be a significant overlap between fungicides which don't kill crops and fungicide with medicinal value.
Sure, there's overlap. That doesn't answer the question.
Are you making that claim? Or saying that it's likely?
Your comment had a stance for a brief moment, but then you backed up to "overlap exists" which isn't really evidence in any particular direction.
Perhaps you can explain what exactly your stance on the subject is, and what you think the person you are responding to is saying. Then you can explain why that bothers you, perhaps then this person and the casual reader can take something away from this discussion.
Maybe it helps if I go through the conversation:
Neodypsis says we shouldn't use medicinal-value fungicides on crops. A clear position, based on obvious evidence.
Masklinn replies saying that fungi kill a lot of crops. Okay, well taken literally that's already a part of the comment they reply to. Is the implication that we need medicinal-value fungicides for crops? So I ask if that's what they're saying.
Their reply back... refuses to answer. They just say there's "significant overlap", but "significant overlap" is almost nothing in terms of answering that question. There could be tons and tons of usable crop fungicides outside the overlap. Or none. So it's a fact that's useless by itself but deniably implies a position.
And unless I'm going crazy they initially posted with a real position, but immediately edited it out.
So what I see is someone who could contribute to the debate, almost did for a brief flash, but would rather make posts that have no opinion and no relevant facts. Noise instead of signal.
I don't think they're contrarian, I think those posts are some kind of terrible opposite of being contrarian. And I'm not trying to be contrarian, I just want them to clarify. As for fungicides I have no idea, I need more evidence...
Seen through this lens, I don't necessarily follow with your thinking - but I can try now! Thank you for explaining it so well.
As long as the packaging is not single-use or a bottle / tube they're multi-dipping anyway.
And most containers are either completely open or will get filled back with unfiltered air.
The comma should not be used there.
This is real journalism and we need more of these articles. What we need fewer of are articles which promote financial interests and drive wealth centralization. These are abundant and nobody seems to be pointing those out.
I'm sure most people are aware that Eastern Europe, and especially Romania and Bulgaria has a rampant problem with resistent microbæ, but I was surprised to see that for instance Italy is almost equally as bad.
I find myself in the position to dismiss automatically all these claims as bullshit, but it may be that one day they may get one right. There is a cost to crying wolf.
The problem is that we as societies haven't been doing much over the last decades and shit is culminating in the next maybe 10-30 years.