> who calls antibiotic resistance as serious a threat as terrorism
What an unbelievably stupid comparison. Terrorism is mass murder turned into the sort of spectacle that causes us to massively overestimate a threat to our individual lives. If antibiotic resistance is that sort of threat, then it isn't much of a threat at all, and we can all go back to worrying about normal things such as dying from regular homicide, heart disease, crossing the road, and choking on food.
Maybe they meant it in the sense that we should be spending the same amount of resources on antibiotic resistance as terrorism. Or maybe it's just a ridiculous comparison.
The stupidity of the comparison means that I have no idea what is meant by "threatening." In terms of individual lives, regular homicide is far more threatening than terrorism, as is choking on your next meal. Even ignoring the entwining of terrorism with politics, that already makes this a meaningless comparison.
And it's not necessary, because surely we've got plenty of analogous pandemics in the field of medicine which can orientate ourselves to any looming crisis. The AIDs virus in the West is still fresh in our memory, and a far more appropriate comparison.
I think all that is meant is that if we are lucky, the threat posed by antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria will be negligible in spite of media hype. Just like terrorism is. A groping comparison perhaps but a fair statement.
What an unbelievably stupid comparison. Terrorism is mass murder turned into the sort of spectacle that causes us to massively overestimate a threat to our individual lives. If antibiotic resistance is that sort of threat, then it isn't much of a threat at all, and we can all go back to worrying about normal things such as dying from regular homicide, heart disease, crossing the road, and choking on food.