It can be very soundly argued that if someone was to objectively look at the biggest issues facing humanity today then antimicrobial resistance (AMR) would be easily considered one of the greatest.
According to the World Bank, AMR is likely to cause a 1.1-3.8% fall in Global GDP by 2050, with the damage to get continuously worse in the following years. For scale, this is an economic effect potentially larger than that of the 2008 financial crisis, and also larger than some estimates of the damage that global climate change would inflict over the same time period. Let us not understate the human costs as well: the WHO estimates the death count of AMR pathogens is already 700,000 annually and will rise to 10 million by 2050 unless urgent action is taken.
These statistics are very scary and should be enough to convince anyone of the severity of the threat, which in both economic and human consequences is expected to rival climate change. Despite this, there is very little political attention given to AMR.
In the 20,000 words that make up the 2019 Liberal Democrat manifesto, there is only one mention of antimicrobial resistance, which is simply mentioned in passing as part of a policy on improving hygiene in livestock. The 2019 Conservative manifesto and the 2019 Labour manifesto both do even worse, not mentioning antimicrobial resistance a single time; they only mention offhandedly that they will spend more money to counter the threat of numerous things, including antibiotic resistance (which unlike AMR doesn’t include resistance to non-antibiotic drugs such as medications used to counter pathogens such as Malaria and Tuberculosis).
Climate change is a serious threat and many people recognise this. There are hefty and detailed polices designed to tackle it that are discussed on the world stage by some of the world’s most well known politicians and celebrities. Hundreds of thousands of people across the world have been on protests, marches and demonstrations calling for more and more action.
This is all absolutely fantastic, but why is there not the same for AMR? There are there are no international Anti-AMR protests, Kyoto or Paris style conferences, and “Green New Deal” like polices being put forward as attempts to resolve it. Relying solely on clever experts at the UN or WHO to produce an uncontroversial solution cannot solve the issue. The majority of antibiotic use is not needed, and we need the political energy to take on the stakeholders in various domestic and international sectors that have perpetuated this harmful dynamic.
As a progressive, pragmatic and forward thinking party we need to step forward and take leadership on this issue.
* Harry Mayall is a Liberal Democrat party member and a medical student at Cardiff University.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
"The old savage England": D.H. Lawrence visits the Stiperstones
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Endometriosis and acetylation
Nonconformistradical
Henry
Daniel Walker
David Raw
11 Comments
It is probably unwise and confusing to kick off debate about bacterial resistance, different science from viruses which are an imminent threat.
I agree. We are close to the point when all operations will be cancelled because antibiotics will not prevent subsequent infections. Diseases we regard as trivial will become life threatening.
Pharmaceutical companies have given the world many antibiotics and have moved on from there to other markets. A massive incentive is needed to make antibiotics a commercially attractive proposition once more. Even more incentive is needed to make it a priority.
The trouble is that global suffering and a great many deaths will take place before new antibiotics will be moved up the priority list.
Never fun to hear about another medical crisis dawning on us but now is the time that messages like this could cut through!
It is daft to talk about microbes and antibiotics at this time, because it distracts from the science and behaviour changes required to mitigate virus exchange.
Firstly, the public has to understand that Covid-19 is a virus.
Antibiotics cannot work; a virus is not a microbe; you know it. If you want to talk about your science, Harry Mayall, talk to scientists.
Secondly, the public (plebs like me), have to do boring things like washing our hands. It is the wrong time for a bio science opinion piece.
Harry, I welcome this article wholeheartedly. I presume you are pursuing an additional one year B.Sc. in Pharmacology or allied subject. In any case it is commendable that you have taken the time to remind people of the very serious political implications. As a long ago retired Medical Biochemist I appreciate that AMR affects treatment of all pathogens, including viruses. (Phil please note).
By coincidence I learn that the sulphonamides, which saved my life as a 2 year old, 77 years ago, and then discontinued as other drugs were discovered, are now being reappraised in the light of AMR to more modern antibiotics. All success in your studies!
Thanks for the education, Rodney.
Harry Mayall raises a political and environmental point, but one with a narrow perspective. I share one of Harry’s concerns but I don’t see it as one that is ‘liberal’ — common sense perhaps, not a necessary liberal attribute.
@Phil – could you please explain your last comment.
@Phil Beesley
Re: It is daft to talk about microbes and antibiotics at this time, because it distracts from the science and behaviour changes required to mitigate virus exchange.
Firstly, the public has to understand that Covid-19 is a virus.
Antibiotics cannot work; a virus is not a microbe; you know it. If you want to talk about your science, Harry Mayall, talk to scientists.
Secondly, the public (plebs like me), have to do boring things like washing our hands. It is the wrong time for a bio science opinion piece.
Whilst I agree we do need to be careful not to confuse viruses and microbes particularly when it comes to treatment, many of the preventative measures are identical – like that boring thing of washing hands with (traditional) soap and water.
The over use of antibiotics has meant that the bacteria have had ample opportunity to find mutations that render many of the existing antibiotics useless. The widespread use of antibiotics in commercial livestock farming has helped to bring about this crisis.
Today, doctors are afraid to prescribe antibiotics for precautionary purposes even when very vulnerable patients are at risk, for fear of contributing to the problem. They fear that we shall soon have no effective antibiotics at all. That will make the corona virus look trivial in comparison.
The corona virus will come and go more or less on its own, leaving much that is unwelcome in its wake. The lack of effective antibiotics will shut down every surgical procedure and leave every bacterial infection untreated. This could last for several years until new types of antibiotics are identified.
It is therefore a health issue that is close to being an emergency and can only get worse. It needs to be high on the agenda of all political parties.
This is why I did not understand Phil’s comments about “narrow perspective, not liberal or not a necessary liberal attribute.”
What do liberal attributes have to do with it?
If making of commercial antibiotics is no longer profitable, is it time to consider a public sector alternative, with the development shared and the IP licensed on fair reasonable terms for public health reasons but NOT for livestock cost saving?
Peter asked for a clarification about a comment I made: “I share one of Harry’s concerns but I don’t see it as one that is ‘liberal’ — common sense perhaps, not a necessary liberal attribute.”
The original piece makes a solid argument that behavioural change is required to reduce antimicrobial/antibiotic resistance. I can see moral reasons for change, as well as practical ones, but the moral reasons are not uniquely ‘liberal’. I wish Harry and his fellow concerned scientists success in creating a desire to change things, something which will require non-party political co-operation.