True but a key difference being is that as long as you're not sharing fluids with an HIV patient you are not at risk for infection. Same doesn't exist with with this scenario

I haven't. We as individuals will all die but our societies have a chance at living based on the decisions of those individuals

...we of course did not know that at the time . For the first year or two we had sanitary protocols in place for dealing with gay male clients . Any hard surface they might have touched during a session was wiped down with bleach after they left the room and even a simple handshake was discouraged .

I see, I don't really remember I was too young during this time. I dont know the official thought of the medical community vs. the average person, at that time also. In the situation I'm proposing simple sanitation procedures would not be enough to prevent the spread

This post was edited by Bazi on Nov 19 2015 08:29am

The bright and shiny difference is that in retrospect it wasn't transferred those ways and yes we did know that, just the homophobes and chicken little extremists were the ones behaving like you describe. As a EMT at the time we used latex gloves when handling patients who were emitting fluids and had a non-re breather valve in our CPR masks but we all knew how HIV was transmitted a couple years in.



True words brother, true words. They fit in so many sad situations our present society has slipped into.

Widow said the first few years of the epidemic, i.e. not a few years in.

Yeah...we were both there in the beginning, it didn't take that long to discover how HIV was transfered. The homophobic community took the opportunity to rally a desocialization program to isolate and shame gay men. It was disgusting and shameful considering the scourge that was ravaging their community right then

...leave it to you to turn a friendly discussion into another emotional rant .

Isnt theres a natural tendancy: the most resistances/specific traits the bacteria is stacking, the slower will be its grow rate and/or his resistances in environment, and also the larger will be chances it's population lose those traits in time ?
Any specialist here ?

Let me clarify. NDM1 is not a bacteria, it is a plasmid. Bacteria will grow with and without this plasmid. What this plasmid does is confer genes to the specimens that contain the plasmid, in this case antibiotic resistance. Specifically the plasmid encodes for a protease that literally cleaves the active portions of your antibiotic (betalactam rings as well as alternate sites) rendering the antibiotics ineffective. Plasmids are most easily transmissible amongst gram negative organisms such as e. coli or klebsiella. So to answer your question, no having such properties of antibiotic resistance does not imply decreased growth rates.

oh ok, so you are saying once a plasmid exist in a population it will never go away ?