health

Bacterial infections the second leading cause of death worldwide: study

17 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2022 AFP

©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.

17 Comments
Login to comment

Likely some very scientific reasons behind this increase.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30035033/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-15409-x

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9771168/

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Likely some very scientific reasons behind this increase.

None of your references makes even an attempt to say masks have a role in the topic of this article, which makes sense because as it clearly says

The pathogens were associated with 7.7 million deaths -- 13.6 percent of the global total -- in 2019, the year before the Covid-19 pandemic took off.

Trying to misrepresent the obvious contamination of masks with oral bacteria as if it in any way increased the risk to the health of the people is completely invalid. A transparent attempt of disinformation.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

It is always what you can't see that gets you. So live life.

George Carlin

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Articles like this can be a little frustrating as they raise so many questions. ( I presume the original study offers much more information.) Some questions on my mind:

Is it the bacteria which is bad or the lack of resistance to the bacteria (or perhaps both)? So do we try to eliminate dangerous bacteria or improve the general health of the population (better food, better homes, etc.)?

What is the death rate across different age groups, and is it different from other causes of death? (I'm guessing bacteria are a bigger cause of death among younger age groups than heart disease, but it would be good to know. If, for example, it was mainly over 80s that died from bacterial infection, would it be such a big problem?)

Is hand washing effective in places where water quality is poor? So should the focus be on washing hands or improving water quality? (Both, I guess, but it would be good to see which might be more effective.)

3 ( +3 / -0 )

KaowaiinekochanknawNov. 26  10:51 am JST

Likely some very scientific reasons behind this increase.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30035033/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-15409-x

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9771168/

Absolutely, as even a cursory reading of any of the articles show risks of bacterial infections.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Absolutely, as even a cursory reading of any of the articles show risks of bacterial infections.

None of the references make any appeal to risk of bacterial infection being increased in the people wearing masks, nor they would be relevant to the problem described in the article, the article only show risks of bacterial contamination.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

None of the references make any appeal to risk of bacterial infection being increased in the people wearing masks

Yes they did.

Well, admittedly, some of the articles are a little advanced in terms of medical terminology and so forth and might take a bit of an effort to read and comprehend, so . . .

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Illnesses are rising in Japan recently coinciding with heavy mask wearing.

What "illnesess" are they? A very general and vague comment as usual.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Elvis is hereToday  01:11 pm JST

What "illnesess" are they? A very general and vague comment as usual.

Sorry--I was writing for readers who are living in Japan, as they would know.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Sorry--I was writing for readers who are living in Japan, as they would know.

My query still stands.

What "illnesess" are they? A very general and vague comment as usual.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Well, admittedly, some of the articles are a little advanced in terms of medical terminology and so forth and might take a bit of an effort to read and comprehend

That is not an argument to say the articles conclude anything about increased risk of infection for the people using masks, it only explains why you made the mistake of thinking they do. In reality they only talk about contamination, and obviously none make any argument about how this would increase the risk of infection for the person using them in the first place.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

That is not an argument to say the articles conclude anything about increased risk of infection for the people using masks, it only explains why you made the mistake of thinking they do. In reality they only talk about contamination, and obviously none make any argument about how this would increase the risk of infection for the person using them in the first place.

Just need to be patient, and maybe get a medical terminology dictionary or something to help your comprehension of the articles. They are really straight forward to others here though.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Just need to be patient, and maybe get a medical terminology dictionary or something to help your comprehension of the articles.

You are the one claiming something none of the articles say, as easy to prove as you have been unable to quote where do any of them say anything about risk of infection to the wearer of the mask.

As long as you don't bring a quote it becomes clear you are claiming the articles are saying something that they do not address, either because you don't understand them or because you are misrepresenting them on purpose.

So, can you quote the articles where they support your point or are you going to accept they do not address it at all?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

If you can't read the articles then you won't understand the issue being discussed. Translation devices might help too.

What I can't read are your quotes of the articles that prove your claims because you have not presented any, which means you are just claiming something without any basis.

What is the point of just repeating a comment with baseless claims that the moderation already have deleted?

So, again, can you bring any quote that support your claim? or will you just repeat it so it will be deleted again?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

What I can't read are your quotes of the articles that prove your claims because you have not presented any, which means you are just claiming something without any basis.

Again, this is simple and straight forward.

You need to read the articles to understand the issue being discussed.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Again, this is simple and straight forward.

You need to read the articles to understand the issue being discussed.

The articles are crystal clear, they do not support your claim, which is why you are unable to support it with any quote from them (and incidentally why your comments in this topic keep being deleted by the moderation). Unless you can bring any argument to prove the articles support your claim just claiming they do is clearly just an excuse.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites