i'm not going to suggest that he doesn't get it because his statements suggest he clearly does, but there seems to be a level of cognitive dissonance and sort of wilful blindness in how he's interpreting the situation. he clearly realizes that we're in a fight with the bacteria, but he seems to want to think it's a fight we can win.

the bacteria is going to evolve. the question is how fast it's going to evolve. there's a sort of logical error attached to the idea that more antibiotic use creates more resistant bacteria. in fact, the mutations are going to be random. reducing use certainly isn't going to stop the bacteria from evolving altogether, and it's really questionable that it's going to reduce it's rate of evolution. it's about random mutations, not lamarckian adjustments. i'm not accusing him of lamarckianism exactly (and somebody will throw the epigenetics at me, anyways), but the point is valid - it's not really established that reducing use is actually going to help.

now, how do you create antibiotics for bacteria that hasn't evolved to be resistant yet? it's impossible.

fighting bacteria is a dynamic problem, and we're going to have to constantly adjust for it for....ever, basically. the bacteria will win a few rounds, too. such is life in a constantly changing, evolutionary system.

i'll say this, though: i'd rather see a war against bacteria than a war against drugs (eek.) or a war against terrorism.