It's infectious and deadly, it actually doesn't have to do anything more to scare the bejesus out of people and have profound social and economic effects, should it show up in numbers in the future.
- "According to the report, approximately 20% of TB cases globally are estimated to be resistant to at least one of the first- or second-line anti-TB drugs, and 5% are resistant to both isoniazid and rifampicin, the most powerful and commonly used antibiotics in first-line treatment. Of the estimated 480,000 cases of multidrug-resistant (MDR) TB, approximately 10% are either extensively drug-resistant (XDR)—with additional resistance to second-line drugs—or totally drug resistant."
- "While TB is curable when patients adhere to the treatment regimen, MDR- and XDR-TB are more problematic. Treatment options are limited, expensive, and often toxic, and drug therapy can last up to 2 years. The report estimates mortality rates of around 40% for MDR-TB and 60% for XDR-TB. And while China, India, Russia, and South Africa have the highest burden of MDR- and XDR-TB, widespread international travel and migration means drug-resistant TB has no borders."
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/antimicrobial-stewardship/report-... (2017)
If TB poses no risk because antibiotics are widely available would it not follow that reducing their availability would increase the risk TB poses?
The COVID 19 global pandemic was only a few years ago and its impacts lasted years. TB is not as infectious and would have a reduced spread but treating it helps contain possible issues and may one day lead to its eradication.
How does cutting funding reduce risk? Reduce suffering?