> There's good "bugs" and bad "bugs".  Generally, the good "bugs" outcompete
> the "bad" bugs over time, especially outside the body or outside a food
> item.

this view of the world is at the root of all wars humans have been fighting
against life .
Who decide what is a good bug from a bad one . How do you juge a bug that is
predating on a "bad bug" ?: a good one ? what about the bird that feed on
that bug ?: a bad one ? what about the cat that eat the bird :is it good or
bad? what about the first  good bug that might compromise the cat survival
....
you got the picture,  in the complexity of a food web this way of thinking
is non sense.
The fact is that for an ecosystem to be stable all participants need to be
present .
As long we can't understand that we are compromising survival of whole
ecosytem .
and any species is in fact an ecosytem in itself with good bugs and bad bugs
included.
>
> Preventing communicable disease is based on science and risk assessment.
> You're attitude is reflective of the dark ages.

wait for more and more scientific studies that will show that so call
"prevention of communicable diseases " is in fact setting up conditions for
degenerative diseases.
Did it never dawn to a scientist that there might be a good reason ( from
the whole ecosytem point of view) for that quality of communicability in
certain diseases.
>
> > I my opinion the probability of exposure to bacteria becoming a life
> > threatening issue is very very small.
>
> Depends what dose of parasite, bacteria, or virus one is exposed to, and
> one's immune status.

Yes and in definitive it all depend on the position played by humans inside
the whole of the food web.
Humans as other species have a certain function to fulfill to maintain
equilibrium in the whole of it.
One day we will know that ,by wanting to get rid of some of our partners in
the game we are getting rid of ourselves .
No way out .
jean-claude