I dispute that encouraging people to eat less meat will make enough of a difference in this case to, well, make a difference. It's not wrong, it's just too much self-congratulatory blame-shifting with a moral message as the end itself.

These kinds of problems need results, not feel-good activist sentiment woo. People are dying.

Are you suggesting that the change is too slow/not drastic enough? Or perhaps that a change isn't taking place at-all in the first place, that it's all just hot air?

Indeed, we have to be confident that the mechanism of intervention will have the desired effect, and in time before we run out of antibiotic alternatives.

I say that anything less than that is worse than useless, because we're spending wasted effort (mindshare, attention) when time is, to the best of our knowledge, running out.

Now i don't know that personal activism and moral campaigning will be insufficient in this case, it just smells that way to me. It also has a certain fragrance of moral superiority and virtue signalling about it, which i guess triggers me, or something.