If we eliminated treatment with drugs with resistances against them, we'd no longer be artificially selecting for those bacteria, which would mean the bacteria that naturally performed better would be the most likely to survive.
Essentially if we stop treating with the drugs with resistances against them, we'd eventually end up with a bacteria gene pool that resembled the original pre-resistant one, where resistant bacteria were replication errors that were drowned out by natural selection.
The only issue is we can't do that without sacrificing millions of lives. So having a drug that works via completely different mechanisms would fulfil both.
This is exactly what we've been doing for decades. When you get an antibiotic-resistant infection, like I have twice, they just give you older antibiotics. So the more antibiotics you have, the better, because it's harder for a bacteria to be resistant to more and more antibiotics at once.
Essentially if we stop treating with the drugs with resistances against them, we'd eventually end up with a bacteria gene pool that resembled the original pre-resistant one, where resistant bacteria were replication errors that were drowned out by natural selection.
The only issue is we can't do that without sacrificing millions of lives. So having a drug that works via completely different mechanisms would fulfil both.