Revisit = reevaluate and reuse? Norm = baseline?

Plus, what does "human" mean in "both in human and economic terms"? I think economic term belongs to the activities of human... So I guess the "human" here has its particular meaning. But what meaning?

Context:

The non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in animals continues to increase, despite recommendations from 15 WHO and others to have this practice stopped, as has been done in the European Union.Faced with these daunting therapeutic challenges, physicians in some countries have had to resort to antibiotics with unfavourable toxicity profiles and 16imited pharmacodynamic guidance (eg, colistin), as well as unconventional combinations of antibiotics that have not been investigated properly. Old ideas are being resurrected, such as the use of lytic bacteriophages, but with little evidence of clinical effectiveness. New approaches, such as defensins, targeted monoclonal antibodies, and agents designed to interrupt mechanisms of pathogenesis (eg, toll-like receptors, quorum sensing) have yet to fulfi ll their therapeutic potential.

Essentially, even as we are forced to revisit treatments that are more than 30 years old while waiting desperately for new research to bear fruit, we sense a pervasive belief in the scientific community that increasing resistance is the new norm. This is a misleading and costly attitude, both in human and economic terms.Some action has been taken in response to the mounting crisis. For example, the Infectious Diseases 17Society of America, US Centers for Disease Control and18 19Prevention (CDC), European commission, European 20Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), and other expert groups and non-governmental organisations have worked hard to raise awareness and provoke action by government and industry.