←back to thread

331 points breve | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.298s | source
Show context
giancarlostoro ◴[] No.45027158[source]
Wont viruses just adapt and now we've got worse viruses as a result? Isn't this kind of why doctors don't like to prescribe antibiotics too often, because they become ineffective in the long run.

I'm genuinely asking, I'm a simple software dev not a doctor.

replies(10): >>45027221 #>>45027256 #>>45027269 #>>45027317 #>>45027344 #>>45027508 #>>45027794 #>>45032479 #>>45034185 #>>45038594 #
grapesodaaaaa ◴[] No.45027508[source]
Is it really true that we have “worse” viruses, or that they are adapting to our modern antibiotic regime & reverting to the status quo?
replies(1): >>45027594 #
XorNot ◴[] No.45027594[source]
Antibiotics have never killed any viruses ever. They are exclusively for treating bacterial infections (which are generally worse by a lot).
replies(1): >>45028205 #
tiahura ◴[] No.45028205[source]
Azithromycin (rhinovirus, influenza A, Zika), clarithromycin (influenza A, rhinovirus), doxycycline (dengue, Zika), minocycline (West Nile), teicoplanin/dalbavancin (Ebola, MERS/SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2), rifampin/rifamycins (orthopoxviruses), aminoglycosides (HSV-2, influenza A, Zika), salinomycin/monensin (influenza A/B, coronaviruses incl. SARS-CoV-2), nanchangmycin (Zika, West Nile, dengue, chikungunya), nitroxoline (mpox), and some fluoroquinolones have all shown antiviral properties.

And no, strep throat is not worse than ebola.

replies(2): >>45028764 #>>45036427 #
1. bee_rider ◴[] No.45028764[source]
I think they used “generally” on purpose, to make a general observation. Of course, there exist viral infections that are worse than the most common bacterial ones.

There’s some ambiguity in their comment because it isn’t obvious what we’re sort of… averaging over, but I think they clearly don’t mean that there no serious viral infections exist.