Why no consideration of this in the discussion of COVID-19? Straight up, are those whose immunities have been compromised by antibiotics more likely to die from COVID-19?
To study the matter, it would seem the answer can only be yes.
Antibiotics make bacteria resistant to treatment. They destroy good bacteria. They damage the ability of white blood cells to do their job. They hurt the immune system and make it difficult to fight off harmful germs. They give bad bacteria opportunity to grow resistant to treatment.
Now, viruses are not bacteria, is my understanding. Still, I believe the effect on viruses is the same as it is on bacteria. If this is true, then, antibiotics take away the ability to fight off the virus.
We speak of the old and the elderly, and how they are more susceptible. We speak of those with underlying conditions. Yes, a person with a heart condition is weakened by that, and surely more susceptible, regardless if he or she has been on antibiotics.
But, just as surely -- it would seem (and seem most obvious) -- those whose immunities have been stripped by the use of antiobiotics are going to be more susceptible.
As each person goes down to COVID-19, we note whether they had underlying conditions. Why do we not also note whether their immune systems had been compromised by antibiotics?
If this were a war -- and it has been likened to that -- and we sent some out onto the battlefield without shields, it seems we would at least be mindful they that they were dying a little more readily.
Now, there might be something wrong with all my logic. But, it would seem we should surely be looking to see. We are not even glancing at, not even noticing, not even paying attention to whether there is a disproportional share of those who have taken antibiotics who are dying.
Why not? Maybe those being put in isolation should; not only be those with symptoms, but those with recent-enough exposure to antibiotics.
No comments:
Post a Comment