Immune system better at killing viruses or bacterial infections?

ash2008

Just curious about this as im currently sick and taking antibiotics, so it got me thinking. Please dont get mad if this appears a stupid question, as it is a genuine one

Is our body more adept at killing viruses more than bacterial infections? If you go to the doctor with a virus, they dont prescribe anything ...but any sort of bacterial infection usually sees you on antibiotics. I know viruses dont respond to antibiotics, but given that antibiotics are considered to be prescribed too much, how come you are never told to "go home and rest" if you had an antibacterial infection, as you would be with a virus. (Im not talking about more serious illness such as HIV or Ebola...but just general illness like stomach bug, cough/cold, ear infection that doctors would often put down to a virus).
Is it harder for the immune system to deal with bacterial infections, e.g a cough caused by a virus as opposed to a cough caused by bacterial infection. Are bacterial infections generally more deadly than a viral one?

his_dudeness

Bacterial infections will continue to develop if the bacterial are not stopped or killed, using either source control (ie the removal of an abscess) and or antibiotics (to kill circulating bacteria)

Viruses like the 'flu tend to have a short life but also no effective antiviral medication - management tends to be of the symptoms of 'flu rather than flu itself.

HIV, Hepatitis, Shingle etc (even cold sores) are all caused by viruses and treated/managed with antiviral medications.

Kevster

Interesting topic ... I'm not sure that there's any real difference in how the body distinguishes/attacks the two. The immune system equally recognises them as 'foreign' and sets-in-motion a string of events to recognise cell-surface receptors on them and kill them, through the generation of different antibodies by shuffling around genes. It can also do this through other more general and indirect/non-specific means, such as raising the body temperature, sneezing, coughing, diarrhoea, amongst others.

We divide bacteria and viruses into two different groups for classificationally-logical purposes.

Oooo, almost forgot to add that the immune system also has to deal with pathogens from the animal kingdom itself, such as paraistes (small intestinal worms and other bugs).

Kevin

Yillan

ash2008 wrote: »

I know viruses dont respond to antibiotics, but given that antibiotics are considered to be prescribed too much, how come you are never told to "go home and rest" if you had an antibacterial infection, as you would be with a virus.

Three reasons I can think of:

1. Patient would feel cheated if he left the doctor's office without a prescription. May be less likely to return to that GP. Paid €60 to be told I should just go home and sleep.... pfft.
2. Placebo effect. I often feel immediately better after taking a panadol for a hangover, even though I know it has hardly even reached my stomach
3. Doctor would rather play it safe by giving an antibiotic than give nothing and risk it getting worse, and the patient or his family taking an action.

his_dudeness

Yillan wrote: »

Three reasons I can think of:

1. Patient would feel cheated if he left the doctor's office without a prescription. May be less likely to return to that GP. Paid €60 to be told I should just go home and sleep.... pfft.
.

That's an unfortunate reality and something that has almost definitely lead to a rise in antibiotic resistance in infections. NonGMS patients can choose what doctor they go to, and as a result, doctors feel obliged to "give them their moneys worth" to get repeat business;

seamus

Antivirals are relatively new, only really appearing in general use over the last 30 years. Whereas antibiotics have been around for nearly 80. So the number of antivirals available are quite limited, and as I understand it they are also quite specific, whereas one type of antibiotic can be used to treat multiple different types of bacterial infection.

Also something I wasn't aware of is that antivirals are usually developed to prevent the virus from being able to spread rather than attacking the actual virus. Viruses infect actual cells of your body and use them to replicate, which makes it very difficult to target the virus itself without causing damage to the host, so instead they focus on starving the virus of resources until your body can come in and mop it up.

I also assume cost is a factor, and a course of antivirals is far more expensive than a course of antibiotics.

I think the issue of overprescription is that if someone attends the doctor, they expect to be "cured", so the doctor provides a prescription. In many cases, someone is only attending the doctor because they need a sick cert for work, and are happy enough to be told to go home sleep it off.

Maybe if doctors were encouraged to charge specifically for prescriptions - i.e. €30 for a sick cert, €50 for a cert + a prescription - then it would go some way towards reducing the amount of stuff needlessly prescribed.

steddyeddy

Well the body would have to be able tell the difference between viruses and bacteria. A lot of viruses carry their genetic info in the form of RNA as oppossed to DNA.

Dingle_berry

The body would use similar immune responses to detect and target parasites, bacteria and viruses. Specific or targeted defences would be aimed at parts of proteins deemed forgein. As bacteria have more proteins than viruses they could be a bigger target for the immune system. Viruses typically have much fewer proteins, especially ones that are forgein, so much fewer/smaller targets.

Most pharmaceutical antibiotics are actually baceriostatics - they don't kill bacteria directly, they stop them from reproducing and give the immune system more time to react. To do the same for viruses you would either have to stop the virus from replicating (but they use the hosts own replication machinery!) or stop them from gaining access to the hosts machinery (which would mean blocking receptors that have functions for the cell). So it's much harder to find a compound that stops the virus replicating while not affecting the hosts cells ability to replicate (and heal).

As for doctors overprescribing antibiotics -I find that more complicated! Issues like patients expecting more of a return for their €60, making the clinical decision between hitting the infection hard, fast and clearing it, preventing sequelae or letting it run the infection resolve itself with associated sick leave for bed rest etc. patients not finishing courses of antibiotics or not taking them correctly is more to blame for antibiotic resistance than over prescription IMO

Breezer

seamus wrote: »

Maybe if doctors were encouraged to charge specifically for prescriptions - i.e. €30 for a sick cert, €50 for a cert + a prescription - then it would go some way towards reducing the amount of stuff needlessly prescribed.

I see what you're saying but have to disagree. A doctor is being paid for his/her opinion, not for providing a bit of paper. Charging extra for a prescription could lead to a sense of entitlement to a prescription if a patient is willing to pay for it. It's a bit like getting radiological tests done privately: just because someone has the money to pay for it doesn't mean they should get a CT scan when a plain film (or nothing) is all they need. Inappropriate CT scans are dangerous. So are inappropriate antibiotics.

I actually think your suggestion could have the opposite effect to that which you intend, since it would be much more financially beneficial for a GP to give out a prescription.

Squeaky the Squirrel

Doctors Report Tuberculosis Now 'Virtually Untreatable'

Everything You Need To Know About Incurable Gonorrhea

The Meat Industry Now Consumes Four-Fifths of All Antibiotics

Vorsprung

Squeaky the Squirrel, when you're posting here and wondering what kind of material you should post, take a hint from the phrases "Health SCIENCES" and "DISCUSSION boards".

Squeaky the Squirrel

Vorsprung wrote: »

Squeaky the Squirrel, when you're posting here and wondering what kind of material you should post, take a hint from the phrases "Health SCIENCES" and "DISCUSSION boards".

WoW, infracted for that! I was just about to post it with my wittily titled Pandabiotices Thread but went for here since it has replies. I post the same way all over Boards, stuff that I find interesting that I think others will also, up it goes, no one has had a problem, admins included, looking back over some of it their, most is "Thanked" aswell, for what that's worth.

An ingestible pill-sized device offers a 3D view of the esophagus
Million-dollar bionic man built for British TV program

^2 other ones I put up in here, not really alot one can add thats not obvious from the title or a quick glance so I don't see the problem anyway.

Vorsprung wrote: »

"Health SCIENCES"

Why the capital sciences?


Preempting the expected, I really don't care if you ban me from the Forum now, I don't plan on posting here again. You've taken the "good" out of it.

RobFowl

Squeaky the Squirrel wrote: »

WoW, infracted for that! I was just about to post it with my wittily titled Pandabiotices Thread but went for here since it has replies. I post the same way all over Boards, stuff that I find interesting that I think others will also, up it goes, no one has had a problem, admins included, looking back over some of it their, most is "Thanked" aswell, for what that's worth.

An ingestible pill-sized device offers a 3D view of the esophagus
Million-dollar bionic man built for British TV program

^2 other ones I put up in here, not really alot one can add thats not obvious from the title or a quick glance so I don't see the problem anyway.


Why the capital sciences?


Preempting the expected, I really don't care if you ban me from the Forum now, I don't plan on posting here again. You've taken the "good" out of it.

Mod Note
When posting here it's expected any references or links will be to scientific sites, ideally peer reviewed journals.
The links you posted while interesting on some levels were simply not of sufficient quality for a forum which is supposed to be scientific.

Squeaky the Squirrel

RobFowl wrote: »

Mod Note
When posting here it's expected any references or links will be to scientific sites, ideally peer reviewed journals.
The links you posted while interesting on some levels were simply not of sufficient quality for a forum which is supposed to be scientific.

^Definitely proves a point I made elsewhere, the Articles I posted have links a click or 2 away from the original source, if ye couldn't skim through a few paragraph summary, ye definitely wouldn't have read the Originals, which is why I rarely link them whether behind paywalls or not.

I actually can't remember the last time someone linked to one...look through the last few pages I see Irish Examiner and Daily Mail listed as sources. The Forum rules must have changed since then?

Waiting lists, changing docs, Mortgages, drug prices, IMO Chiefs, certain treatments available in Ireland, Uniforms and Health Insurance are examples of Threads here.

Only ones you'd call scientific/advanced are mine and a few others that don't get replies or locked as they may be iffy. After Hours is more Scientific and no I'm not Joking.

RobFowl

Squeaky the Squirrel wrote: »

^Definitely proves a point I made elsewhere, the Articles I posted have links a click or 2 away from the original source, if ye couldn't skim through a few paragraph summary, ye definitely wouldn't have read the Originals, which is why I rarely link them whether behind paywalls or not.

I actually can't remember the last time someone linked to one...look through the last few pages I see Irish Examiner and Daily Mail listed as sources. The Forum rules must have changed since then?

Waiting lists, changing docs, Mortgages, drug prices, IMO Chiefs, certain treatments available in Ireland, Uniforms and Health Insurance are examples of Threads here.

Only ones you'd call scientific/advanced are mine and a few others that don't get replies or locked as they may be iffy. After Hours is more Scientific and no I'm not Joking.

You're welcome to report any posts you feel are inappropiate.
The one's you linked as I said are interesting but posting the original papers is what this forum aims for.

Ps questioning Mod decisions in thread is also against the charter. If you have an issue with a Mod decision PM them.