Sorry, what does this have to do with the study? Obviously reuptake inhibitors save many lives and you're acting like they're all unusable. As a doctor, isn't this irresponsible?
The discussion of costs/risks of treatments is usually what's missing in the casual conversations about drugs. Ketamine or psylocybin are probably the best examples in the tech community, yes they can sometimes cure a depression, or at least suppress it for a while, but they can also cause psychosis (and other non-psychiatric symptoms), so they are used only after safer options fail.
Although I'm not sure I get the concern here, sepsis is very life threatening, so paying SNRI-level risk for prevention doesn't seem like an outright bad idea. Unless the idea would be for random people to start using this drug just in case they get stabbed and go septic - then I would say this is not a good idea. But I don't think this is what the paper describes.
Both of us are sharing anecodtes, however.
We don't know exactly what these drugs do to the body, how they do it, or what the consequences really are.
They have good outcomes for a small section of the population and that's about all we know.
One could argue that over-prescription of such a poorly understood class of drug is far more harmful.