I agree, we need better evidence on all the vitamin D claims. Comparing rich white people in the suburbs who have lots of open land to get sun and use for exercise versus poorer darker skinned people in dense inner city apartments who spend most of their time inside introduces numerous confound factors that will be highly correlated with vitamin D.
> I agree, we need better evidence on all the vitamin D claims.
Not really. We should be blasting "get your Vitamin D supplements" from the rooftops, because maybe that's a significant factor in COVID-19 and it's safe and people should get them anyway. There's no downside.
If in a few years it then turns out that Vitamin D had nothing to do with it, it doesn't matter. If it turns out that Vitamin D really was a big factor, we'll be sorry for being hesitant with a safe and cheap intervention.
You are right that vitamin D is relatively safe compared to other potential treatments that were bandied about like hydroxychloroquine. But while there are fewer health risks from taking it, there are still the same behavioral issues that were present with hydroxychloroquine. The first is causing a run on vitamin D that prevents other people from acquiring if for their proven treatments. However the main issue that I think we want to prevent is luring people into a false sense of security that causes them to decrease the proven preventive measures. We don't need large groups of people gathering on beaches because they think the sun will be a miracle cure and they don't have to worry about getting sick. So if you want to personally start taking it without changing your behavior, be my guest. But any advice to take it needs to be clear that the evidence it helps is still very suspect at this point.
> The first is causing a run on vitamin D that prevents other people from acquiring if for their proven treatments.
Vitamin D is an easily manufactured supplement, it's not medicine that some people absolutely have to take every day.
Also, we're heading into summer and the sun is still rising every day.
> However the main issue that I think we want to prevent is luring people into a false sense of security that causes them to decrease the proven preventive measures.
We've had the same discussion about masks, so I think that one's settled.
> We don't need large groups of people gathering on beaches because they think the sun will be a miracle cure and they don't have to worry about getting sick.
If you don't want people gathering on the beaches, prohibit it. Having said that, the risk of infection outdoors is generally considered to be quite low.
> So if you want to personally start taking it without changing your behavior, be my guest. But any advice to take it needs to be clear that the evidence it helps is still very suspect at this point.
The evidence that Vitamin D supplementation works is there and it has already been recommended for everyone with low serum levels, well before COVID-19.
The problem is that people often aren't even aware that their serum levels are low, so that is highly prevalent - especially in the elderly and people with darker skin.
Hand sanitizer is also easy to manufacture and I haven't seen it in a local store for over 10 weeks. The ease to manufacture is just one of the steps to getting it on the shelves. Also getting vitamin D from the sun isn't an option for some people, especially those with darker skin.
The difference between masks and vitamin D is that one is proven to work and one might work. If vitamin D doesn't help as much as people here are claiming, there is a real downside if people are behaving as if it works. That applies to my arbitrary example of beach gatherings as well as other behavior the government has no hope of preventing.
Once again, this doesn't necessarily mean that vitamin D doesn't help. We just need better data. The early indication was that hydroxychloroquine helped too and we all know how that turned out.
What does "proven to work" mean with regard to masks? A lot of the measures put in place are unproven but thought to be reasonable.
Hand washing and social distancing appear to be the most important. That means soap and 6+ feet for at least the next 2 years. That is definitely doable. I don't see masks as a long-term strategy.
> The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces the transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected droplets in both laboratory and clinical contexts. [1]
When the primary vector of spread is through water droplets expelled while talking, coughing, or sneezing, I would think the importance of reducing the travel distance of those droplets would be self evident.
We shouldn't be telling people to overdose on Vitamin D, obviously. I dread the day that Donald Trump mentions "Vitamin D", but then again even a massive overdose of Vitamin D isn't going to be life-threatening.
The generally safe amount is 4000 IU daily, which should get almost everybody to healthy levels. However, if your doctor finds that you have low levels, he may prescribe far higher amounts for a while.
Then do not overdose. Tell people to take 1000IE per day, not more. This will have no negative impact on the health or economy, but if we are lucky, it will help reduce the impact of COVID-19.
Shutting down the economy is clearly dangerous, yet enough people do not seem to have a problem with that.
Vitamin D pills is just a quick fix. Moderate exercise and fresh air would probably save more lives. Healthy vitamin levels are good, but its many little things which affects health.
