4 ms·
> there is a lot of observational evidence that people with low vitamin D have the worst C19 outcomes. Obviously, correlation by itself doesn't mean causation.
by JshWright 6y ago
> there is a lot of observational evidence that people with low vitamin D have the worst C19 outcomes. Obviously, correlation by itself doesn't mean causation. But it is a hint.
It's a pretty useless one in this case. Old people are much more likely to have vitamin D deficiency. They are also more likely to die of COVID. The low vitamin D is a marker of frailty, not a cause.
- elliekelly 6y agoHow can you say that with such certainty?
- harry8 6y agoRandomized trial. This was not simply observational. There will be no correlation between being given higher dose vitamin D and age in this trial, the results appear at first blush to be showing Vitamin D is working independant of age. By the by this /exactly/ why a randomised trial has been the gold standard for medical treatment for so long. False correlations, confounding factors etc are all vastly less likely to skew the results. 2 groups chosen at random, nobody in the groups or treating them knows which is which. 1 group given treatment, 1 given a placebo. How much difference do we see in the 2 groups as a result of treatment. It's a good question. It's always worth asking. It's always worth checking. The rabbit hole of stat analysis of treatments goes pretty deep from there. Ethical issues come in. Expense. But we all need to make the effort to understand it on some level or we're marks for snake-oil.
- ImaCake 6y agoYep, in broad strokes, randomisation removes any bias or confounding effects such as age, gender, behaviour, genetic disposition etc. The price you pay is in precision; randomisation and the best practice analysis (intention to treat) tend to produce weaker signals of effectiveness compared to the control treatment. But that price is worth paying because randomisation is really the only way to be sure that you are seeing a real effect caused by your treatment.
- harry8 6y agoRandomised trial for parachutes? So yeah slightly more complex than "The only way..."
- ravenstine 6y agoWouldn't it be fairly easy to separate the elderly who aren't vitamin D deficient from the ones who are? Sounds like a basic measure that could be taken.
- mixmastamyk 6y agoAll are because the skin loses its ability to generate it in old age. Supplements are the only way.
- imtringued 6y agoIf the body can absorb vitamin D from supplements then it can absorb it from food as well so your statement is wrong. You can eat 2-3 eggs and you're done.
- Broken_Hippo 6y agoI don't think eggs have that much vitamin D, though. I googled: It said 2 eggs have 87iu. To put this in perspective: I take 800iu as a maintenance dose to keep my vitamin D levels up. (I'm doing this under a doctor's supervision: I've been sick with low levels and she does blood tests occasionally to be sure). 2 eggs is simply not enough.
- 0-_-0 6y agoAccording to the study being discussed you're clearly wrong.