6 ms·
Every time there's an article like this I say something like "OK, can we please now have governments giving people vitamin D for free now? What's the worst that
by jonplackett 6y ago
Every time there's an article like this I say something like "OK, can we please now have governments giving people vitamin D for free now? What's the worst that can happen?" and every time, someone says it's not worth it, or that people will get a vitamin D overdose. I think people find it really hard to accept that something so basic could actually help and not be some kind of disaster.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- buu700 6y agoThat sounds like a great idea. At the same time, I can't help but imagine all the conspiracy theories that would result from the government sending pills to everyone in the country. One approach could be to have the government just start subsidizing vitamin D to $0 (up to a specific quantity per person per month) at private retailers, or offer a rebate or tax credit for any verifiable purchases of vitamin D. Edit: To help address toxicity concerns, anything like this should also cover vitamin K.
- em500 6y agoI don't know about the US, but here in the Netherlands a bottle of 300 x 10mcg pills costs €2.50. I doubt the current costs are holding back usage.
- llarsson 6y agoJust wait until stores figure out that people are going to be willing to pay many times that if vitamin D becomes a recommended supplement against covid-19. The cost increase of alcohol-based hand sanitizer is just inane, especially now when it seems that production had caught up.
- jonplackett 6y agoIt’s not just about the cost (though for people most likely to get covid cost could still be important) it’s about educating people and getting the message out. If the government say this is going to be free because it’s so useful, people will notice and do it. Even if they ultimately just buy their own because it’s more convenient.
- CyberRabbi 6y agoI’m not a biologist or nutritionist but is there any reason to believe that the body is capable of absorbing Vitamin D supplements at the necessary efficiency levels to make a significant impact? Compared to, say, sunshine? My questioned is motivated by the common knowledge that vitamins tend To be flushed through out of the body during urination.
- rriepe 6y agoIt's one of the ones that's stored through fat, so you get a nice stream of it while you are sick and losing weight. The question of dose is a big one, but I personally don't go over 1500 IU of supplements a day (try the 1000 IU gummies IMO). I also only take it from November to February. The recommended daily dose is way less, and you can easily sit down and pop 20,000 IU of the stuff. Be careful! It is technically a hormone.
- robbiemitchell 6y agoWhat do you make of the whispers that the recommended daily dose is way under? I've seen it pop in recent comments so I found a couple of the papers: [1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150317122458.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150317122458.h... [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28768407/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28768407/ (two years later)
- gridlockd 6y agoThere can't be a recommended daily dose for everyone, every body is different. I quote: "... in a correct analysis of the data used by the Institute of Medicine, it was found that 8895 IU/d was needed for 97.5% of individuals to achieve values ≥50 nmol/L." That just means there are some people who need a very high dose. For comparison, 4000IU/d gets me well over 50nmol/L, this is also the "generally considered safe" upper limit. There was a case reported on HN where 5000IU/daily caused issues with calcium levels. You gotta get your bloodwork done.
- 6y ago
- rriepe 6y agoIt did already help against Rickets in exactly this way. It's why it's in milk.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- EamonnMR 6y agoI don't think the thing stopping people from taking vitamins is that they aren't being handed out for free. If you think the mask 'debate' is anti-intellectial, try talking to people about nutrition.
- jonplackett 6y agoIn the UK, the government give children free vitamin drops and no-one complains about that.
- Silhouette 6y agoOfficial government advice to pregnant women and new parents in the UK is not a great example of effective communication. As someone in the UK and of an age where my close circle includes several young children and a few more current pregnancies, I wouldn't be surprised if many parents had never even heard of that scheme or who qualifies for it, nor the accompanying advice on vitamins for young children for that matter. As I understand it, right now you don't even get a lot of the usual face-to-face check-ups during pregnancy or early life where such things might be discussed. So as you mentioned in another comment, the first problem here is getting useful information to those who would benefit from it to begin with.
- jonplackett 6y agoWe just got given it whenever we took our daughter to get weighed and checked over during the first year of her life. You only need a few drops so the couple of bottles we got given lasted ages. Maybe that’s specific to London? Was that not your experience?
- Silhouette 6y agoI've asked around a little this morning, and so far 0% of the parents of young children I know were aware of this. :-( Plenty of them had been going to those weigh-in sessions before they stopped because of the virus, so apparently it isn't a universal thing. Several were not aware of the advice about vitamin supplements either, so this discussion has had at least one benefit because now everyone is looking that up!
- wannabag 6y agoIn Sweden, by law, some milk and milk derived products have to be enriched with vitamin D[1]. This targets products that are common in the diet of Swedes. Additionally, vitamin D in oil is literally handed over to parents for children up to 2 years. It is recommended to continue with supplements beyond that.[2] The recommendations are based on age groups, diet habits (including the above mentioned milk products) and sun exposure. It's worth mentioning that this is the case since before COVID was even a thing. Vitamin D deficiency is recognized as a general health issue for its known relation to various sickness. [1] in Swedish: https://www.livsmedelsforetagen.se/nya-obligatoriska-regler-om-berikning-med-d-vitamin/ https://www.livsmedelsforetagen.se/nya-obligatoriska-regler-... [2] also in Swedish: https://www.livsmedelsverket.se/livsmedel-och-innehall/naringsamne/vitaminer-och-antioxidanter/d-vitamin?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 https://www.livsmedelsverket.se/livsmedel-och-innehall/narin...
- mansion7 6y agoDidn't Sweden also ban fluoridation of their water supply? It was argued that it is forced medication that infringes upon personal liberty.
- nradov 6y agoI find it bizarre and horrifying that most governments continue to focus exclusively on wearing masks and social distancing for pandemic control. Those measures may help in temporarily slowing down viral transmission but won't eradicate the virus. Many of us are still going to be exposed before a safe vaccine is widely available, and even then any vaccine won't be 100% effective. There should be more focus on preventing and treating co-morbid conditions that increase COVID-19 risk, particularly vitamin D deficiency and obesity.
- jonplackett 6y agoI agree there should be more focus on that, but not at the expense of masks and social distancing. We just need to do all these things.
- nradov 6y agoMasks and social distancing are temporary measures only and obviously not sustainable indefinitely. SARS-CoV-2 is going to be a risk essentially forever, just like the 4 other endemic human coronaviruses. If we really want to save lives over the long term then the primary focus should be on improving the infection fatality rate.
- IgorPartola 6y agoWhy not both though? Before we find treatments and cures, masks save lives and this is a fact. And it’s the only thing we know works for sure so far. Otherwise this is like a gunshot victim with diabetes coming into the ER and the doctors focus on the diabetes.
- nradov 6y agoWe have treatments. The survival rate is high for all but the frailest patients. We can push the survival rate even higher by reducing obesity and eliminating vitamin D deficiency. Cures are unlikely any time soon. We only have effective cures for a tiny number of viral diseases. Waiting for a cure is unreasonable.
- ajuc 6y agoPrice isn't the problem with vitamin D. It's very cheap.
- jonplackett 6y agoMy logic: Q: How many people take vitamin d supplements now? A: Not many Q: How many would take it if it was given to them free? A: A lot Q: how much does it cost to give someone life saving ICU support? A: a lot Q: how much does it cost to give people some vitamin d? A: not much
- rhexs 6y agoI doubt having the world’s largest bureaucracy create a plan to source and ship Vitamin D to every American would cost “not much”. On the contrary, each American would most likely be taking the most expensive Vitamin D ever sourced. Yes, theoretically, without fraud, waste, and abuse, it would be cost efficient. But that isn’t even remotely a possibility.
- jonplackett 6y agoWhen you put it like that I see your point. I was thinking of my own country, the UK. I think places without the insanity of US medical insurance prices may be able to do this sensibly. As other have pointed out some counties are doing this already for kids.
- ajuc 6y agoMy logic: Q: how many people take vitamin D? A: not many Q: how many would take it if they knew they need it? A: a lot Q: what can we do about it? A: spend X on "marketing" so they know they should take it, or spend 1000*x on giving people stuff they can buy themselves
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- hrez 6y agoIn US it's already in practically every milk and in many cereals. Shipping it to everybody would be a giant waste. It'd likely end up in trash. It's already fairly cheap so subsidizing it won't help much with the demand.
- ComputerGuru 6y agoClearly that isn’t enough for $reasons because vitamin d deficiency is endemic in a lot of the population groups in the USA.
- podgaj 6y agoWe are not living through a pandemic, we are living through a syndemic. IMHO, the variability of outcomes is largely nutritional and a bit genetic. But fixing these would mean admitting there are deeper problems in our society. So vaccines it is!
- spfzero 6y agoIt’s pretty inexpensive already, free actually, from sunshine.
- bleepblorp 6y agoSadly, I think a lot of the reason for this is that a lot of people, in much of the English-speaking world, haven't heard of a successful government program in their lifetimes. Much of this is media bias (Murdoch-style media will only report on sensationalist failures) but the past decades of withering of state capacity and the growth of elite self-dealing means that successful government interventions are increasingly rare. The idea that government can actually help people seems to be a dead letter in the United States (less so in other English-speaking countries) and this is killing people now we are faced with a pandemic that can only be mitigated through collective (governmental) action.
- ljosifov 6y agoIn England/UK, there is a permanent recommendation to supplement Vitamin D b/c of endemic deficiency, given out by the public health bodies: Public Health England (PHE) (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/phe-publishes-new-advice-on-vitamin-d https://www.gov.uk/government/news/phe-publishes-new-advice-...) and NICE (https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ph56 https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ph56). It is not strictly Covid-19 related, it predates it. It is just not publicized enough, and not acted on sufficiently. Imho you are right. Given the balance of risks/costs of intervention (Vitamin D safe, cheap, prior knowledge population deficient & helps respiratory illness) versus not (pandemic) it is a no-brainer: to increase the uptake (via better publicity and more). As to "why is it not done", I think: the default is "no intervention", and it has not found its champion to push for intervention. As simple as that.