4 ms·

Or maybe a 5th option: "People who are staying socially isolated spend less time in the sun, so the population has become more vitamin D deficient". I know tha

Or maybe a 5th option: "People who are staying socially isolated spend less time in the sun, so the population has become more vitamin D deficient". I know that I'm spending less time outdoors than I used to -- no more outdoor picnics/parties, no beach time this summer, I'm not even biking as much as I used to.

tgdual 6y ago
Or a 6th option: Over 80% of people have Vitamin D deficiency, and the incoming Covid-19 patient population was not different in this regard.
- Johnny555 6y ago
  I don't know of any post-COVID studies, but most studies pre-COVID show around 40% of the population being deficient both in the USA and Europe.
  - cbanek 6y ago
    This, and as someone who recently found out that they have a severe vitamin D deficiency, I was surprised to know that it's not something normally checked for in yearly blood tests.
    - lucas_membrane 6y ago
      Check the videos on Dr John Campbell's (PhD nurse educator in the UK) web site. The UK national health service has good medical records that can be cross-referenced and cross-linked every which way. Someone examined the historical records, found a reasonably large number of persons who had vitamin D levels checked before the pandemic, and checked those statistics vs the Covid-19 experience of the same people. (Imagine living in a country where that could happen.) IIRC, this did find some benefits wrt COVID-19 of not having a very low vitamin D level.
- drited 6y ago
  This isn't really a 7th option because it overlaps with some of the previously mentioned ones, but perhaps individuals who don't supplement with vitamin D are more likely to catch Covid-19 because they also don't take other precautions like wearing masks. Anecdotally it seems those I know who are most concerned about Covid-19 know all about the possible link with vitamin D and are taking supplements while also being careful by wearing masks, sanitising etc.
  - J-dawg 6y ago
    Recently I keep seeing references to protecting oneself by wearing a mask. When did the narrative shift from "wear a mask to limit transmission to others in case you might be infected and asymptomatic" to "wear a mask to protect yourself"? Assuming we are talking about the usual surgical / cloth masks here (not N95 etc), is there any evidence that they protect the wearer? We all know that mask wearing and the science (or lack of it) to support it has become ridiculously politicised, but I'm curious if there's any evidence behind this particular shift.
    - wasmitnetzen 6y ago
      There is some weak evidence that wearing a cloth mask might protect yourself: https://www.businessinsider.com/56-got-coronavirus-south-korea-starbucks-mask-wearers-did-not-2020-8?op=1&r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/56-got-coronavirus-south-kor... https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/06/21/880832213/yes-wearing-masks-helps-heres-why?t=1603879635977 https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/06/21/8808322...
    - bipson 6y ago
      There were results from studies showing weak effects of self-protection even by "simple" surgical masks a few months ago. Evidence seems to indicate there is such an effect - and contradicting the initial assumption that there isn't.
- PeterStuer 6y ago
  That would be incorrect. Even though the causal vector is unknown, the correlation is well established.
jader201 6y ago
But that actually contradicts logic a bit. I would expect those that are leaving their homes are both more exposed to sun/less deficient in vitamin D and also more likely to contract COVID. And likewise, those that are staying home are more deficient, but less likely to contract COVID.
- craftinator 6y ago
  Unless social distancing in practice is not uniformly effective, and a large number of people both stay indoors to social distance, and are still quite likely to catch COVID because they are indoors with people who don't socially distance. Plus being indoors means a confined space with less airflow, less air volume, and almost no upper range UV sunlight compared to being outdoors; these all are significant factors for likelihood of covid spreading.
  - bipson 6y ago
    Uhm, that seems a tad convoluted. Are you saying people that socially distance themselves are more likely to contract Covid-19 because the ones that don't are so often outside that they will contract it less probably? And further, that's not the definition of social distancing. This would obviously include indoors. I won't sit at my kitchen table with the postman for a coffee while I am avoiding public gatherings. I am sorry, my sarcasm-radar is quite broken. Are you joking?
bipson 6y ago
How would this produce the study result? Are people that isolate more likely to get hospitalized with Covid-19 than those that do not?

tgdual 6y ago

Or a 6th option: Over 80% of people have Vitamin D deficiency, and the incoming Covid-19 patient population was not different in this regard.

Johnny555 6y ago
I don't know of any post-COVID studies, but most studies pre-COVID show around 40% of the population being deficient both in the USA and Europe.
- cbanek 6y ago
  This, and as someone who recently found out that they have a severe vitamin D deficiency, I was surprised to know that it's not something normally checked for in yearly blood tests.
  - lucas_membrane 6y ago
    Check the videos on Dr John Campbell's (PhD nurse educator in the UK) web site. The UK national health service has good medical records that can be cross-referenced and cross-linked every which way. Someone examined the historical records, found a reasonably large number of persons who had vitamin D levels checked before the pandemic, and checked those statistics vs the Covid-19 experience of the same people. (Imagine living in a country where that could happen.) IIRC, this did find some benefits wrt COVID-19 of not having a very low vitamin D level.
drited 6y ago
This isn't really a 7th option because it overlaps with some of the previously mentioned ones, but perhaps individuals who don't supplement with vitamin D are more likely to catch Covid-19 because they also don't take other precautions like wearing masks. Anecdotally it seems those I know who are most concerned about Covid-19 know all about the possible link with vitamin D and are taking supplements while also being careful by wearing masks, sanitising etc.
- J-dawg 6y ago
  Recently I keep seeing references to protecting oneself by wearing a mask. When did the narrative shift from "wear a mask to limit transmission to others in case you might be infected and asymptomatic" to "wear a mask to protect yourself"? Assuming we are talking about the usual surgical / cloth masks here (not N95 etc), is there any evidence that they protect the wearer? We all know that mask wearing and the science (or lack of it) to support it has become ridiculously politicised, but I'm curious if there's any evidence behind this particular shift.
  - wasmitnetzen 6y ago
    There is some weak evidence that wearing a cloth mask might protect yourself: https://www.businessinsider.com/56-got-coronavirus-south-korea-starbucks-mask-wearers-did-not-2020-8?op=1&r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/56-got-coronavirus-south-kor... https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/06/21/880832213/yes-wearing-masks-helps-heres-why?t=1603879635977 https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/06/21/8808322...
  - bipson 6y ago
    There were results from studies showing weak effects of self-protection even by "simple" surgical masks a few months ago. Evidence seems to indicate there is such an effect - and contradicting the initial assumption that there isn't.
PeterStuer 6y ago
That would be incorrect. Even though the causal vector is unknown, the correlation is well established.

jader201 6y ago

But that actually contradicts logic a bit. I would expect those that are leaving their homes are both more exposed to sun/less deficient in vitamin D and also more likely to contract COVID. And likewise, those that are staying home are more deficient, but less likely to contract COVID.

craftinator 6y ago
Unless social distancing in practice is not uniformly effective, and a large number of people both stay indoors to social distance, and are still quite likely to catch COVID because they are indoors with people who don't socially distance. Plus being indoors means a confined space with less airflow, less air volume, and almost no upper range UV sunlight compared to being outdoors; these all are significant factors for likelihood of covid spreading.
- bipson 6y ago
  Uhm, that seems a tad convoluted. Are you saying people that socially distance themselves are more likely to contract Covid-19 because the ones that don't are so often outside that they will contract it less probably? And further, that's not the definition of social distancing. This would obviously include indoors. I won't sit at my kitchen table with the postman for a coffee while I am avoiding public gatherings. I am sorry, my sarcasm-radar is quite broken. Are you joking?

bipson 6y ago

How would this produce the study result? Are people that isolate more likely to get hospitalized with Covid-19 than those that do not?