4 ms·

I suppose if you're buying it online instead of locally, that's an option. If I were to buy it from a local store, though, it's a lot more expensive than that-

I suppose if you're buying it online instead of locally, that's an option. If I were to buy it from a local store, though, it's a lot more expensive than that--$16 will get you 14-30 doses, even with a cheap brand. And that's assuming you can find the cheap brands in stock, which is often difficult. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that people in financially difficult situations are able to order online. These are often people who can only pay with cash, food stamps, or other methods that Amazon won't accept. If you're shopping on Amazon, you're probably in a position whereby you have a bit more flexibility in your life. I know that in Massachusetts (United States), you can see a PCP, get blood work, and get a Vitamin D prescription for free if you don't have sufficient income or insurance. I have friends and neighbors who don't have jobs right now; that's how they get their healthcare. Of course, they're lucky: from what I hear, it's certainly not like that in most of the US, let alone the rest of the world. Regardless, I don't think it's constructive to insist that self-medicating with Vitamin D should be a priority for people in such a financial position. There are other priorities. If your life is comfortable enough that you can worry about supplements, you probably have enough money to get better insurance or get proper blood tests. Edit: I don't understand the downvotes. There are an awful lot of people for whom buying medications on Amazon just isn't an option. They don't have and can't get credit cards or bank accounts. They don't have a stable place to live or a way to receive packages. "I don't understand why these people can't afford X; I can order it online for just Y cents" is entitled and dismissive: that's not the reality for many people, especially in the US. Meanwhile, a not-insignificant percentage of these people live in places where they can, in fact, see a doctor, get blood tests, and get basic prescriptions for free (money). They often can't take advantage of these benefits--not because of the costs, but because of the time (taking a day off from work? Not an option.), bureaucratic red tape (paperwork, call random people and wait on hold for hours), and lack of awareness (how do you know these services exist, especially if you don't speak English or even know to look for them?).

alwillis 6y ago
I hear you. Gentle reminder: every CVS and Walgreens I've ever gone into has Amazon gift cards someone can buy with cash and use them to pay for stuff on Amazon.
- zenexer 6y ago
  I can only speak for people I know, but I think the logistics of that are right up there with "take advantage of free healthcare that's available at your income level." They have to: 1. Know that the option is available 2. Have a stable home--Amazon doesn't work well if you're homeless or couch-surfing 3. Speak English, assuming you're in the US (this is a big one) 4. Have consistent access to a computer or a cell phone 5. Have consistent access to the internet--not a given when you keep defaulting on your cell phone payments 6. Have the time, energy, and intelligence to figure out how to get an Amazon account working via non-traditional methods--it sounds silly, but this is a real problem if you're juggling just as many jobs as kids. #1, #2, #3 are really difficult for a lot of people. Even in places where people would be eligible for some minimal level of free healthcare, they're still significant hurdles.
  - DoreenMichele 6y ago
    I ordered off Amazon while homeless and sleeping in a tent. Yes, there are people who absolutely cannot readily make their lives work. I still struggle to make ends meet, though it's better than it used to be and I'm at least no longer homeless. But you seem to be pointlessly beating a dead horse here. There may be a good argument for "We should just give away help for the most vulnerable during the pandemic because protecting them protects others." but beyond that I don't know what your point is.
    - zenexer 6y ago
      > but beyond that I don't know what your point is. The ancestor to which I'm responding was suggesting that self-medicating at prescription-level doses was a viable option. It's not: 1. If you can get the tests to show that you actually need prescription-level dosing (rather than OTC dosing), then you can get the prescription far cheaper than the OTC medication anyway. 2. If you can't get the tests, then you shouldn't be taking a higher-than-OTC dose without a damn good reason, and we sure as heck shouldn't be encouraging that here or treating it as a priority--although I think the ancestor was half-joking. This particular branch of the discussion isn't about OTC dosing. If you want to just take normal supplements at normal doses, go right ahead. Don't think you need to allocate money to go higher than that, especially when there isn't really a guarantee that it will even be safe, much less necessary.
travisjungroth 6y ago
I think you’re very in touch with reality of people who are unbanked and have access to free healthcare, and very out of touch with people outside of that group. There are a lot of Americans who could swing $2/month and can order on Amazon (which accepts gift cards you can buy for cash) but wouldn’t be able to upgrade insurance plans (upgrade often meaning “get insurance”).
- zenexer 6y ago
  While that does include a significant percentage of America, I would argue that, for the time being, that $2 is better spent elsewhere. Unfortunately, this part of the argument is fairly subjective. Is $2/mo/person on vitamin D worth it? ...maybe, but do we really know that yet? Would that $2 be better spent on something else that would have more definitive long-term benefits? Ultimately, I don't see the logic in encouraging people to prioritize self-medication with vitamin D. Of all the issues about which we could raise awareness, that seems like one of the most misguided and short-sighted: it's focused on the pandemic of today, not the healthcare of tomorrow. Of course, it's possible to raise awareness about multiple issues, but to me this feels like one of the most out-of-touch with reality. As a concrete, one-step-up example, what about vitamin C? I would assume you're more likely to get scurvy than rickets as a working-class Westerner, though I haven't checked the numbers.
  - travisjungroth 6y ago
    Uh, the pandemic of today is pretty important. I’m not sure I would characterize trying to slow it down as “shortsighted”. And, the point of vitamin D supplementation isn’t to avoid rickets. That’s what the RDA is based on and there’s increasing evidence that while that’s an easy threshold to cross, it’s way too low. People don’t get enough sun and low vitamin D levels seem to have a serious negative impact on health.
    - zenexer 6y ago
      Perhaps, and taking a normal OTC dose of vitamin D might be prudent. My argument here is exclusively with regards to encouraging people to self-medicate at higher-than-OTC doses when they don't even know that they need such a dose in the first place. Encouraging people to pop 10x 5,000 IU pills seems like a recipe for disaster.

alwillis 6y ago

I hear you. Gentle reminder: every CVS and Walgreens I've ever gone into has Amazon gift cards someone can buy with cash and use them to pay for stuff on Amazon.

zenexer 6y ago
I can only speak for people I know, but I think the logistics of that are right up there with "take advantage of free healthcare that's available at your income level." They have to: 1. Know that the option is available 2. Have a stable home--Amazon doesn't work well if you're homeless or couch-surfing 3. Speak English, assuming you're in the US (this is a big one) 4. Have consistent access to a computer or a cell phone 5. Have consistent access to the internet--not a given when you keep defaulting on your cell phone payments 6. Have the time, energy, and intelligence to figure out how to get an Amazon account working via non-traditional methods--it sounds silly, but this is a real problem if you're juggling just as many jobs as kids. #1, #2, #3 are really difficult for a lot of people. Even in places where people would be eligible for some minimal level of free healthcare, they're still significant hurdles.
- DoreenMichele 6y ago
  I ordered off Amazon while homeless and sleeping in a tent. Yes, there are people who absolutely cannot readily make their lives work. I still struggle to make ends meet, though it's better than it used to be and I'm at least no longer homeless. But you seem to be pointlessly beating a dead horse here. There may be a good argument for "We should just give away help for the most vulnerable during the pandemic because protecting them protects others." but beyond that I don't know what your point is.
  - zenexer 6y ago
    > but beyond that I don't know what your point is. The ancestor to which I'm responding was suggesting that self-medicating at prescription-level doses was a viable option. It's not: 1. If you can get the tests to show that you actually need prescription-level dosing (rather than OTC dosing), then you can get the prescription far cheaper than the OTC medication anyway. 2. If you can't get the tests, then you shouldn't be taking a higher-than-OTC dose without a damn good reason, and we sure as heck shouldn't be encouraging that here or treating it as a priority--although I think the ancestor was half-joking. This particular branch of the discussion isn't about OTC dosing. If you want to just take normal supplements at normal doses, go right ahead. Don't think you need to allocate money to go higher than that, especially when there isn't really a guarantee that it will even be safe, much less necessary.

travisjungroth 6y ago

I think you’re very in touch with reality of people who are unbanked and have access to free healthcare, and very out of touch with people outside of that group. There are a lot of Americans who could swing $2/month and can order on Amazon (which accepts gift cards you can buy for cash) but wouldn’t be able to upgrade insurance plans (upgrade often meaning “get insurance”).

zenexer 6y ago
While that does include a significant percentage of America, I would argue that, for the time being, that $2 is better spent elsewhere. Unfortunately, this part of the argument is fairly subjective. Is $2/mo/person on vitamin D worth it? ...maybe, but do we really know that yet? Would that $2 be better spent on something else that would have more definitive long-term benefits? Ultimately, I don't see the logic in encouraging people to prioritize self-medication with vitamin D. Of all the issues about which we could raise awareness, that seems like one of the most misguided and short-sighted: it's focused on the pandemic of today, not the healthcare of tomorrow. Of course, it's possible to raise awareness about multiple issues, but to me this feels like one of the most out-of-touch with reality. As a concrete, one-step-up example, what about vitamin C? I would assume you're more likely to get scurvy than rickets as a working-class Westerner, though I haven't checked the numbers.
- travisjungroth 6y ago
  Uh, the pandemic of today is pretty important. I’m not sure I would characterize trying to slow it down as “shortsighted”. And, the point of vitamin D supplementation isn’t to avoid rickets. That’s what the RDA is based on and there’s increasing evidence that while that’s an easy threshold to cross, it’s way too low. People don’t get enough sun and low vitamin D levels seem to have a serious negative impact on health.
  - zenexer 6y ago
    Perhaps, and taking a normal OTC dose of vitamin D might be prudent. My argument here is exclusively with regards to encouraging people to self-medicate at higher-than-OTC doses when they don't even know that they need such a dose in the first place. Encouraging people to pop 10x 5,000 IU pills seems like a recipe for disaster.