Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Factors associated with Covid-19 deaths in records of 17M adult NHS patients

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 204 posts

Re: Factors associated with Covid-19 deaths in records of 17M adult NHS patients

#91

Post by drak0n1c »

martingoodson wrote: post #46
mindviews wrote: post #26

Here's a link to the paper: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.06.20092999v... This is interesting data. I want to see Vitamin D status included in a large population study like this because I've been following two smaller studies covering about a thousand cases total that shows Vitamin D deficiency has a risk ratio of 10 to 20 (more even than being age 80+ in the above study). The studies: [1] https://p…

In case you weren't aware, controlled trials have shown that vitamin d supplementation protects against respiratory disease [1]. This is evidence that the association you highlight is more than a spurious correlation. It's likely to be causal. [1] https://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.i6583

If it's true that Vitamin D is such a large factor in reducing the lethality of respiratory disease -- perhaps it's better to loosen lockdown rules to ensure the wider population can get more sun before they inevitably catch the virus.

It may explain why heavily indoors NYC had so many lethal cases, even as most infected were already keeping themselves indoors.

Re: Factors associated with Covid-19 deaths in records of 17M adult NHS patients

#92

Post by jansan »

gridlockd wrote: post #81
pbowyer wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford did a rapid review of the literature on Vitamin D: https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/vitamin-d-a-rapid-review-of-th... Unsurprisingly there's no direct clinical evidence.

> Unsurprisingly there's no direct clinical evidence. "We searched for trials and didn't find any" Unsurprisingly, there haven't been any (completed) trials on this particular combination of novel disease and possible prevention/treatment yet. I'm concerned that people conflate "no evidence for efficacy" with "it doesn't work" instead of "we don't know if it works". You always start out with "no evidence". There are…

You would see tons of research going on if there was more money to be made with Vitamin D.

Re: Factors associated with Covid-19 deaths in records of 17M adult NHS patients

#93

Post by leto_ii »

pbowyer wrote: post #79
mindviews wrote: post #26

Here's a link to the paper: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.06.20092999v... This is interesting data. I want to see Vitamin D status included in a large population study like this because I've been following two smaller studies covering about a thousand cases total that shows Vitamin D deficiency has a risk ratio of 10 to 20 (more even than being age 80+ in the above study). The studies: [1] https://p…

The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford did a rapid review of the literature on Vitamin D: https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/vitamin-d-a-rapid-review-of-th... Unsurprisingly there's no direct clinical evidence.

The old adage applies here: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Re: Factors associated with Covid-19 deaths in records of 17M adult NHS patients

#94

Post by xhedley »

xhedley wrote: post #43
TuringNYC wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> is only partially attributable to pre-existing clinical risk factors or deprivation I'd expect more it is attributable to less access to premium healthcare (remember, in the UK everyone gets healthcare, but not everyone gets privately-sponsored add-on healthcare)

UK privately-sponsored healthcare specialises in things that you cannot get free from the National Health Service or things where the wait time is long - for example knee surgery. People don’t use private healthcare for emergencies or intensive care. For example the prime minister was in intensive care in April - in an NHS hospital.

Reading the full paper, the population surveyed was people registered for at least one year with General Practice doctors using SystmOne software. That covers 40% of the English population. It is probably safe to assume that almost everyone in England is registered with a GP. There is variance in the GP use of the specific SystmOne software - the paper mentions on page 13 that only 17% of London GP practices use it.

Re: Factors associated with Covid-19 deaths in records of 17M adult NHS patients

#95

Post by AshamedCaptain »

leto_ii wrote: post #93
pbowyer wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford did a rapid review of the literature on Vitamin D: https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/vitamin-d-a-rapid-review-of-th... Unsurprisingly there's no direct clinical evidence.

The old adage applies here: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

However, it is also the best predictor of "absence" the scientific method has to offer.

Re: Factors associated with Covid-19 deaths in records of 17M adult NHS patients

#96

Post by jansan »

hristov wrote: post #17
MontagFTB wrote: post #10

From the paper: > The overall cumulative incidence of COVID-19 hospital death at 80 days from the study start date was How do those rates compare to the seasonal flu in the UK?

It is not very useful to compare them with flu because people are much more likely to have flu than to have covid. These rates seem very small but remember that the study started in the beginning of february, when there were likely only a handful if any covid carriers in the uk. If you could preselect a group of people that you know had covid and measure their death rate, the numbers are likely to be much higher. Thi…

> It is not very useful to compare them with flu because people are much more likely to have flu than to have covid.

What data is this based on?

Re: Factors associated with Covid-19 deaths in records of 17M adult NHS patients

#98

Post by jansan »

z3t4 wrote: post #89
gridlockd wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Overdosing D can be dangerous as it takes a long time to leave your body.

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.

Re: Factors associated with Covid-19 deaths in records of 17M adult NHS patients

#99

Post by jansan »

drak0n1c wrote: post #91
martingoodson wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case you weren't aware, controlled trials have shown that vitamin d supplementation protects against respiratory disease [1]. This is evidence that the association you highlight is more than a spurious correlation. It's likely to be causal. [1] https://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.i6583

If it's true that Vitamin D is such a large factor in reducing the lethality of respiratory disease -- perhaps it's better to loosen lockdown rules to ensure the wider population can get more sun before they inevitably catch the virus. It may explain why heavily indoors NYC had so many lethal cases, even as most infected were already keeping themselves indoors.

It may also explain why every year Corona Virus related infections appear in November and end in May.[1]

Also, SARS 1 ended at the beginning of June 2002. There is clearly a correlation that needs to be looked into.[2]

[1] https://www.medscape.com/answers/302460-86798/what-are-the-s...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndr...

Re: Factors associated with Covid-19 deaths in records of 17M adult NHS patients

#100

Post by gridlockd »

z3t4 wrote: post #89
gridlockd wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Overdosing D can be dangerous as it takes a long time to leave your body.

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.

Post reply on HN