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

The First Randomized Controlled Trial on Vitamin D and Covid-19

sciencedirect.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 401 posts

Re: The First Randomized Controlled Trial on Vitamin D and Covid-19

#21

Post by malloreon »

extremeMath wrote: post #17
nautilus12 wrote: post #4

"Don't go outside, you'll get COVID", sounds more and more like horrible advice. Before knowing the virus died in sunlight, I still couldn't fathom why people were avoiding going out to parks and stuff. It was totally non sequitor.

I got one that is still in effect in Michigan- "Gyms are closed" (but bars and casinos are open) A virus that kills old and _obese_ people, and you are shutting down the gym? If anything I hope Coronavirus shifts politicians from business leaders to scientists.

I think the issue is healthy people who go to the gym and become asymptomatic carriers and bring it home to their less healthy cohabitants.

Re: The First Randomized Controlled Trial on Vitamin D and Covid-19

#22

Post by autokad »

when i was doing the covid19 kaggle competitions in march and april, someone asked me what I learned.

I was like I dont know, the data is messy but the sun seems to have something to do with reducing fatalities. (I used weather data as additional covariates)

Re: The First Randomized Controlled Trial on Vitamin D and Covid-19

#23

Post by jogundas »

LinuxBender wrote: post #16
nicholasjarnold wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Azithromycin is a common antibiotic, not an anti-viral drug. This is an important distinction. Also hydroxychloroquine is an anti-malarial drug, which is also not an anti-viral.

Hydroxychloroquine is a zinc ionophore which helps zinc get into the cells in your lungs and slows the viral replication. It was not designed to be used this way, it just happens to work. This is mostly useful before your viral load is high. Same goes for Quercetin, also a zinc ionophore. They are good proactive measures to slow down the viral transcription before you reach a critical stage. It won't help everyone, e…

Wiki says that "Hydroxychloroquine is being studied to prevent and treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‑19), but all clinical trials conducted during 2020 found it is ineffective and may cause dangerous side effects."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxychloroquine

Re: The First Randomized Controlled Trial on Vitamin D and Covid-19

#24

Post by zamfi »

maxander wrote: post #3

From the results: “Of 50 patients treated with calcifediol, one required admission to the ICU (2%), while of 26 untreated patients, 13 required admission (50%) p value X2 Fischer test p Which sounds like as strong a signal as a study of this scale could hope to show.

Yes, this is strong. Worth noting the limitations though:

> Randomization generated groups with comparable percentage of unfavorable risk factors as there was no significant difference in subjects with at least one risk factor, except for high blood pressure and diabetes mellitus, known risk factors for unfavorable disease progression [2], which were more frequent in patients not treated with calcifediol.

These are HUGE risk factors. Also:

> This pilot study has several limitations as it is not double-blind placebo controlled. On the other hand, in the first studies evaluating risk factors for severe disease and/or death from COVID-19, the possible role of obesity was not considered. Therefore, given the isolation characteristics of the patients, we did not collect the BMI, which would have allowed us to add obesity as a risk factor for severe evolution of COVID-19 [37] It is striking to consider that obesity shares with aging and black or asian ethnicity a surprising overlap as risk factors for severe COVID-19 and vitamin D deficiency.

Yeah, BMI would've been nice too.

Still, check out table 2. Even with these limitations, seems powerful.

Re: The First Randomized Controlled Trial on Vitamin D and Covid-19

#26

Post by woeirua »

Looks promising, but I would want to see a true double blinded RCT on a few thousand people before we say that Vitamin D is an effective treatment.

Also, there's going to be a confounding question based on this study: is it just Vitamin D, or is it Vitamin D in combination with HCQ / Azithromyacin?

That said, it probably wouldn't hurt you to supplement with Vitamin D this winter, even if it doesn't treat Covid.

Re: The First Randomized Controlled Trial on Vitamin D and Covid-19

#27

Post by mortehu »

schoolornot wrote: post #13
mortehu wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All patients received hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, i.e. the control group also, meaning the difference in outcome between the intervention and control groups is not due to these drugs.

The American media would have you believe that hydroxychloroquine and Z-packs are completely ineffective. Are we still in the "we don't know" stage? Is there any conclusive data to show that it helps/hurts/or does nothing in the beginning/middle/end stages of infection?

This experiment compares vitamin D to no vitamin D, and doesn't say anything about those drugs statistically.

Re: The First Randomized Controlled Trial on Vitamin D and Covid-19

#28

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

vorpalhex wrote: post #8
AlanSE wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the parks have people in them not wearing masks?

You don't need masks if you are maintaining distance of 6 feet. Masks are for situations where distance can not be maintained such as trains and stores.

Evidence suggests that aerosols can remain in the air for minutes after being placed there by another non-masked individual.

You could pass through the aerosol and inhale.

Masks make sense outside too, at least in some circumstances.

Re: The First Randomized Controlled Trial on Vitamin D and Covid-19

#29

Post by cellularmitosis »

vorpalhex wrote: post #8
AlanSE wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the parks have people in them not wearing masks?

You don't need masks if you are maintaining distance of 6 feet. Masks are for situations where distance can not be maintained such as trains and stores.

6 feet helps. Wearing masks helps. These things do not drop your chances to zero. 6 feet is not a universally applicable number. If you are standing directly down-wind of someone at a park, 6 feet isn’t going to help you. Droplets don’t magically disintegrate at 6 feet. Similarly, if you are up-wind, even 4 feet would be very effective.

All of the guidelines are about statistical safety, not about the physics of your particular situation. As always, use your noggin. Stay safe.

Post reply on HN