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

181–190 of 401 posts

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

#181

Post by altvali »

zamfi wrote: post #24
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 H…

Is BMI a good indicator of obesity, though?

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

#182

Post by lamp_book »

amelius wrote: post #121
dcolkitt wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general, the segment of the population that avoids sun exposure has twice as high an all-cause mortality rate as the segment that actively seeks sun exposure.[1] To put that in context that's on par with the health difference found between smokers and non-smokers. [1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/joim.12251

Maybe also because staying inside makes it easier for the virus to spread.

That study is from 2014.

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

#183

Post by azinman2 »

Ensorceled wrote: post #133
azinman2 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the absence of anything is the default, so the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. I had read that somewhere in studying transmissions in NYC where elevators are common. I don’t remember where, it was a while ago.

There is a lot of evidence that close quarters, inside contact is very risky for transmission; every country in the world is operating under that assumption, indeed most are passing laws based on this. There is zero reason to believe that elevators ... both close quarters and inside would some how be an exception. You've claimed that elevators are an exception to the established guidelines without evidence and are no…

Because it’s not just distance but time, often being suggested to be 15 minutes: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/public-health-...

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

#184

Post by extremeMath »

thehappypm wrote: post #151
extremeMath wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm more concerned about the 30% of Americans that are obese than the 0.1% top athletes, who in rare circumstances are badly affected. Open the gyms to save lives.

You're fantasizing if you think re-opening gyms is going to do jack shit about the obesity rate.

Our gym group broke up due to covid and all 3 of us gained 20 lbs each.

Ancedote sure, inevitable maybe. But this wasn't some January new years resolution, this was April.

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

#185

Post by IAmNotBatman_ »

Yeah we wear too much sunscreen, a significant number of people are vitamin D deficient. From the UltraMind Solution book, you need the active form cholecalciferol in your supplements. You can safely take 5000-10000 IU a day for 3 months to get up to the optimal levels, then 2000 IU a day for maintenance. The Ideal range is 50 to 80 ng/ml in your blood tests. Also just minimal outdoor sun exposure is the best way to get it, no sunscreen. 15 minutes if you're light skinned, 35 if you're really dark.

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

#186

Post by [deleted] »

acqq wrote: post #57
zamfi wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 H…

The group receiving Calcifediol had more "no bad risk" patients: "At least one prognostic bad risk factor(@) Group receiving Calcifediol: 48% Group without Calcifediol: 61.54%" "@) Patients with at least one of the following risk factors (age >60, previous lung disease, chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, cardiovascular disease or Immunosuppressed and transplanted patients)." That's what can be c…

[deleted]

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

#187

Post by Alex3917 »

zamfi wrote: post #24
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 H…

> These are HUGE risk factors.

Given that Vitamin D deficiency can cause high blood pressure, their decision not to correct for this might be the better option.

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

#188

Post by mlyle »

acqq wrote: post #57
zamfi wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 H…

The group receiving Calcifediol had more "no bad risk" patients: "At least one prognostic bad risk factor(@) Group receiving Calcifediol: 48% Group without Calcifediol: 61.54%" "@) Patients with at least one of the following risk factors (age >60, previous lung disease, chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, cardiovascular disease or Immunosuppressed and transplanted patients)." That's what can be c…

Randomization doesn't ensure perfectly balanced groups-- it just ensures that the imbalances of variables you don't measure (including things that change after randomization not related to your intervention, with blinding) are drawn from a distribution that you can apply rigorous statistical reasoning about.

Yes, we can see some things are a little unbalanced. But the effect is so massive: we might see 4/5 of the control's rate of ICU admissions if the "one prognostic bad risk factor" determined outcome entirely; instead, we see 1/50 of the rate.

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

#189

Post by beebmam »

IAmNotBatman_ wrote: post #185

Yeah we wear too much sunscreen, a significant number of people are vitamin D deficient. From the UltraMind Solution book, you need the active form cholecalciferol in your supplements. You can safely take 5000-10000 IU a day for 3 months to get up to the optimal levels, then 2000 IU a day for maintenance. The Ideal range is 50 to 80 ng/ml in your blood tests. Also just minimal outdoor sun exposure is the best way to…

Please note that latitude, season, and cloud cover makes a big difference in the amount of time you need outdoors without sunscreen

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

#190

Post by kardos »

IAmNotBatman_ wrote: post #185

Yeah we wear too much sunscreen, a significant number of people are vitamin D deficient. From the UltraMind Solution book, you need the active form cholecalciferol in your supplements. You can safely take 5000-10000 IU a day for 3 months to get up to the optimal levels, then 2000 IU a day for maintenance. The Ideal range is 50 to 80 ng/ml in your blood tests. Also just minimal outdoor sun exposure is the best way to…

> Also just minimal outdoor sun exposure is the best way to get it, no sunscreen. 15 minutes if you're light skinned, 35 if you're really dark.

These prescriptions seem to always lack the amount of exposed skin. Is exposed hands enough or should one be naked?

Post reply on HN