Interesting thing... Vitamin D is one of those things that, when vitamins come up on HN, you will often hear the refrain that "it's the one vitamin that large numbers of people are actually deficient in and ought to supplement."
I've heard that many times over the years and I have taken a Vitamin D supplement on and off (more off than on) over the years.
When this COVID-19 thing first hit, I had a physical scheduled (by chance) just about the same time, and I'd heard about this Vitamin D / COVID-19 connection, so when I went in for my physical, I asked my doctor to order a Vitamin D test as part of my bloodwork.
As it turns out, I was indeed very deficient in Vitamin D. I started taking 4000 IU a day and it's had a noticeable impact on my overall sense of wellbeing. It could, of course, be placebo effect even so. And I have no particular reason to think that it will make any difference one way or the other in terms of me getting COVID-19. But I thought it was worth pointing out one more anecdote that suggests that the old "Vitamin D is worth supplementing" refrain might just be true.
If you're in doubt, and it's an option, do what I did... just ask your doctor to run a Vitamin D test next time you go in for a checkup / physical.
A psychiatrist I saw multiple years ago told me to start taking Vitamin D. I went more or less blindly with 5,000 IU after reading some internet articles.
I got my blood checked last year and decided I should probably actually know if I'm doing too much or too little. I was within 5% of the middle of the healthy range for vitamin D levels. For reference, 5,000 IU is >800% the FDA daily recommended value. People with indoor jobs and hobbies are probably not getting enough.
> For reference, 5,000 IU is >800% the FDA daily recommended value.
Unfortunately the daily recommended value was established erroneously and should be much higher. Many research papers mention this. For example:
> The Institute of Medicine recommendation for adults younger than 70 years of age is 600 IU of vitamin D daily. We are told that this would achieve a level of 50 nmol/L in greater than 97.5% of individuals.6 Regrettably, a statistical error has resulted in erroneous recommendations by the Institute of Medicine leading to this conclusion and it might actually take 8800 IU of vitamin D to achieve this level in 97.5% of the population.7 This is a serious public health blunder.
To be fair: It isn't just folks with indoor jobs and hobbies.
I've discussed this with my doctor after being severely low on vitamin D. It caused physical pain. I'm far enough north that it is impossible to get the sunlight needed during the winter. I still have days, but they are short without strong sun - not to mention that it is too cold to go without a jacket. So, supplements at least during the winter.
During the summer, I have the option of getting at least 15 minutes of sunlight a day (May through August). Being outside isn't enough: I need to make sure that more than just my face is exposed.
But then, on top of it all, I wound up taking a medicine that not only makes me sensitive to sun, but a bit more prone to a milder form of skin cancer. Sunscreen doesn't help with vitamin D production.
The end result is that I wind up taking vitamin D all year and simply get my levels checked from time to time. Luckily, the over-the-counter stuff does the trick (there isn't the variety in vitamins here as there is in the US).
> People with indoor jobs and hobbies are probably not getting enough.
I argue that if you go outside and wear the appropriate sun protection—long pants,long sleeves, neck covered, broad rim hat, and wear sunscreen on the exposed parts—you can't get enough sun exposure to produce enough Vitamin D.
Okay now I'm wondering if I should go get tested for vitamin d deficiency. I live in Colorado and therefore we have a lot of ultraviolet light and I do get outside as much as possible. However I'm wondering if that's still not enough.
Seems reasonable that it's not based on your experience.
Well yes, Vitamin D is pretty hard to come around in the northern hemisphere so no surprise there. Mind you, it's far not the only thing - magnesium, zinc, selenium are just a few which most people are missing. I mean unless your diet consists entirely of tuna and salmon probably. Over the last few years, I've stressed significantly on my physical health(after being very overweight for the most of my adult life and now happy to say this is not the case anymore at all). And while Vitamin D has been one of the things I've become very strict about, my supplements menu has significantly expanded. And there are plenty of products which come bundled with your daily intake of vitamins and minerals. And one in particular has become a part of my breakfast at this point. I haven't had as much as a sneeze in the last two years, haven't felt even mild fatigue or exhaustion, even after the toughest of days. But as you said, it's best to consult a doctor first, especially if you have bad medical history. If you are healthy and fit though then there are plenty of good options to go with.
Interestingly enough, a few years ago some scientists hypothesized the lack of selenium in certain parts of China may have contributed to the spread of the SARS 2003 epidemic, since viruses that infect organisms deficient in selenium mutate at much faster rate (although some scientists dispute that).
I also had a vitamin D deficiency that was found after a particularly bad string of colds, my Dr told me to take a supplement(5000ius daily) of vitamin D and have not seen anything like it since. Apparently windows cars/office block sunlight's ability to create vitamin D in a person so a car ride or sitting near an office window does not provide any help. And if you are in a office job you are def. not getting enough vitamin D.
> if you are in a office job you are def. not getting enough vitamin D.
I think this really depends on location and lifestyle. Anyone in a Mediterranean or sunnier climate that spends more than 30mn a day outside will be fine
Does anyone know of a rule of thumb for how much time spent in direct sunlight is equivalent to a Vitamin D supplement? Is an hour per day (on average) sufficient?
It depends on your skin color [0]. For people with light skin, 13 minutes of direct midday sunlight three times a week may be enough. But for people with dark skin, you may need 30 minutes to 3 hours of direct sunlight (the article doesn't make it clear whether that is three times a week or once a day) to get enough vitamin D.
the sun must be above 50' above horizon for UVB to penetrate the atmosphere to reach the skin. When your skin is exposed to sunlight, it makes vitamin D from cholesterol
I read Michael Holick's book (can't find it at the moment) he was the guy who discovered the circulating form of vitamin D.. IIRC you get vitamin D from the sun in rather large quantities. Just 15 minutes per day with only your face and hands exposed with the sun up at 45 degrees or more will be enough. I'm sure my data is not accurate, but it's in the ballpark. He has tables that depend on how dark your skin is and what latitude you live at.
My doctor's advice: 15-30 minutes of sun per day, with more than just your face exposed. So yes, an hour a day might be sufficient. You don't need to sunbathe, luckily, and cloudy days count too.
For me, this only counts from May to August: I'm pretty far north, and there isn't proper sun strength much of the year.
"During active COVID-19 infection symptoms (fever, cough), please AVOID these common supplements: Echinacea, Elderberry, Polysaccharide extracts from Medicinal Mushrooms and Vitamin D as these MAY theoretically exacerbate the cytokine inflammatory storm. It's OK to take them preventively (if you are already doing so) but please stop at the first sign of COVID-19 symptoms."
Hence I've been avoiding adding Vitamin D to my daily ritual; anyone have any supporting data?
> "During active COVID-19 infection symptoms [...], please AVOID[...]"
> Hence I've been avoiding adding Vitamin D
Do you have active symptoms?
The concern is about a studied connection between Vitamin D supplementation and an increase in concentration of the IL-1b inflammation marker (see, e.g., [1]), which has been implicated in cytokine storms. The other supplements mentioned have similar effects.
This correlation suggests that you might not want to be taking Vitamin D if you're as risk of a cytokine storm hurting you.
That said, however, vitamin D is also associated with strong anti-inflammatory properties of other markers, so really -- it's super hard to predict what will happen. As far as I know, no one has observed a connection between Vitamin D and cytokine storms directly, so the whole thing is kind of hypothetical.
I don't know if I had COVID-19 since I couldn't get a test. I had dry cough for 4 weeks since early May. It didn't go away.
I increased Vitamine D supply by taking a supplement and eating more fish (salmon, herring). The cough became better but became much better only when I also added Echinacea.
I was also tested for Vitamin D deficiency and my doctor prescribed 50,000 ICU a week, followed by a much smaller amount per day afterwards. I noticed an improvement in my well-being as well (could have been psychological). My armchair hypothesis is that modern humans tend to be indoor creatures, yet our bodies evolved as if we were outdoor creatures, therefore we're supposed to be getting more sunlight and Vitamin D than we actually are.
Same thing happened to me. I was in the single digits for Vitamin D, and my doc had me taking 10000 a day (or week) I think. Within a month, I started to feel way more energy in the afternoon (I used to feel dead by 1pm). I also mysteriously kept getting sick with small colds that winter before supplementing, and those also went away.
USDA experiments have shown that exposing certain mushrooms to UV light converts cholesterols in the mushrooms to vitamin D. Since sunlight contains UV, an easy solution would be to leave some portabella mushrooms out in the noonday sun for a while. So far I can't find any articles that give a precise number for how long the mushrooms were exposed, though.
How is it taken in the rest of the world? In Norway, it's traditionally done by drinking cod liver oil daily during the winter months. At least that's what I do.
Since you're taking Vitamin D, you might also want to see if you need Zinc. Both Vitamins account for the largest deficits in the population. You might want to consider taking a Magnesium supplement since taking Vitamin D which can lead to a deficiency in Magnesium. Vitamin C is worth taking a few times through out the day.
The Trifecta is D,Zinc and C (with a magnesium supplement a few times a week).
I have read more than one study in the years past that consistent use of vitamin C supplements actually leads to a weaker immune system in the long term.
I went to my doctor complaining about the general lack of energy. Turned out to be Vitamin D. I grew up in the tropics and the lack of sun had put me under a severe deficiency. Had to take prescription strength to get to normal. Since then that’s one supplement I never miss.
I had mine checked because I was curious when I went for bloodwork a couple of years ago. I was expecting it would be low since I work indoors on a computer all day and my exposure to the sun in winter is limited.
I think I was tested in late fall, and it was fairly expensive to have done (roughly $100 where I was in Europe). From what I remember, you're deficient if you're less than 12 ng/mL and mine was around 6 ng/mL.
Of course I want to say I feel better, experience less winter blues, get sick less often, and have more energy since I started taking a supplement. I can't be certain of any of those things though. Maybe it makes a difference, maybe it doesn't. I feel decent these days, the numbers say I should take it, so that's why I take it.
You'd have to get follow up to see if Vitamin D has gone up after taking it.
I was Wrong on the internet (lots of food has vitamin D including Eggs and Mushrooms): Vitamin D supplements may not be absorbed as digestion isn't the normal process for obtaining it.
"Very few foods in nature contain vitamin D. The flesh of fatty fish (such as salmon, tuna, and mackerel) and fish liver oils are among the best sources [1,11]. Small amounts of vitamin D are found in beef liver, cheese, and egg yolks. Vitamin D in these foods is primarily in the form of vitamin D3 and its metabolite 25(OH)D3 [12]. Some mushrooms provide vitamin D2 in variable amounts [13,14]. Mushrooms with enhanced levels of vitamin D2 from being exposed to ultraviolet light under controlled conditions are also available."
Wouldn't a doctor simply test? I know when I was really low, the doctor scheduled me for a blood test after 3 months of prescription-dose vitamin D pills. We've also spot checked since then.
Yeah, when I got back for my next checkup, I definitely plan to ask my doctor to order the Vitamin D test again so we can see how it's changed over time.
For generally fighting off viruses, I wonder if Vitamin D is the reason why many colds / flues tend to peak in the winter months and subside over the summer.
Likely placebo. Vitamin D is extremely soluble in our bodies and takes months of consistent supplement dosage to have an effect on our baseline levels.
I had winter depression for years, and Vitamin D supplementation has all-but completely cured it. If I forget to take it for a few days (in the winter), then I really notice the difference, and taking the supplement (via drops) reliably helps within 2-3 hours of taking them.
I don't see how this could be a placebo as 1. I wasn't really expecting them to work in the first place. 2. I've tried all sorts of things over the years to try and relieve my depression, and nothing else has worked.
It's possible that raising baseline levels isn't actually required to have beneficial effects. Of course, the quantities of vitamin that aren't raising baseline levels must be going somewhere. It doesn't seem unlikely to me that at least some of it is going directly towards production of whatever things the body uses vitamin D for.
I'll have to get checked next time I'm at the doc. I'm pretty far south, so sunlight isn't normally an issue. I also enjoy a glass of milk every night for 'dessert'. It is fortified with some vitamin D, but I'm not sure how much. My bigger concern is probably skin cancer over lack of vitamin D though.
the benefits of sunlight outweigh the risks. Avoid burning, but know that tanning is not correlated with melanoma (assuming you have skin that tans; otherwise, ignore this).
What is your usual residence location?
When I was in Australia I had no vitamin D deficiency at any part of my life. I moved to Canada two years ago and suddenly I was severely vitamin D deficient.
And this also means that people with higher melanin residing in northern hemispheres are more at risk.
If this has been suggested for some time it would be kind of odd that only one study has noticed the connection; this seems rather easy to test, right?
It seems that the authors misunderstood the Boston study they are citing:
> In a Boston homeless shelter, 100% of 147 COVID-19 positive subjects were asymptomatic [3].
That study actually excluded N=15 symptomatic people:
> The original cases (N=15) were identified sequentially over a 5-day period, and each was expeditiously removed from the shelter population at the time of symptom recognition. These individuals predated the implementation of universal testing procedures and are excluded from this study.
So, it's rather unsurprising that 100% of the remaining people were asymptomatic.
This is a very weak study because it is retrospective: they just looked at existing medical records. And they only found 20 COVID patients that had vitamin D levels recorded. But the finding is compelling enough that we should demand better studies.
Actually there already is a better study where they actually tested vitamin D levels of many COVID patients [1]. It found vitamin D was strongly associated with less severe outcomes:
> Only 26% of the cases had 25(OH)D in the normal range, and virtually all of them (86%) had a mild outcome. ...
Just over a third (38%) had 25(OH)D in the insufficient range, and only one of them (1.3%) had a mild outcome. ...
Just over a third (36%) had 25(OH)D in the deficient range, and their distribution was pushed further toward severe and critical outcomes. Only one patient (1.4%) had a mild outcome, while 26% had an ordinary outcome, 40% had a severe outcome, and 33% had a critical outcome.
Now we should demand a controlled trial where they actually give a vitamin D intervention: this would provide causal evidence. However, avoiding vitamin D deficiency is already very well studied and has so many benefits that I think it is worth everyone's time and effort to do so.
Many people are advising high levels of vitamin D supplementation. However, there is reason to not overdo it on vitamin D supplementation and take just 1700 IU/day (or to just get sunshine) [2]. Of course, getting your vitamin D levels tested (with the help of by a doctor) is the safe way to go about this.
this doesnt pass the correlation vs causation smell test for me.
i suspect VID correlates well with COVID comorbidities, like a sedentary lifestyle, hypertension, and weight problems. the opposite is also probably true, that people with good vit D levels correlate with healthier lifestyles and fewer comorbidities.
This systematic meta-analysis paper[1] may be more convincing. The popular youtube COVID-commentating Dr. John Campbell did a review of it about a month ago[2] and has some good comments on the meaningful statistical power and experiment design.
The overall takeaway is this: in people with Vitamin D deficiency (which is very, very common), continuous daily supplementation can lead to up to a 70% reduction in contracted viral respiratory infections. It has a smaller effect the less deficient you are, and is not associated with any adverse effects.
It's not even correlational. They didn't even have a group of non-COVID patients to compare to, which would have been really easy. They could have looked at non-COVID ICU patients as well and did not. That would have at least been correlational.
I feel like this is a very expected finding. It would be more compelling to see the covid-19 severity among patients with and without VDI but matched by egfr or one of the many many other confounders. A lot of things are correlated with severity of metabolic disease that could be the thing that makes covid-19 severe in this population.
This mess started towards the end of the winter, a long period of low sunlight and presumably lower vit D levels. What's the rate of VDI in 75 year olds in general towards the end of winter? I can't find any numbers, but I suspect it'll be close to 100% in any non-warm climate.
In recent years there's been some question about whether there is a link between autism and Vitamin D deficiency in some African immigrants. Minnesota has a large population of Somali immigrants (ISTR the largest population outside Somalia itself) and in that community, autism has been nicknamed the "Minnesota disease" because of how prevalent it has become in children of immigrants.
> In an Institutional Review Board approved study performed at a single, tertiary care academic medical center, the medical records of COVID-19 patients were retrospectively reviewed. Subjects were included for whom serum 25-hydroxycholecalcifoerol (25OHD) levels were determined. COVID-19-relevant data were compiled and analyzed. We determined the frequency of VDI among COVID-19 patients to evaluate the likelihood of a VDI-COVID-19 relationship. Results: Twenty COVID-19 patients with serum 25OHD levels were identified; 65.0% required ICU admission.The VDI prevalence in ICU patients was 84.6%, vs. 57.1% in floor patients. Strikingly, 100% of ICU patients less than 75 years old had VDI.
Does this mean they have checked 20 people, 13 (65%) of them were severe and all in the below-75 subset of these 13 people were deficient in vitamin D? Doesn't seem credible to me, I'd prefer some hundreds of people from completely different parts of the country.
By the way, isn't almost everybody deficient in vitamin D anyway? (see doi:10.1101/2020.04.24.20075838)
But they didn't even check the Vitamin D levels. They only checked patients that had Vitamin D levels checked by physicians. So presumably this was a different population that was more sick by definition, because their physicans were checking them for Vitamin D deficiency. There aren't many good inpatient indications for checking Vitamin D. It's check for not good reasons sometimes, but most likely these patients were being followed by an outpatient doctor who was looking for something to explain some symptom, test result or problem that they were having.
Readit News
I've heard that many times over the years and I have taken a Vitamin D supplement on and off (more off than on) over the years.
When this COVID-19 thing first hit, I had a physical scheduled (by chance) just about the same time, and I'd heard about this Vitamin D / COVID-19 connection, so when I went in for my physical, I asked my doctor to order a Vitamin D test as part of my bloodwork.
As it turns out, I was indeed very deficient in Vitamin D. I started taking 4000 IU a day and it's had a noticeable impact on my overall sense of wellbeing. It could, of course, be placebo effect even so. And I have no particular reason to think that it will make any difference one way or the other in terms of me getting COVID-19. But I thought it was worth pointing out one more anecdote that suggests that the old "Vitamin D is worth supplementing" refrain might just be true.
If you're in doubt, and it's an option, do what I did... just ask your doctor to run a Vitamin D test next time you go in for a checkup / physical.
I got my blood checked last year and decided I should probably actually know if I'm doing too much or too little. I was within 5% of the middle of the healthy range for vitamin D levels. For reference, 5,000 IU is >800% the FDA daily recommended value. People with indoor jobs and hobbies are probably not getting enough.
Unfortunately the daily recommended value was established erroneously and should be much higher. Many research papers mention this. For example:
> The Institute of Medicine recommendation for adults younger than 70 years of age is 600 IU of vitamin D daily. We are told that this would achieve a level of 50 nmol/L in greater than 97.5% of individuals.6 Regrettably, a statistical error has resulted in erroneous recommendations by the Institute of Medicine leading to this conclusion and it might actually take 8800 IU of vitamin D to achieve this level in 97.5% of the population.7 This is a serious public health blunder.
From the 2015 paper, Vitamin D for influenza
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4463890/
I've discussed this with my doctor after being severely low on vitamin D. It caused physical pain. I'm far enough north that it is impossible to get the sunlight needed during the winter. I still have days, but they are short without strong sun - not to mention that it is too cold to go without a jacket. So, supplements at least during the winter.
During the summer, I have the option of getting at least 15 minutes of sunlight a day (May through August). Being outside isn't enough: I need to make sure that more than just my face is exposed.
But then, on top of it all, I wound up taking a medicine that not only makes me sensitive to sun, but a bit more prone to a milder form of skin cancer. Sunscreen doesn't help with vitamin D production.
The end result is that I wind up taking vitamin D all year and simply get my levels checked from time to time. Luckily, the over-the-counter stuff does the trick (there isn't the variety in vitamins here as there is in the US).
I argue that if you go outside and wear the appropriate sun protection—long pants,long sleeves, neck covered, broad rim hat, and wear sunscreen on the exposed parts—you can't get enough sun exposure to produce enough Vitamin D.
Seems reasonable that it's not based on your experience.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I think I’m going to take my next call out on the porch.
https://www.nature.com/articles/424121a
Do you mind sharing which one it is?
I think this really depends on location and lifestyle. Anyone in a Mediterranean or sunnier climate that spends more than 30mn a day outside will be fine
[0] https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/vitamin-d-from-sun#skin...
the sun must be above 50' above horizon for UVB to penetrate the atmosphere to reach the skin. When your skin is exposed to sunlight, it makes vitamin D from cholesterol
https://theralightinc.com/best-time-to-get-vitamin-d-from-su...
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/vitamin-d-from-sun#time...
For me, this only counts from May to August: I'm pretty far north, and there isn't proper sun strength much of the year.
There are other related calculators linked also.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photo-of-the-...
"During active COVID-19 infection symptoms (fever, cough), please AVOID these common supplements: Echinacea, Elderberry, Polysaccharide extracts from Medicinal Mushrooms and Vitamin D as these MAY theoretically exacerbate the cytokine inflammatory storm. It's OK to take them preventively (if you are already doing so) but please stop at the first sign of COVID-19 symptoms."
Hence I've been avoiding adding Vitamin D to my daily ritual; anyone have any supporting data?
> Hence I've been avoiding adding Vitamin D
Do you have active symptoms?
The concern is about a studied connection between Vitamin D supplementation and an increase in concentration of the IL-1b inflammation marker (see, e.g., [1]), which has been implicated in cytokine storms. The other supplements mentioned have similar effects.
This correlation suggests that you might not want to be taking Vitamin D if you're as risk of a cytokine storm hurting you.
That said, however, vitamin D is also associated with strong anti-inflammatory properties of other markers, so really -- it's super hard to predict what will happen. As far as I know, no one has observed a connection between Vitamin D and cytokine storms directly, so the whole thing is kind of hypothetical.
[1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4631349/
I increased Vitamine D supply by taking a supplement and eating more fish (salmon, herring). The cough became better but became much better only when I also added Echinacea.
Deleted Comment
[1] http://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/80400525/Articles/AICR0...
[2] https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?...
[3] https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/169377/n...
I'm sure someone could chase up more authoritative references.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immune_system#Vitamin_D
The Trifecta is D,Zinc and C (with a magnesium supplement a few times a week).
I think I was tested in late fall, and it was fairly expensive to have done (roughly $100 where I was in Europe). From what I remember, you're deficient if you're less than 12 ng/mL and mine was around 6 ng/mL.
Of course I want to say I feel better, experience less winter blues, get sick less often, and have more energy since I started taking a supplement. I can't be certain of any of those things though. Maybe it makes a difference, maybe it doesn't. I feel decent these days, the numbers say I should take it, so that's why I take it.
I was Wrong on the internet (lots of food has vitamin D including Eggs and Mushrooms): Vitamin D supplements may not be absorbed as digestion isn't the normal process for obtaining it.
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-HealthProfessiona...
Deleted Comment
I don't see how this could be a placebo as 1. I wasn't really expecting them to work in the first place. 2. I've tried all sorts of things over the years to try and relieve my depression, and nothing else has worked.
It's possible that raising baseline levels isn't actually required to have beneficial effects. Of course, the quantities of vitamin that aren't raising baseline levels must be going somewhere. It doesn't seem unlikely to me that at least some of it is going directly towards production of whatever things the body uses vitamin D for.
And this also means that people with higher melanin residing in northern hemispheres are more at risk.
> In a Boston homeless shelter, 100% of 147 COVID-19 positive subjects were asymptomatic [3].
That study actually excluded N=15 symptomatic people:
> The original cases (N=15) were identified sequentially over a 5-day period, and each was expeditiously removed from the shelter population at the time of symptom recognition. These individuals predated the implementation of universal testing procedures and are excluded from this study.
So, it's rather unsurprising that 100% of the remaining people were asymptomatic.
Actually there already is a better study where they actually tested vitamin D levels of many COVID patients [1]. It found vitamin D was strongly associated with less severe outcomes:
> Only 26% of the cases had 25(OH)D in the normal range, and virtually all of them (86%) had a mild outcome. ... Just over a third (38%) had 25(OH)D in the insufficient range, and only one of them (1.3%) had a mild outcome. ... Just over a third (36%) had 25(OH)D in the deficient range, and their distribution was pushed further toward severe and critical outcomes. Only one patient (1.4%) had a mild outcome, while 26% had an ordinary outcome, 40% had a severe outcome, and 33% had a critical outcome.
Now we should demand a controlled trial where they actually give a vitamin D intervention: this would provide causal evidence. However, avoiding vitamin D deficiency is already very well studied and has so many benefits that I think it is worth everyone's time and effort to do so.
Many people are advising high levels of vitamin D supplementation. However, there is reason to not overdo it on vitamin D supplementation and take just 1700 IU/day (or to just get sunshine) [2]. Of course, getting your vitamin D levels tested (with the help of by a doctor) is the safe way to go about this.
[1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3571484
[2] https://chrismasterjohnphd.com/covid-19/update-on-vitamin-d-...
i suspect VID correlates well with COVID comorbidities, like a sedentary lifestyle, hypertension, and weight problems. the opposite is also probably true, that people with good vit D levels correlate with healthier lifestyles and fewer comorbidities.
The overall takeaway is this: in people with Vitamin D deficiency (which is very, very common), continuous daily supplementation can lead to up to a 70% reduction in contracted viral respiratory infections. It has a smaller effect the less deficient you are, and is not associated with any adverse effects.
1 - https://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.i6583 2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5yVGmfivAk
Similar story with ibuprofen and COVID-19 [1]. Researchers found a link between the two. But older people are also more likely to take ibuprofen.
[0] https://health.clevelandclinic.org/some-sunlight-may-benefit... [1] https://www.wired.com/story/the-ibuprofen-debate-reveals-the...
> Strikingly, 100% of ICU patients less than 75 years old had VDI [Vitamin D Insufficiency]
Since mid-March I've been trying to keep track of Vitamin D/Sunlight suggestions and papers here: https://simonsarris.com/sunlight
* The total number of patients in the entire study was 20.
* The number of ICU patients was 13.
* The number of ICU patients younger than 75 years was 10.
It's interesting that 10 out of 10 patients in the ICU had low vitamin D, but it's not exactly a huge study.
It just doesn't have the same ring to it.
https://www.outsideonline.com/2380751/sunscreen-sun-exposure...
Pale skin is an evolutionary adaptation to harvest more sunlight to convert to Vitamin D, from when humanity expanded to less sunny areas from Africa.
I'm a little shocked that doctors don't seem to tell black people this. My "survey" is probably only 5 people, but still, people need to know.
https://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2008/07/mysterious-...
It's an old article, but I haven't been able to find anything newer that isn't based on the same study in 2008.
A similar "outbreak" was noted in Sweden.
Does this mean they have checked 20 people, 13 (65%) of them were severe and all in the below-75 subset of these 13 people were deficient in vitamin D? Doesn't seem credible to me, I'd prefer some hundreds of people from completely different parts of the country.
By the way, isn't almost everybody deficient in vitamin D anyway? (see doi:10.1101/2020.04.24.20075838)