That’s because the general consensus is that higher levels of vitamin D are associated with rapid recovery or avoidance of Covid. Rational people would say that’s a good thing and support it.
I think a lot of the evidence is marginal. Low vitamin D levels are an indicator of frailty, so all the observational evidence may be showing something other than a causal relationship between vitamin D levels and COVID outcomes.
IV vitamin D seemed to be beneficial in early COVID-19 patients in one randomized trial, which is the best evidence of a causal relationship we have between vitamin D and prevention of severe COVID. Attempts at giving oral vitamin D after diagnosis showed no benefit, but wouldn't really be expected to, either.
There's probably some protective effect, but it's also probably much smaller than most are estimating. That said, taking a small to moderate dose of vitamin D is likely to do more good than harm to people for other reasons, and may provide a small margin of protection against severe COVID. Further, it's cheap and easy to do.
Since March, I've been taking a multivitamin that includes a moderate amount of D.
There are a ton of confounders there. Most of those countries have younger populations. The outdoor temperature is higher there. They have different economies and population densities.
Or it could be Vitamin D, at least in part. To know the answer somebody has to actually do the science.
Greece is close to the equator and during November we have had the highest rate of deaths among all EU countries. So I doubt this is the only factor in play.
I think most of us would. And in fact vitamin D supplementation is associated with all sorts of health benefits having nothing to do with Covid. Take your vitamin D!
That said: the kind of aggregate mortality effect the (comparatively sparse) data on that site points to is absolutely miniscule compared to much more straightforward mitigations like wearing a mask and avoiding restaurants. And these are things that HN is wildly divided on. "Rational people" might wonder why that is.
I (n=1, but still I browse HN a lot) have only seen posts that are against the idea of wearing masks be heavily downvoted. I've seen a few people discussing whether or not they're important to wear outside, but the WHO seems to agree that being outside makes covid less likely to spread[0], so imho that is a fine thing to discuss
If it were the general consensus, this posting (i.e. the summary page) would look different; we'd have much higher powered studies and a clearer view of what was going on.
Something about it is on the front page every month or two.
Honestly, I'm fine with it. I think more people need to know they should be supplementing with vitamin D. It's possible it doesn't help with COVID-19, but the evidence is enough and the risk of harm low enough that it's clearly a rational decision to supplement at this point.
I don't know that I'd call it a "strange obsession," but it's a popular topic, right up there with intermittent fasting. Here are some active posts just from the last two or three months:
Three of those are links I posted so maybe it is just my strange obsession!
Like many others have commented, I am baffled why this is not being reported broadly and pushed as part of a low-cost, apparently no downside public health agenda, particularly leading into the darker winter months.
Data needs to be built, but who can say no to a supplement that's relatively cheaply available, in ample supply and doesn't hurt to take reasonable doses over a few weeks?
> Taking the properties and activities all together, though, these efforts would seem to be largely – and almost certainly completely – wastes of time and money. What’s worse, it appears that from 2001 on there are at least 135 registered clinical trials using the stuff. The review goes into four examples for which details are available, all of them complete wipeouts, and those would seem to serve as good proxies for the rest given that no curcumin trial has ever reported any convincing positive results.
It predates the pandemic. The first studies suggesting "maybe we are all D3 deficient" go back over a decade, and so articles about it have popped up on HN a few times a year. Then add the pandemic and the new implication that it affects COVID outcomes and you start to get a hype cycle.
I will say that I find some value in D3 supplements personally and have used them, at varying levels, since 2009. But like most health issues, its impact can't be reduced down to a one-factor analysis, and often entails discussion of other supplements and deficiencies.
Per the linked source, 41 studies including 2 randomized trials show that a vitamin D deficiency increases the severity of COVID-19 infections. Other sources (example: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3872/rr-5) also corroborate the scale of studies indicating a relationship between Vitamin D deficiency and COVID-19 health outcomes.
Interestingly, overall Vitamin D deficiency in the US population is at around 42% (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21310306/), with some minorities having significantly higher prevalence. This might partially explain why the US has worse outcomes for COVID-19 than some other nations, and it may also explain the distribution of which demographic groups are more at risk for COVID-19.
Lastly, the link between VDD and COVID-19 health outcomes also raises a different philosophical question: if those who face adverse health impacts from COVID-19 are at increased risk due to their own poor diet or lifestyle (as indicated by Vitamin D deficiency), should all of society have to shoulder the burden of mask mandates, lockdowns, and other impacts? Or should individuals be allowed to make decisions as to what activities they undertake and what risks they are OK with based on their own assessment of risks and benefits?
> This might partially explain why the US has worse outcomes for COVID-19 than some other nations, and it may also explain the distribution of which demographic groups are more at risk for COVID-19.
I think this is true and adds to a list of other things: obesity and cross-reactivity through exposure to viruses (I've been reading ppl suggest that Asia may have exposure to other SARS-like viruses).
42 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 98.6 ms ] threadIV vitamin D seemed to be beneficial in early COVID-19 patients in one randomized trial, which is the best evidence of a causal relationship we have between vitamin D and prevention of severe COVID. Attempts at giving oral vitamin D after diagnosis showed no benefit, but wouldn't really be expected to, either.
There's probably some protective effect, but it's also probably much smaller than most are estimating. That said, taking a small to moderate dose of vitamin D is likely to do more good than harm to people for other reasons, and may provide a small margin of protection against severe COVID. Further, it's cheap and easy to do.
Since March, I've been taking a multivitamin that includes a moderate amount of D.
Really eager downvotes on my comment, too, today.
Also, I'm not anonymous; my name is on the comment.
Or it could be Vitamin D, at least in part. To know the answer somebody has to actually do the science.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/coronaviru...
That said: the kind of aggregate mortality effect the (comparatively sparse) data on that site points to is absolutely miniscule compared to much more straightforward mitigations like wearing a mask and avoiding restaurants. And these are things that HN is wildly divided on. "Rational people" might wonder why that is.
I think wearing a mask is a relatively small benefit but small bends in exponential functions can have massive differences in aggregate outcomes.
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/..., under "What makes activities safer?" they list "They are held in outdoor spaces. Indoor spaces with less ventilation where it might be harder to keep people apart are more risky."
Something about it is on the front page every month or two.
Honestly, I'm fine with it. I think more people need to know they should be supplementing with vitamin D. It's possible it doesn't help with COVID-19, but the evidence is enough and the risk of harm low enough that it's clearly a rational decision to supplement at this point.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25289921
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25261441
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25113595
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25077519
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24912172
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24768721
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24734774
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24607645
Like many others have commented, I am baffled why this is not being reported broadly and pushed as part of a low-cost, apparently no downside public health agenda, particularly leading into the darker winter months.
Remember Curcumin?
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2017/01/12/cu...
> Taking the properties and activities all together, though, these efforts would seem to be largely – and almost certainly completely – wastes of time and money. What’s worse, it appears that from 2001 on there are at least 135 registered clinical trials using the stuff. The review goes into four examples for which details are available, all of them complete wipeouts, and those would seem to serve as good proxies for the rest given that no curcumin trial has ever reported any convincing positive results.
I will say that I find some value in D3 supplements personally and have used them, at varying levels, since 2009. But like most health issues, its impact can't be reduced down to a one-factor analysis, and often entails discussion of other supplements and deficiencies.
Some notable findings: one randomized study of 50 people hospitalized for COVID-19 found that of everyone given a high dose of Vitamin D, only one ended up in the ICU (https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/e...). And 80% of those hospitalized for COVID-19 have Vitamin D deficiency (https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200518/more-vitamin-d-lowe...). Seroconversion is also higher for those with Vitamin D deficiency (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.05.20206706v...), meaning that you are also more likely to have caught COVID-19 at some point (in a way that you developed detectable antibodies) with VDD than without.
Interestingly, overall Vitamin D deficiency in the US population is at around 42% (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21310306/), with some minorities having significantly higher prevalence. This might partially explain why the US has worse outcomes for COVID-19 than some other nations, and it may also explain the distribution of which demographic groups are more at risk for COVID-19.
Lastly, the link between VDD and COVID-19 health outcomes also raises a different philosophical question: if those who face adverse health impacts from COVID-19 are at increased risk due to their own poor diet or lifestyle (as indicated by Vitamin D deficiency), should all of society have to shoulder the burden of mask mandates, lockdowns, and other impacts? Or should individuals be allowed to make decisions as to what activities they undertake and what risks they are OK with based on their own assessment of risks and benefits?
I think this is true and adds to a list of other things: obesity and cross-reactivity through exposure to viruses (I've been reading ppl suggest that Asia may have exposure to other SARS-like viruses).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7456194/