These two numbers being identical thus suggests Scott doesn’t see it that way, and in particular that he’s thinking that if it doesn’t work in a hospital (or doesn’t work in a hospital for any given reasonable dosing method) it also doesn’t work as a supplement.
I don’t imagine Scott thinks that. I assume the most important difference is between vitamin D working to prevent infections, versus vitamin D preventing serious harm given infection.
Could the difference between the Spain and Brazil studies be due to bigger vitamin D deficiencies in Spain?
That’s not how I interpret it, because to me if Vitamin D works pre-hospitalization it could work on either mechanism—preventing infection or reducing severity. So that’s another way it could be ‘too late,’ if it acts on an earlier stage. Are you thinking Scott is saying more like 45% to work if taken early because it’s 25% to prevent infection and also 25% to reduce severity?
I don’t imagine Scott thinks that. I assume the most important difference is between vitamin D working to prevent infections, versus vitamin D preventing serious harm given infection.
Could the difference between the Spain and Brazil studies be due to bigger vitamin D deficiencies in Spain?
That’s not how I interpret it, because to me if Vitamin D works pre-hospitalization it could work on either mechanism—preventing infection or reducing severity. So that’s another way it could be ‘too late,’ if it acts on an earlier stage. Are you thinking Scott is saying more like 45% to work if taken early because it’s 25% to prevent infection and also 25% to reduce severity?
Yes, Scott’s first 25% appears to be only about preventing infection.