I remain a non-expert, so I hope that more knowledgeable people than I will have some thoughts on the implications for vitamin D impact in healthy people.
I’m trying not to overstate the case, but not making too much of an effort—e.g. enough to avoid overstating it if taken out of context. I’m saying more that, it might be enough, we’ve declined to figure that out along with many other things, and that if it *was* enough that it wouldn’t cause behaviors to change.
Oh sure—I agree with almost all of what you’ve said, and with the direction of your conclusions. I certainly don’t want to suggest that people should be wary of taking supplements.
On a population level, I agree that it’s plausible that widespread D supplementation may be enough. On a personal level, I wouldn’t want people assuming that good D levels are sufficient to make them ~92% safer than baseline; perhaps they really are, but I don’t think that’s certain enough to take an “Unless you’d put someone vulnerable at risk, why are you letting another day of your life go by not living it to its fullest?” approach.
While few readers will organise raves after reading that sentence, it does strike me as possible the 92% result could impact behaviour: to an extent, it should. But given that there’s room for doubt in the interpretation of low D measurements (if serious Covid is causing them, and pre-existing deficiency isn’t implied), it seems important not to go too far.
Thanks.
Certainly a good idea, but I think your post from last week may be overconfident in the likely impact.
Since it’s important, and I’m not sure if most people saw it, I’ll repost this video looking at the molecular biology of vitamin D, which I talked about in this post.
I remain a non-expert, so I hope that more knowledgeable people than I will have some thoughts on the implications for vitamin D impact in healthy people.
I’m trying not to overstate the case, but not making too much of an effort—e.g. enough to avoid overstating it if taken out of context. I’m saying more that, it might be enough, we’ve declined to figure that out along with many other things, and that if it *was* enough that it wouldn’t cause behaviors to change.
Oh sure—I agree with almost all of what you’ve said, and with the direction of your conclusions. I certainly don’t want to suggest that people should be wary of taking supplements.
On a population level, I agree that it’s plausible that widespread D supplementation may be enough. On a personal level, I wouldn’t want people assuming that good D levels are sufficient to make them ~92% safer than baseline; perhaps they really are, but I don’t think that’s certain enough to take an “Unless you’d put someone vulnerable at risk, why are you letting another day of your life go by not living it to its fullest?” approach.
While few readers will organise raves after reading that sentence, it does strike me as possible the 92% result could impact behaviour: to an extent, it should. But given that there’s room for doubt in the interpretation of low D measurements (if serious Covid is causing them, and pre-existing deficiency isn’t implied), it seems important not to go too far.