I am curious to know why countries didn't buy large quantities of vitamin D and distribute them to all people? Wouldn't that be cheaper and more effective than complete lockdowns, full hospitals, etc.?
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18841488.boris-johnson-set...
In my anecdotal experience, there seems to be a huge variance in the amount of butter that people eat, among people who regularly eat butter.
Also, does it survive the heat of cooking?
Moreover, I'd argue older generations in particular are more susceptible to believing what the doctor says. Just having the research available and the vitamins on the shelf isn't going to have nearly the same uptake as a centralised push.
Maybe yes, but only to people in real need who cannot afford any of this or need help (e.g. elderly who are afraid to leave the house due to Covid).
In my opinion, the government's job is not to act like a nanny. There shouldn't be any need for it. They can and should expect a minimum of citizen participation and autonomy.
Is that such a bizarre idea to you?
what I've learned while figuring out what supplements I should be taking is that the entire recommended daily allowance is based on avoiding acute diseases like ricketss or scurvy, and not based on a model of what is optimal for our bodies. when you look at diseases by latitute or wonder why our annual influenza pandemic is during the winter months, it makes me wonder why there hasn't already been studies of supplements. it seems like a perfectly straightforward study.
"In the past five years, 74 cities have voted to remove fluoride from their drinking water, despite thousands of studies showing it prevents cavities." (2018)
So if the United States government attempted to distribute vitamin D to all people, a vocal minority of those people would respond "over my dead body" and immediately begin a nationwide campaign to prevent that distribution, including requesting emergency court orders to stop it. The US governments aren't typically what I would call "strong of will", and often fold on proven public health steps (such as masks) without trying to put up a fight.
Perhaps it's different in other countries?
Edit: The study linked below is pretty compelling. My comment appears to be incorrect.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096007602...
Vitamin D supplementation is a low-risk, low-cost, side-effect-free (hard to OD) intervention. I see no reason governments should not encourage vitamin D supplementation (or, better yet, actively enable it via distribution of supplements as in the UK...at least during hospital stays). If it turns out that subsequent RCTs disprove the effects (despite the mountain of retrospective studies that show correlations in vitamin D levels and covid case trajectories), what harm will have been done?
If there's an effect of vitamin D it's likely very small.
Some are retrospectives some are randomized clinical trials.
Vitamin D has a major effect on the immune system that is well documented.
OP is right. Even if supplementation reduced the death rate by only 25%, the cost-benefit analysis says that it would absolutely have made sense for countries to issue free Vitamin D and promote its use.
It almost certainly won't reduce death rate by 25%. Very few medical interventions have an effect size that large.
Vitamin D levels in summer months are associated with 25% lower mortality rates for all causes. Vitamin D almost certainly influences the immune system to fight off Covid in the same way it does the seasonal flu and other pneumonia. There's hundreds more studies on Vitamin D. Read up when you get a chance.
Hell even if it was a 5% reduction we're talking an abundant vitamin that costs pennies to manufacture.
I believe you're referring to this one, the RCT run in a hospital in Spain, with a startlingly huge effect size:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096007602...
It seems that giving all patients hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin was the policy at that hospital at the time the experiment was run, so the RCT didn't vary that between control and experimental groups; they just gave vitamin D pills to one group and not the other. Is there some problem with this?