Hacker News Reader

Comment by 13415 | Hacker News Reader

Vitamin D can be bought without prescription and there is currently no shortage, so why should a country (government) distribute it? Anyone who wants some can buy some. Handing out free Vitamin D is like handing out free gym passes. It's not bad, but also not really a government's responsibility except for cases when people would benefit a lot but could not afford it at all.

View on HN

Same reason governments filter the water or remove lead from paint; just because knowledge is available doesn't mean all citizens can and will act on it, and sometimes lowering the barrier is all that's needed.

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.

Vitamin D is the only supplement that the NHS suggests that most people should take as a matter of course. But the logistics of getting it out to everyone would be tough. Easier to recommend it and let people buy it.

I think most places add it to milk. I supplement during the darkest six weeks of the year (which is starting very soon). It does seem like there could be a bigger seasonal push. Maybe not from the government but from somewhere.

I think this would be the best solution: to add it to the milk products during the winter! Most people would get it, there would be (almost) no public discussion about it and the immune systems would be strengthened. People not buying milk could still buy it like today!

This already is done year round. But there are a lot more vegans now.

Vitamin D is added in Alpro soy milk and the Oatly oat milk that I drink in Sweden, along with vitamin B12 and calcium. It's all equal to the levels found in cow's milk. There are organic variants of the above that don't allow fortification, but I choose the fortified ones.

I always find it odd that people take such a hands-off approach when it comes to things like Vitamin D usage, while at the same time cheerleading for governments to crack down hard on things like gyms, birthday parties, church services, elementary schools. Nothing is too extreme in the name of COVID, except that somehow distributing Vitamin D would be going overboard?

You are conflating different viewpoints into a single entity, let's call them "them" for purpose of discussion.

I just don't get your point. No matter how you put it, it's not a government's job to distribute a cheap, universally available subscription-free substance that might benefit their citizen's health. Why does the government not distribute fruits to all citizens? Should they distribute dental floss?

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?

Right.. in my state weed and alcohol are essential and remain open but exercise, education, social interaction are now once again limited to your own home and we wonder why mental issues are sky rocketing. The latest order in my state made this week bans all indoor gatherings with people outside your home and it’s about 40 degrees F outside.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com