You just ignored the history of them working.
Nope, there is no history of them working, and you never posted history of them working just said people masked and cases went down, then no masks and cases went up with no source whatsoever.
No, I'm totally for people taking vitamin D: just not stupid levels of vitamin D far above recommendations. This is in fact completely consistent: wear a mask as a reasonable precaution, take vitamin D as a reasonable precaution.
You however are completely unbalanced in your opinion. You think everyone should be taking an order of magnitude more than the RDA of vitamin D as a precaution. Well, as a logically consistent precaution in the realm of masks, you should be recommending everyone goes around everywhere in an N95 respirator or better. In fact the opposite is true: you are cavalier and dismissive of masks. Thus you are trying to argue massive precautions in one and very few precautions in the other. Unbalanced, illogical, unscientific garbage.
No, we really don't know that better than 12.5 ng/ml improves covid outcomes. If you think that, it merely means you've either taken the opinion of someone with an unsound scientific opinion or you've flubbed reading scientific papers yourself. Your understanding of the evidence base for vitamin D generally is just garbage. You know basically fuck all.
I'm not for taking stupid levels of vitamin d, the recommended levels are a joke. Fauci takes 6,000 IUs a day, I guess he's stupid then. A kids study from 2008 already said kids need 2,000 IUs a day not a measly 200. And vitamin d is not nearly as toxic as you claim it is, you can take tons of it (10,000 - 20,000 a day and well over that) and there is no harm. Someone that doesn't do anything outdoors for the most part can take 5,000 daily and nothing bad will happen. People with low vitamin d are prescribed 10,000 a day or 50,000 a week, I guess doctors are killing people with these prescriptions in your world. Anyone can go to their doctor and get their levels checked and go by their prescription if your levels are low. Most people are probably gonna need at least like 2,000 a day assuming they have some deficiency and especially at least that much in the winter. You might as well take a bit more than you think you need to hit the right level because going over it literally does no harm nor does it cost you any more money as it's not like 5,000 supplement costs more than a 2,000 supplement. I'm not saying the higher the level you have the more healthy you'll be, just that there's no reason not to take a bit more just to make sure you get to that level is all as there's harm in not getting there while there's no harm in going over. And the money you spend going to the doctor (at least in the US) to get your level just right is money you don't really need to waste as you can just take a bit more than you need and save your money, and just maybe having that slightly higher level we find out does help in something else 10 years from now.
Vitamin d should be pushed at least as much as masks and it's not pushed at all.
It is not my problem that you don't understand science and don't want to listen.
Where's the science that says covid spreads outside? Nowhere to be found, we knew this last March already. Just like we know it doesn't spread from surface contacts either. It's not that it's impossible to get it from being outside or touching things, it's just very very very very unlikely. Why would anyone worry about such very rare risks? All these football stadiums were sold out and packed on opening week, I guess a 5th wave is about to happen then...
It is not my problem that you don't understand the use of figurative examples to explain the real world.
Why am I going to protect myself from something that rarely happens? I'm not with anyone for those time periods that a mask would help (according to Michael Osterholm). Like why am I gonna worry about someone cough or sneezing on me, that might happen like once a year where I walk by someone and they didn't realize it and cough/sneeze on me because they didn't know I was there. I can't even remember the last time I got coughed on or sneezed on so why would I care about it?
Let me reconstruct that for all the useful informational content that it is worth: "Blah blah blah, blah blah, blah blah blah, blah blah."
It's just data doesn't aligned with your confirmation bias so you don't like it.
I've supplied reasonable papers for the purpose. That you're just too fucking inept at scientific analysis to understand what's going on is your problem.
You are literally everything that is worst about amateurs in science. No clue what you are doing, no honesty, no neutrality, and hopelessly arrogant and over-confident. Despite me telling you time and time again that the important thing is an overall grasp of the wider literature and not to over-rely on individual studies, you still fail to properly review the literature, and whine and moan and expect some sort of "super-study" that's going to be the final word. I'm giving you fair, representative studies of the side of science you are trying to ignore, and what you're doing is complaining they aren't the "super-study" that is the only thing that will apparently satisfy you, despite the fact that your entire belief is based on a load of studies that are at best no better than mine and at worst utter drivel, which you lack the honesty or scientific skill to recognise.
So don't you fucking dare call any paper I put in here bullshit, because at least I've put in basic quality checks - far exceeding anything you ever have whilst you've been plaguing thread after thread on covid with trash.
That HCQ paper you posted was bullshit. Also, the mortality HCQ paper you posted which includes giving it to people who shouldn't get is the definition of misinformation. Yeah, if you give tylenol to people who are allergic, you can make a paper saying tylenol is dangerous too. And you REALLY looked over that Bangladesh study didn't you?
You're the one complaining about no "super-study". You say a drug is bad when there isn't enough data to prove it's bad. If you said we don't know, but you don't.
And where's the source of the data you posted? I couldn't even find it when searching in quotes for the couple of lines that were there.