California no longer under lockdown - people freak out

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,672
3,813
118
I'm saying data like this should fit a bell curve naturally.
It does fit a bell curve naturally. I already demonstrated so, #294.

If you got a car that's rated as 30 miles per gallon and you're getting 13 mpg, would you be satisfied by Ford or Toyota saying that's just standard deviation? Because that's within the standard deviation of those 41 studies. The point is that vitamin studies are done rather poorly (which experts in the field have said) and that's why the data points are all over the place. Sure, you aren't going to get the same result every time obviously, but very little is done in these studies to control the many variables and each study may have their own different methods obviously.
Your analogy isn't very apt. A better one might be that if Toyota did 40 tests of fuel efficiency and came up with a range of 10-70 mpg, one might have weak confidence in the reliability of Toyota's tests. Although, of course, it is a poor comparison because the ease of controlling data of a standardised piece of machinery in set test conditions against human individuals with all their diversity in the real world.

The way to control for wide variation is a higher n value. 41 studies is a lot of studies; it is reasonable to think the average should be reasonable even with high variation as some miscalculate high and others low. Well, that is basically the point of averaging full stop.

Secondly, remember cherry picking? Why are you arguing these 41 studes are necessarily poor and should be effectively discounted, and yet you'll argue that a single study also from the low quality vitamin studies world is good enough to argue that 2000 IU can't maintain 30 ng/ml plasma vitamin D? Do you not get the inconsistency there?

And doctors having to quit their positions to prescribe stuff like steroids for covid because of official guidelines is a good thing? Using your medical knowledge to figure out a solution to a problem is now discouraged?
This sounds like bullshit. There is a longstanding principle that doctors are free to prescribe what they like irrespective of government guidelines (at least in your and my countries): they just need to have an adequate scientific / medical rationale should anything go wrong and they have to defend their actions. This is why Dr. Medcram Creator can post YouTube videos suggesting people could take completely unproven zinc and quercetin without a professional disciplinary. This principle precisely underpins all that HCQ that you're so fond of being handed out like candy, because HCQ surely isn't government recommended for Covid-19. So why haven't all those doctors across the world been forced to quit too?

What's wrong with saying what something is thought to be when there is no established beyond reasonable doubt information?
We in the world of science and medicine like to be very careful about the difference between "possibly", "probably", and "(almost) certainly". Partly because accuracy is supposed to be important, and partly so that the malevolent or ignorant have less room to screw with people's understanding of reality.

And from articles about CDC and recommending masks April 3, it wasn't because of the virus being airborne, it was due to asymptomatic transmission. That, again, I knew nearly a month beforehand from a Michael Osterholm interview. The CDC is like the last one to the party. Surely if a normal citizen can figure out this stuff, the CDC can.
Looking at the CDC, I think the issue here is you misunderstand what "airborne" means. In the vernacular sense, it means anything through the air. However, airborne in terms of infections refers to a specific form of small-diameter particle which can diffuse a long way. The CDC had long since accepted the splattering around of larger size droplets with lower spread which are also, in the vernacular sense, "airborne". Hence social distancing and masks. So the long and short of this is that your self-congratulation is actually based on nothing but a misconception of technical jargon.

The UK's guidelines have also been asinine like the "rule of 6" applying to outdoors that was backed by literally no science whatsoever. One of the hospitals I work at still has letters across so many windows saying "wash your hands" when that doesn't do much of anything. I still only wash my hands before eating lunch and after the bathroom because the virus barely spreads via contact surfaces.
When you say "backed by no science", this is technically true in a narrow sense and yet also misleading. The point of the "rule of 6" was to provide a pragmatic system to give the public some social contact whilst dissuading them from more problematic gatherings. Thus whilst one could say it was not specifically backed by science, it was consistent with science, for social application to mitigate spread. As it is also a politicised system for influencing human social behaviour, nor is that in process or intent equivalent to a scientific report produced by a dedicated expert panel.

I do however find your angry, slash and burn, ad hominem attacks on the CDC, UK government and NHS advice quite funny. That's a weirdly huge amount of hostility against organisations just for them having a different view on daily, recommended intake of vitamin D from your own.

I told you I didn't use any of the graphs from that website, I only use it as a database for looking at the studies.
So where did you get the idea that nearly all the studies on early HCQ administration were beneficial, when that's plainly not true? You either came to that conclusion on your own, or you borrowed someone else's opinion. Either way, it was a terrible assessment of the evidence.

Doesn't change any of the facts that the recommendations are set to stop the very worst side effects of vitamin d deficiency, that's what the flow chart in the official UK recommendations is telling people. It's basically do you have any of these ricket-like symptoms? Yes, take vitamin d supplement. No, you're fine.
No, they are designed to stop vitamin D deficiency. You need to understand that "deficiency" is in many ways an arbitrary value: it represents an estimated point where there is a significantly increased (how much increased?) risk and individual may have a chance of health problems - therefore many people below the deficiency value will not have significant health problems despite being technically deficient according to that semi-arbitrary deficiency value.

Again, the key question becomes: where is the point where higher vitamin D concentrations are likely to stop supplying any significant health benefit? This is unknown. But there is evidence it's not that much higher than deficiency, and we know it's very hard to see benefits beyond a level that is below the common blood plasma recommendation of 50 nmol/L (20 ng/ml). Studies suggest 30-40 nmol/L may be the point the benefit starts plateauing, as improved health outcomes with supplementation for people with baseline of 40 nmol/L or higher is extremely hard to identify.
 
Last edited:

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,417
1,845
118
Country
United States of America
I'm saying data like this should fit a bell curve naturally.
It does, didn't you see the histogram?

0.0 - 2 : *****
2.1 - 4 : *********
4.1 - 6 : **********
6.1 - 8 : *******
8.1 - 10: *****
10+ : ***

So, exactly the sort of Gaussian distribution you think it should show. It is thus ironic for you to mention finding streaky batting runs, because that's exactly the sort of error you have made here, creating the illusion of a data pattern that doesn't exist in reality.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,400
438
88
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
It does fit a bell curve naturally. I already demonstrated so, #294.
It does, didn't you see the histogram?
That histogram is inaccurate.

The mean range is 4.4 - 6.2 (according to the study itself) = 5 of the 41 studies

I'll extend the mean range 0.4 each direction (there's a lot of low 4s) and even then, you have this:

4.0 - 6.6 = 11 of 41 studies
2.0 - 3.9 = 12 of 41 studies


Your analogy isn't very apt. A better one might be that if Toyota did 40 tests of fuel efficiency and came up with a range of 10-70 mpg, one might have weak confidence in the reliability of Toyota's tests. Although, of course, it is a poor comparison because the ease of controlling data of a standardised piece of machinery in set test conditions against human individuals with all their diversity in the real world.

The way to control for wide variation is a higher n value. 41 studies is a lot of studies; it is reasonable to think the average should be reasonable even with high variation as some miscalculate high and others low. Well, that is basically the point of averaging full stop.

Secondly, remember cherry picking? Why are you arguing these 41 studes are necessarily poor and should be effectively discounted, and yet you'll argue that a single study also from the low quality vitamin studies world is good enough to argue that 2000 IU can't maintain 30 ng/ml plasma vitamin D? Do you not get the inconsistency there?
Vitamin studies are notorious for having poor methodology. Some don't even establish the baseline levels of the participants.

What other studies are there about maintaining levels of vitamin d? That's literally all I found. Also Dr. Roger Seheult who takes 2,000 IUs of vitamin d/day was at only 48 nmol/L when he tested his own levels and he knows how to test vitamin d levels.

This sounds like bullshit. There is a longstanding principle that doctors are free to prescribe what they like irrespective of government guidelines (at least in your and my countries): they just need to have an adequate scientific / medical rationale should anything go wrong and they have to defend their actions. This is why Dr. Medcram Creator can post YouTube videos suggesting people could take completely unproven zinc and quercetin without a professional disciplinary. This principle precisely underpins all that HCQ that you're so fond of being handed out like candy, because HCQ surely isn't government recommended for Covid-19. So why haven't all those doctors across the world been forced to quit too?
If you have a private practice, you can prescribe anything you want. But if you're part of an institution (which most doctors are), you can be heavily pressured to go by the guidelines. Dr. Pierre Kory resigned from UW Health because he couldn't stand by his patients just getting supportive care vs giving them steroids that he knew worked.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,400
438
88
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
We in the world of science and medicine like to be very careful about the difference between "possibly", "probably", and "(almost) certainly". Partly because accuracy is supposed to be important, and partly so that the malevolent or ignorant have less room to screw with people's understanding of reality.
Just tell people what you know at the time, that's all. When people see that you're not being straight with them, you lose the trust and even if you say everything right after that, it doesn't matter.

Looking at the CDC, I think the issue here is you misunderstand what "airborne" means. In the vernacular sense, it means anything through the air. However, airborne in terms of infections refers to a specific form of small-diameter particle which can diffuse a long way. The CDC had long since accepted the splattering around of larger size droplets with lower spread which are also, in the vernacular sense, "airborne". Hence social distancing and masks. So the long and short of this is that your self-congratulation is actually based on nothing but a misconception of technical jargon.
You don't need to focus on technicalities when messaging people. If you can get the virus tables away from someone at a restaurant, it's airborne for all intents and purposes. People would like to know how something spreads not whether a droplet is ever-so-slightly small enough (or stays in the air just long enough) to be officially considered airborne. Regardless of all these technicalities; if you can get it via the restaurant example, why does it matter? Where's the "better safe than sorry" approach that we used for masks? Also, there isn't even agreement of what exactly constitutes airborne or not. Just use the KISS method.

When you say "backed by no science", this is technically true in a narrow sense and yet also misleading. The point of the "rule of 6" was to provide a pragmatic system to give the public some social contact whilst dissuading them from more problematic gatherings. Thus whilst one could say it was not specifically backed by science, it was consistent with science, for social application to mitigate spread. As it is also a politicised system for influencing human social behaviour, nor is that in process or intent equivalent to a scientific report produced by a dedicated expert panel.

I do however find your angry, slash and burn, ad hominem attacks on the CDC, UK government and NHS advice quite funny. That's a weirdly huge amount of hostility against organisations just for them having a different view on daily, recommended intake of vitamin D from your own.
Keeping to 6 people outdoors is based on literally no science. If you wanna base recommendations on science, then tell people it's very safe to be outside over inside. Why would 6 people outside by as dangerous as 6 people inside? That's scientifically false. You literally had people walking/jogging/running through grass (making a literally new path in the grass) avoiding people on the sidewalk over completely asinine messaging. You can walk by people outside and it's basically impossible to get the virus unless dude sneezes on you as you walk by. Some parks removed every other swing, it's some of the dumbest shit I've ever seen.

Again, it's not my view, it's the actual experts in that field's view. You complained about potential vitamin d toxicity like it's a legit issue, you have to take so much vitamin d for it to be an issue it's not even funny.

So where did you get the idea that nearly all the studies on early HCQ administration were beneficial, when that's plainly not true? You either came to that conclusion on your own, or you borrowed someone else's opinion. Either way, it was a terrible assessment of the evidence.
I didn't literally say all studies, I said a vast vast vast vast majority of early studies as there's probably a couple that say no benefit (because I'm not looking through them all at past midnight right now). You said you have to look at all the studies, which you're not doing. That's what I did the whole time as quoted myself from October 2nd a few posts back. I never said anything along the lines of "this ONE study proves everything". Yet you would go and link to studies about late-stage treatment, which literally everyone agreed it didn't work as proof HCQ doesn't do anything. Covid is basically like 2 diseases as early treatment and late treatment require different approaches.

No, they are designed to stop vitamin D deficiency. You need to understand that "deficiency" is in many ways an arbitrary value: it represents an estimated point where there is a significantly increased (how much increased?) risk and individual may have a chance of health problems - therefore many people below the deficiency value will not have significant health problems despite being technically deficient according to that semi-arbitrary deficiency value.

Again, the key question becomes: where is the point where higher vitamin D concentrations are likely to stop supplying any significant health benefit? This is unknown. But there is evidence it's not that much higher than deficiency, and we know it's very hard to see benefits beyond a level that is below the common blood plasma recommendation of 50 nmol/L (20 ng/ml). Studies suggest 30-40 nmol/L may be the point the benefit starts plateauing, as improved health outcomes with supplementation for people with baseline of 40 nmol/L or higher is extremely hard to identify.
What I care about is how much I should/supposed to have of something. I don't want to only have the bare minimum of whatever so my risk ceases to be high risk, I don't want moderate risk either. Deficiency is basically the bare minimum. Insufficiency isn't good either. Why would anyone want to be in the moderate risk zone if it just cost literal pennies a day to not be in that zone? We really don't know how much vitamin d affects everything in the body and we're just starting to learn, it controls the expressions of over 1,000 genes in the body. Why are you so against the "better safe than sorry" approach? Why not take an extra $0.01's worth of vitamin D each day? It's not going to hurt you and it may end up being rather beneficial down the road (like during a pandemic of a respiratory virus).

Covid analysis has shown that 50 nmol/L is what separates high/low risk.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,417
1,845
118
Country
United States of America
That histogram is inaccurate.

The mean range is 4.4 - 6.2 (according to the study itself) = 5 of the 41 studies

I'll extend the mean range 0.4 each direction (there's a lot of low 4s) and even then, you have this:

4.0 - 6.6 = 11 of 41 studies
2.0 - 3.9 = 12 of 41 studies
???

What are you trying to do here?
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,672
3,813
118
I'll extend the mean range 0.4 each direction (there's a lot of low 4s) and even then, you have this:

4.0 - 6.6 = 11 of 41 studies
2.0 - 3.9 = 12 of 41 studies
Scientifically gibberish.

Vitamin studies are notorious for having poor methodology. Some don't even establish the baseline levels of the participants.
So why have you spent so much time trying to use them to prove stuff if you don't even think they're reliable?

What on earth do you mean Dr. Seheult "knows how to test vitamin D levels?" He buys a commercially available Vit D testing kit and follows the instructions, like everyone else.

If you have a private practice, you can prescribe anything you want. But if you're part of an institution (which most doctors are), you can be heavily pressured to go by the guidelines. Dr. Pierre Kory resigned from UW Health because he couldn't stand by his patients just getting supportive care vs giving them steroids that he knew worked.
You mean it's got pretty much nothing to do with government guidelines after all? Okay then.

Reading around, Kory resigned because he was very publicly advocating unproven treatments (and is continuing to do so) outside the normal scientific and medical channels, which potentially harms the reputation of his institution. And indeed, the little cabal he's part of has more than a whiff of crankery: egoism, appealing for attention through abnormal channels, selective data interpretation, grandiose claims, suggesting no-one needs to properly study and review their drug cocktail, etc.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,672
3,813
118
Just tell people what you know at the time, that's all. When people see that you're not being straight with them, you lose the trust and even if you say everything right after that, it doesn't matter.
The CDC is straight. There's little it can do about people who inherently don't trust it, often along with distrusting other authorities such as the government, and in some cases the entire institution of modern medicine. Nor people who attempt to interpret what they are underskilled to interpret.

You don't need to focus on technicalities when messaging people.
The CDC literally explains the difference between droplet and airborne transmission in plain language on its main covid spread webpage.

Keeping to 6 people outdoors is based on literally no science.
And I say again: that is misunderstanding its real function. It was a policy to encourage behavioural attitudes consistent with good infection control practice. A subtext is also a "safety first" approach, that assuming a risk of transmission where there is uncertain evidence is preferable to not doing so.

I didn't literally say all studies, I said a vast vast vast vast majority of early studies
It's not a vast majority of studies, though (never mind also considering quality of studies).

I also notice you are dodging my question. You have formed this opinion. Where did you get it from if not that website? Some other party, or did you create it yourself?

What I care about is how much I should/supposed to have of something. I don't want to only have the bare minimum of whatever so my risk ceases to be high risk, I don't want moderate risk either. Deficiency is basically the bare minimum. Insufficiency isn't good either. Why would anyone want to be in the moderate risk zone if it just cost literal pennies a day to not be in that zone? We really don't know how much vitamin d affects everything in the body and we're just starting to learn, it controls the expressions of over 1,000 genes in the body. Why are you so against the "better safe than sorry" approach? Why not take an extra $0.01's worth of vitamin D each day? It's not going to hurt you and it may end up being rather beneficial down the road (like during a pandemic of a respiratory virus).
I've said before and I say again: you want to take 2000 IUs of vitamin D a day, go for it with my blessing. Just don't pretend like everyone needs to or their bones will crumble to dust and they'll die the minute they catch the 'flu, or that you'll definitely be getting a benefit that you wouldn't on a fraction of the amount, and that you don't need to take other reasonable precautions against infection like masks and vaccines.

Covid analysis has shown that 50 nmol/L is what separates high/low risk.
No, it hasn't.

For instance, a study bins people into two groups, and uses over or under 50 nmol/L Vit D as the criterion, and find <50 nmol/L have worse health outcomes. But the worse outcomes could be due to a subgroup of the <50 nmol/L cohort who have much lower Vit D (say, <30 nmol/L): there may be no significant difference between the outcomes for 30-50 nmol/L and >50nmol/L. Thus for a study to say >50 nmol/L had better health outcomes than <50 nmol/L does not mean 50 nmol/L is the tipping point for risk.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,400
438
88
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
???

What are you trying to do here?
I was only showing what Agema made wasn't factual. When the average range determined by the meta-analysis only has 5 points in that range out of 41, it ain't gonna make a bell curve. There's 7 points that are 2.x alone.

Scientifically gibberish.
And yours is scientific excellence when it's not even counted correctly? I literally used the average range of that the study said was the average range and I even extended it to fit more data points in.

So why have you spent so much time trying to use them to prove stuff if you don't even think they're reliable?

What on earth do you mean Dr. Seheult "knows how to test vitamin D levels?" He buys a commercially available Vit D testing kit and follows the instructions, like everyone else.
How many times have I said we don't know that much? They're not reliable for a lot things like determining how helpful something is because they compare people with vastly different starting levels and that's why you have data all over the place in that meta-analysis.

I'd assume he could just use the hospital lab for that. It's just another example of how 2,000 IUs/day didn't even get someone's baseline vitamin d to 50nmol when 400 IU is all that you need that you have claimed multiple times just because that's what the guidelines say.

You mean it's got pretty much nothing to do with government guidelines after all? Okay then.

Reading around, Kory resigned because he was very publicly advocating unproven treatments (and is continuing to do so) outside the normal scientific and medical channels, which potentially harms the reputation of his institution. And indeed, the little cabal he's part of has more than a whiff of crankery: egoism, appealing for attention through abnormal channels, selective data interpretation, grandiose claims, suggesting no-one needs to properly study and review their drug cocktail, etc.
And when it was found out that steroids work for covid, it's OK to just have all those people that could've benefited from them not given any treatment? When there's a new disease that doesn't have known treatments yet (because RCTs and whatnot take time), why is trusting your doctor that understands medical science and can apply what he knows to a new disease that they feel will work a bad thing? That's how doctors hypothesized that steroids would work by following already known science and applying it. They didn't just pick steroids out of a hat and give it a go. Covid is not some vastly unique virus that you can't apply past science to just like you can apply Windows 7 knowledge to Windows 10. Plus, they were getting results from steroid treatment. I'm going to trust a doctor like that over current guidelines. And they didn't say not to study things but that they weren't because it would be unethical to treat patients worse on purpose.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,400
438
88
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
The CDC is straight. There's little it can do about people who inherently don't trust it, often along with distrusting other authorities such as the government, and in some cases the entire institution of modern medicine. Nor people who attempt to interpret what they are underskilled to interpret.
They are not straight. I forget if it was both Fauci (it was Fauci for sure) and the CDC that didn't recommend masks so the public didn't buy them over health care workers. That message had nothing to do with if masks are useful or not. Anyway, back to the CDC, their mask recommendation had to do with knowledge of asymptomatic transmission, which we knew around a month prior already. I saw a Michael Osterholm interview on March 11 where he said that and cited the study. I already knew that and the CDC just then "acquired the knowledge" on April 3rd. They are last to the party pretty much every time. The reason I don't trust them is because they're old news (during a pandemic), they're a month+ behind.

The CDC literally explains the difference between droplet and airborne transmission in plain language on its main covid spread webpage.
What make something airborne is how long the droplets are in the air, it's all droplets. We know it spread through the air long before CDC said it did. Again, they're old news. If you wanna harp on the technically of how long a droplet has to stay in the air or how small the droplet has to be, you're missing the point. If you can get it sitting far from an infectious person (which was known), then it's airborne for all intents and purposes. Just simply say that. KEEP. IT. SIMPLE. STUPID.

You can do all the technicalities later for when people read the Wiki on it 10 years from now, covid can be said to technically not have been airborne. But for the actual time of the pandemic, you don't need to care about that stuff.

And I say again: that is misunderstanding its real function. It was a policy to encourage behavioural attitudes consistent with good infection control practice. A subtext is also a "safety first" approach, that assuming a risk of transmission where there is uncertain evidence is preferable to not doing so.
The science literally says it's far safer outside than inside, tell people where it is safe and not safe. Again, K.I.S.S. Having exact same guidelines for indoors and outdoors is just plain nonsense. Stop trying to get the public to do what you want via messaging, just tell them stuff that's straight. That's partly the reason for the whole mask fiasco in the US. California (what this thread is about and what I've been saying the whole time) closed outdoor dining for no reason, forcing more indoor interactions. How is that helpful?

As you can see in the US and UK infections during the holidays, people didn't follow the guidelines anyway. Maybe just try being straight with people and you'll get a better response? But apparently that's too dangerous of an idea even though it can't be any less dangerous than the current predicament. And now you got people on the news telling people to "vet" others because they could be lying that they got vaccinated, it's so fucking ridiculous.

It's not a vast majority of studies, though (never mind also considering quality of studies).

I also notice you are dodging my question. You have formed this opinion. Where did you get it from if not that website? Some other party, or did you create it yourself?
You said to look at all the data, which you aren't doing yourself. You seem to not even want to look any early treatment studies because you've yet to post even a single one. One of the studies you linked to was of really low quality so you aren't considering the quality either. You definitely formed an opinion and are only looking at studies to confirm that opinion.

I've said before and I say again: you want to take 2000 IUs of vitamin D a day, go for it with my blessing. Just don't pretend like everyone needs to or their bones will crumble to dust and they'll die the minute they catch the 'flu, or that you'll definitely be getting a benefit that you wouldn't on a fraction of the amount, and that you don't need to take other reasonable precautions against infection like masks and vaccines.
I've never said any of those things. When have I said if people take vitamin d that don't need masks or vaccines. Even without definitive data on masks, I've been a mask supporter the whole time. I also said I believe the vaccines are completely safe in the thread that asks people if they think the vaccines are safe.

We have easily enough data pointing to vitamin d. There's just so much correlational evidence and there's a decent amount of causation too. There's no reason not to spend a couple cents a day on it just like there's no reason not to wear a mask in public.

No, it hasn't.

For instance, a study bins people into two groups, and uses over or under 50 nmol/L Vit D as the criterion, and find <50 nmol/L have worse health outcomes. But the worse outcomes could be due to a subgroup of the <50 nmol/L cohort who have much lower Vit D (say, <30 nmol/L): there may be no significant difference between the outcomes for 30-50 nmol/L and >50nmol/L. Thus for a study to say >50 nmol/L had better health outcomes than <50 nmol/L does not mean 50 nmol/L is the tipping point for risk.
Here you go, inverse relationship of vitamin d levels and infection rates (across all levels) regardless of sex, age, race, etc

The curve starts going up below 50 nmol.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,672
3,813
118
I was only showing what Agema made wasn't factual. When the average range determined by the meta-analysis only has 5 points in that range out of 41, it ain't gonna make a bell curve. There's 7 points that are 2.x alone.

And yours is scientific excellence when it's not even counted correctly? I literally used the average range of that the study said was the average range and I even extended it to fit more data points in.
I did count correctly. What you did isn't even how you make a histogram at all.

It's just another example of how 2,000 IUs/day didn't even get someone's baseline vitamin d to 50nmol when 400 IU is all that you need that you have claimed multiple times just because that's what the guidelines say.
The average plasma concentration of Vit D in the UK is over 40 nmol/L on an average intake of 80-160 IUs a day. Just saying.

And when it was found out that steroids work for covid, it's OK to just have all those people that could've benefited from them not given any treatment? When there's a new disease that doesn't have known treatments yet (because RCTs and whatnot take time), why is trusting your doctor that understands medical science and can apply what he knows to a new disease that they feel will work a bad thing?
I literally have no idea what you are trying to argue here. Doctors were already able to prescribe steroids if they thought it was useful. Guidelines, cautions etc. are advisory, not hard and fast rules. I think Kory got in trouble for being a loudmouth and bringing his institution into disrepute.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,672
3,813
118
I saw a Michael Osterholm interview on March 11 where he said that and cited the study. I already knew that and the CDC just then "acquired the knowledge" on April 3rd. They are last to the party pretty much every time.
What you need to start realising is that you know jack shit.

What you have done is leap on speculation over limited knowledge; some of this speculation is true and some of it is not. Then when it becomes more established, you simply ignore or deny the occasions you picked wrong speculation (hello HCQ), and take the occasions you got it right as proof of your innate superiority to these dumbo experts. Except you also want the approval of "experts", so you select out the "experts" who say what you agree with for praise.

In essence, your approach here is like belief in horoscopes.

What make something airborne is how long the droplets are in the air, it's all droplets...
It is not the CDC's fault that you don't understand stuff and don't even understand that you don't understand stuff.

The science literally says it's far safer outside than inside
It does now, but it was far less clear when many of these places instituted these rules.

You said to look at all the data, which you aren't doing yourself. You seem to not even want to look any early treatment studies because you've yet to post even a single one. One of the studies you linked to was of really low quality so you aren't considering the quality either. You definitely formed an opinion and are only looking at studies to confirm that opinion.
Well, here's the thing. That website you cited did cite all the studies, and linked to them too. It just misrepresented them in its bogus analysis. Thus you had already cited "all the evidence" and I didn't need to cite anything more. You just didn't understand - and evidently still don't - that your own source undermined your case rather than supported it.

You have again still not answered my question. Where did you get this idea the "vast majority" of studies said HCQ was useful for early covid-19 if not that website?

Here you go, inverse relationship of vitamin d levels and infection rates (across all levels) regardless of sex, age, race, etc
Yes, but by your own argument vitamin studies are unreliable, so this is not good enough.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,417
1,845
118
Country
United States of America
Re: school reopenings


they seem to be followed shortly in many cases by school closings. wow, so surprising. guess children can transmit disease after all.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,417
1,845
118
Country
United States of America
I was only showing what Agema made wasn't factual. When the average range determined by the meta-analysis only has 5 points in that range out of 41, it ain't gonna make a bell curve. There's 7 points that are 2.x alone.
This is not at all clarifying.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,400
438
88
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
I did count correctly. What you did isn't even how you make a histogram at all.
You didn't even count the data points correctly. All you gotta do is copy/paste to spreadsheet, sort them in order and highlight all in said range to get an accurate count. I wonder why a quarter of the studies are right on the 2.5 line that CPG stated as their average... Probably because the studies used the same methodology and thus got very similar results.

The average plasma concentration of Vit D in the UK is over 40 nmol/L on an average intake of 80-160 IUs a day. Just saying.
And outside of young kids, about a quarter have levels 25 nmol or below. Just saying.

I literally have no idea what you are trying to argue here. Doctors were already able to prescribe steroids if they thought it was useful. Guidelines, cautions etc. are advisory, not hard and fast rules. I think Kory got in trouble for being a loudmouth and bringing his institution into disrepute.
Kory resigned and went to another place. Maybe he got in trouble vs his choice. I'd hardly call him most likely still making a great salary somewhere else "getting in trouble". This isn't the 1st I've heard of institutions being an issue with treatment. One private practice doctor said he was very fortunate to have a private practice so he could treat how he saw fit. Yes, technically doctors can prescribe whatever they want, but that's not how it always goes down either.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,400
438
88
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
It is not the CDC's fault that you don't understand stuff and don't even understand that you don't understand stuff.
The technicalities of what is airborne and what is not airborne isn't important. What people need to know is if they can get it from someone across the room and that's a yes. KEEP. IT. SIMPLE. STUPID. It doesn't matter if covid droplets are ever-so-slightly not micro enough to be technically airborne when they allow for the same kind of transmission to happen.

It does now, but it was far less clear when many of these places instituted these rules.
I read it way back; I got a sent text message (from June) of a screenshot of the article I sent to a friend that cited a study that found 1 transmission traced to outdoors out of over 7,000 infections. The UK's "Rule of 6" started in September. Covid is a respiratory virus, why would outdoors be even speculated to be as dangerous as indoors?

Well, here's the thing. That website you cited did cite all the studies, and linked to them too. It just misrepresented them in its bogus analysis. Thus you had already cited "all the evidence" and I didn't need to cite anything more. You just didn't understand - and evidently still don't - that your own source undermined your case rather than supported it.

You have again still not answered my question. Where did you get this idea the "vast majority" of studies said HCQ was useful for early covid-19 if not that website?
I don't look at the site's analysis, I don't care about their analysis. Does that site not have all the studies?

Also, you've let to link to a single early treatment study that say HCQ does nothing or is harmful.

Yes, but by your own argument vitamin studies are unreliable, so this is not good enough.
That's not a vitamin study, it's just measuring levels in the blood, which doesn't have different methodologies. That debunks the argument that low vitamin d levels are only having higher hospitalizations and death rates because the most vulnerable usually have low vitamin d levels. It's like when lil devils argued that covid was causing low vitamin d itself but neglected the fact that communities of people with known vitamin d deficiencies were being adversely affected by covid.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,400
438
88
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
What you need to start realising is that you know jack shit.

What you have done is leap on speculation over limited knowledge; some of this speculation is true and some of it is not. Then when it becomes more established, you simply ignore or deny the occasions you picked wrong speculation (hello HCQ), and take the occasions you got it right as proof of your innate superiority to these dumbo experts. Except you also want the approval of "experts", so you select out the "experts" who say what you agree with for praise.

In essence, your approach here is like belief in horoscopes.
Patients having extremely high viral levels on very first symptom onset (10,000 times that of SARS) means they were infectious prior to symptoms. WE KNEW THAT, IT WASN'T SPECULATIVE. I actually said remdesivir was more promising than HCQ on the v1 forums but the thread is gone now (I can screenshot my FB posts if you want). My bias was to think HCQ was a crock because Trump boasted about it. I looked at the data and it says otherwise. I listen to the experts, it's their opinions not mine. Whether Michael Osterholm or Peter Hotez or Paul Offit or whoever. Peter Hotez (NOT ME) said a SARS vaccine would have likely worked and he was right because he kinda knows what he's talking about. Why would I care much about having something we don't have that would have worked?

I got a pretty good track record of "speculating" and being right because I pay attention to what the experts said. Or I just put 2 and 2 together like my prediction for when the pandemic was going to end was next summer on the 29th of October.

 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,400
438
88
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Re: school reopenings


they seem to be followed shortly in many cases by school closings. wow, so surprising. guess children can transmit disease after all.
School closing over what? It's probably due to a couple kids getting it and doing contract tracing and basically everyone having had contact and the school closing because of that. I never said kids can't transmit it, it's just unlikely for them to especially to adults, which is who needs to be safe. Covid is less deadly to kids than the flu.

It's like someone yesterday mentioned when we were playing board games that so and so (I think some singer but I don't recall) got coronavirus after getting vaccinated and my first question was did they just test positive or they actually got the disease and got severe symptoms? Because testing positive means almost nothing, same with a kid testing positive. Testing positive after vaccination is going to happen if you get exposed to it no matter how good the vaccine is. Your immune system doesn't kill the virus upon entry and you will get infected. Just like a kid will get infected and test positive if they were exposed even if their immune system gets rid of it as fast as possible. That doesn't mean the kid can transmit to others just because they tested positive just like a vaccinated person is probably highly unlikely to transmit it as well because of how much faster their immune system is taking care of it.

This is not at all clarifying.
Here's the meta-analysis. I don't know what else I have to do to clarify.