We have real-time data, sure; but when reopening from lockdown, governments have to rely on modelling future scenarios and predictive science.
Look at the last two lockdowns in the UK. We locked down; infections fell way down; we reopened; infections grew again, beyond the point they were at originally. You cannot just yo-yo in and out of lockdown, reacting to the current infection level, because the current infection level is going to be artificially low as a direct result of lockdown.
You need scientists and researchers to model a roadmap out of lockdown that doesn't involve letting it spike and overwhelm the health service. And every model that has been produced has been very cautious.
And you seem to be always looking at the best, or taking the most optimistic model. It seems to me that when so many lives are at stake, it makes perfect sense to prepare and plan for the worst-case scenario.
The least deadly pandemic. The point being that pandemics are exceptionally rare and exceptionally deadly events as a basic requirement.
And if you're talking about driving again, we've already debunked that nonsense comparison.
The modeling isn't very good though. IIRC, the UK locked down for the 2nd time based on a model that said 4,000 deaths a day that was already shown to be wrong when they voted to lockdown. It really doesn't seem like restrictions are doing much anymore because if you look at the US and UK, their infection curves mirror each other and 1 locked down. If you look at different states in the US (right next to each other), their curves mirror each other when one had more restrictions in place. People either got together or didn't during the holidays based on what they wanted to do vs whatever restrictions were in place. I've been saying lockdowns don't work for awhile (after the initial one) because the public isn't going to buy into them every time and you need to find right ways to keep the spread down without the lockdowns (like Japan). I've said this well over ten times now probably.
I'm taking the model that has the most data behind it, that is literally all, I'm not looking for anything but what the majority of data says. You can prepare for worst-case scenario and enact those policies when it's "getting there" if that happens but to make policy based on worst-case scenarios and enact them when there's no sign of it happening is beyond asinine.
Here you go, there's nothing but good news on the whole "ending the pandemic" front. Scientists were HOPING for 60-70% efficacy from the vaccines as they were being developed, we have 95+% efficacy and 100% efficacy for hospitalizations/deaths AGAINST ALL VARIANTS. There is nothing pointing towards this pandemic extending itself. And she goes over how the flu is completely different from covid. And she's a HIV expert and knows how important t-cells are cuz HIV. Also, viruses are more likely to mutate themselves out of existence than to mutate to become something deadlier. And people that got the Spanish Flu 90-years later still had a t-cell response to that strain. And, doing stuff outside is EXTREMELY safe and getting covid from surfaces is extremely unlikely, sanitizing your groceries is just stupid, they are literally like "eat your groceries people!!!".
Yep, you didn't debunk driving unless you're doing it for the very very short-term. I have a 1% chance in my life to die from a car accident. I have less than a 1% chance of dying from covid if I get it (in my life), which isn't a guaranteed to happen (so the odds of dying from covid are less than the IFR because you might not even get it).
MedCram is basically a spin-off company where some entrepreneurially-inclined med school professors have repurposed bits of university teaching as paid-for web content. These guys do the same job that I do. Therefore if they are an expert authority, so am I.
Are you saying MedCram does not have good classes and professors?
Says who, with what data?
Like official government recommendations page...
"This is the daily amount recommended for the general population by government for general health and
in particular to protect bone and muscle health."
www.gov.uk
All the studies you think exist don't.
Show me a single study that shows the vitamin d you get from the sun isn't close to all the articles I linked. I don't know why you have to constantly argue with everything. I linked to 3 articles about how much vitamin d you get from the sun.
If you mean should you get a surplus of Vit D from enough exposure on a sunny, Summer day, yes you should. There is no reliable data for how much, but surely into the thousands of IUs. 10-20,000 IUs sounds distinctly dubious outside dedicated exposure like sunbathing.
50 nmol/L serum vitamin D (25OHD) is 20 micrograms per litre plasma, which means about 50 micrograms total in the blood for an average adult. About a third of the body's 25OHD is in the plasma, so that's about 150 micrograms 25OHD total in the body for that blood plasma concentration. Obviously, individual variation, etc. The half life of 25OHD is recokoned at ~15-25 days. Crunch the numbers, 10-15 micrograms (400-600IU) per day is plenty; the steady state should be well over 50 nmol/L plasma. Obviously, individual variation, etc.
This is without even considering the much larger store of another form of vit D, cholecalciferol, largely in body fat. That has a half life of about 80 days. The function of it is almost certainly that excess 25OHD is coverted to and stored as cholecalciferol in times of plenty, and that store is released when sunlight is low in Winter and vitamin D is much less available. Consequently, someone who gets out enough in the warmer months is unlikely to need supplements even throughout Winter, just relying on diet.
Bottom line, government recommendations are fine except for a minority of people with specific vulnerabilities to vit D deficiency.
No, what I meant is that over our history as a species are bodies are used to getting a lot more vitamin d than we do today. Our vitamin d intake has shifted quite greatly in last so many decades.
Vitamin d isn't converted on a nice perfect ratio of 1:1 for how much you take and how much is converted. There's a lot more that goes into vitamin d conversion than just the amount you intake. For example, magnesium helps vitamin d conversion and taking the supplement with a meal boosts absorption. Here's a
study that showed "recommended vitamin D intakes are too small to prevent insufficiency". It's not just a simple take X of vitamin d and get X level in the blood basically.