Ebola round 2

[skjl47]

I take a multi vitamin which has D among other things and a separate D as well. I am old and this is suggested for us older folks.

Hello; Since it keeps coming up let me say it was suggested I take the vitamin D supplement a few years ago at my doctors office. Not just because of the new virus. I also have not increased my dose of D because of the new virus. I do not know if taking D makes a difference. I am not suggesting anyone take it, just saying I have been for a few years. I agree that anyone considering taking extra ought to consult a doctor.
Being out in the sun is the simplest way to get D. It is metabolized when we get sunlight on our skin. My issue is sun damage over time in my youth so I tend to cover up now that I am an old man. I now wear long sleeve t-shirts, long pants and a broad brim hat in the warm months. I also use a sun block sometimes. I use to be outside a lot when younger and just got too much exposure. If you live you eventually pay for the sins of your youth.

 

[pacu mom]

For years I was prescribed Vit D 50,000 IU a week. New doctor--50,000 IU once a month plus daily supplementation. Too confusing to take once a month. At 2,000 IU daily, my levels were too high. There a host of potential side effects from too much Vitamin D. Vitamin D toxicity can include hypercalcemia with kidney stone formation, bone pain, digestive issues.

About two months ago, there was a doctor in Guam who probably had COVID-19 even though his one and only test was negative. He had all the symptoms including a high fever--103 that would not go away. Someone came to his house every day and gave him IV Vitamin C. He also did hydroxychloroquine /zinc. March 27 - 103 temp. March 28- 102 temp. April 1 - 99.7 April 2 back working at the only hospital that takes COVID-19 patients. When repeatedly questioned why he didn't stay home longer, he replied that he wished he could have taken another week off, but that he couldn't, and the doctors in China and Italy cauldn't either.


There is so much stuff out there about treating COVID-19. The idea that an inflammatory response, cytokine storm, is response for the severe reactions in some patients makes a lot of sense to me. If this is so, then Vitamin D and C and quinine products could have merit in treating and/or as prophylactic measures. If I got infected, I hope I had a physician who would treat me this way. Of course, I could always boil the peel and membranes from grapefruit and drink it for the quinine

 

[RD.]

There is some speculation that a vitamin D supplement may be an aid.

Just to be clear, there is no speculation that vitamin D supplementation can help to prevent acute respiratory tract infections. The data seems clear in that regards. I posted this earlier in this discussion, and will post again for those that may have missed it.

Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data

It is precisely because of these more recent studies on vitamin D and respiratory tract infections, that there are now a number of studies regarding vitamin D, and covid-19. The results certainly seem promising, much more than anything else that I have read about over these past number of months.

There a host of potential side effects from too much Vitamin D. Vitamin D toxicity can include hypercalcemia with kidney stone formation, bone pain, digestive issues.

It has been demonstrated in most studies, that bolus doses (once a month) do not have the same effect, as daily, or weekly dose of vitamin D. Also, vitamin D toxicity is extremely rare (see previous links) and hypercalcemia and a higher incidence of kidney stones has not been proven. Some of the data seems to point to excess calcium, not D. Having had kidney stones a number of times over the recent years, I paid particularly closely to that data. I have had no kidney stone issues since starting a higher dose a number of months ago. I took 10,000 IU daily for several weeks initially, then tapered down to daily 5,000 IU daily, which I am currently still taking. Along with magnesium, K2, zinc, etc. I have not increased calcium, just my usual intake, which is limited.

Monthly high-dose vitamin D supplementation does not increase kidney stone risk or serum calcium: results from a randomized controlled trial


Living in NW Canada getting D from the sun is limited to at best 3-4 months of the year.

Either way, do your own research, and make your own decision.

 

[skjl47]

My sons immunoligist recommended we use rubbing alcohol instead of bleach to wipe things down.

Hello; I can see the use of alcohol. For a while 91% rubbing alcohol was not available. I have been finding it lately at Wal-mart.

 

[RD.]

70 percent alcohol is generally more than a strong enough mix of alcohol and water to deal with the covid-19 virus. Once the outer layer of fat is removed or broken, the protein inside becomes denatured and soon dies. The CDC recommends using alcohol-based hand rub with greater than 60% ethanol or 70% isopropanol in healthcare settings.

 

[RD.]

So much for herd immunity ….



"The predecessor of Sweden’s state epidemiologist has broken her silence on the country’s controversial coronavirus strategy, saying she now believes the authorities should have put in place tougher restrictions in the early stages of the pandemic to bring the virus under control.

Annika Linde, who oversaw Sweden’s response to swine flu and Sars as state epidemiologist from 2005 to 2013, had until now expressed support for her country’s approach under her successor, Anders Tegnell.

But she has now become the first member of the public health establishment to break ranks, saying she has changed her mind as a result of Sweden’s relatively high death toll compared with that of its neighbours, Denmark, Norway, and Finland.

“I think that we needed more time for preparedness. If we had shut down very early ... we would have been able, during that time, to make sure that we had what was necessary to protect the vulnerable,” Linde told the Observer.

For two days last week Sweden had the highest per capita death rate in the world on a seven-day rolling average, and the overall death toll is expected to pass 4,000 this weekend.

Per capita death rates in Denmark, Finland and Norway, which all put in place far-reaching lockdowns, are now, respectively, four, seven and nine times lower than that of Sweden."

 

[esoxlucius]

A good few weeks ago now I was getting ready for work one morning and I put the TV on. On the breakfast show was a panel of four guests and one was a Swedish health minister. He came across rather smug saying that Swedish people aren't stupid and that if the government put measures in place the swedish people can be relied upon to follow the measures to the letter. Their trust in their own population is maybe one of the reasons why swedens measures were slack to say the least. At the time of the show Sweden had very very few cases so it looked liked their "trusting" approach was the way to go, even though the rest of the panel had their reservations.

But of course you can't trust ALL of the people to adhere to ALL of the measures ALL of the time. It looks like Swedens approach is leaving their minister with egg all over his smug face.

This is going to go on for years and years. Statisticians are going to be looking at numbers all over the world. And then the blame game will start over why this country did this and had these figures, and why that country did that and had those figures. We should have done it this way or we should have done it that. Public enquiries, resignations, maybe even prosecutions.

But the truth is, who knows 100% what the best course of action is when we're going through unprecedented times?

 

[jaws7777]

But the truth is, who knows 100% what the best course of action is when we're going through unprecedented times?

Very true. We are seeing it here. This state didnt lock down, that state did. In some instances states that didnt lock down did much better than the states that had restrictions and lock downs. What they dont talk about is population density. Some of the states that did lock down are very densely populated, I imagine there was just no real feasible way to avoid the spread.

I think that swedish official is talking from an unrealistic point of view. Maybe sweden in the long run will have gotten through the worst of it, while denmark and the others get inundated when they fully open. My understanding is this was never about stopping the spread only delaying it. Some really smart people knew early on that this was going to spread like wild fire.

 

[skjl47]

Hello; I have a somewhat different take on what appears to be happening in Sweden. By not doing the more strict lockdowns It was my understanding they could have and likely would have a higher infection rate early on in the course of the event. With the higher infection rate the likelihood of a higher per capita death rate would follow. This strategy should get the total number of infections to a percentage level that generates "herd" immunity sooner than the strict lockdown places.

In countries undergoing a more strict lockdown the hope was to blunt the initial infection rate for fear of the medical capacity becoming overwhelmed. At least that was the very early story with the flatten the curve rhetoric. The early version also then conceded that while slowing the infection rate, the flatter curve, that the total number of infections over time would be the same. The infection rate would be reduced day to day with the hope the hospital capacity could keep pace which indeed has happened. Under this plan It should take longer for the number of total infections to reach a "herd" immunity level.

Both plans should wind up with similar overall results depending on how a few circumstances play out. The big gamble for a less restriction plan such as Sweden's likely will to be the capacity of the medical facilities to keep up. As of this writing I do not personally know if their medical facilities have been able to keep up. Another gamble of this strategy could be a "game changer" medical treatment coming along early enough to make a big difference in the total overall results. If such a game changer did happen then any early deaths could be a liability for the less restriction plans. It is unknown by me, so far, if either or both of these gambles paid off or failed.

The big gamble of the more restricted plans appears to be the damage from the side effects of the more strict lockdowns. Here also the jury is still out for the total results, but some damage is already known. There appear to be at least two camps.

One camp seems to have a strong focus on only the loss of life actually caused directly by the virus itself with little consideration for the collateral damage. I guess if in the end they can point to a lower overall death rate they can declare a pyric victory of sorts.

Another camp has looked at the strict lockdowns with an eye to the overall damage from both the virus and the lockdowns. An additional point is not only the restrictions of the lockdowns but also the length of the lockdowns. At first the lockdowns were to be 14 days. Then they were extended several times even after it became clear the medical capacity could cope. It is too early to take a true measure of the damage of the lockdowns. Had a "game changer" medical treatment come along early in the lockdowns then that gamble would have seemed different. Such has not happened so we have the effects of the virus along with the effects of the lockdowns.

A last item seems to be that the people have now voted with their feet so to speak. Regardless of the outcome huge numbers of people in the USA have recently decided to ignore the lockdown and safe distancing restrictions. I guess they have just had all the restrictions they can take.

I got a phone call yesterday morning from a friend with an invitation to go for a ride with him and his son. Over the years when his son comes in we three would ride around just to be out and about. Do some shopping or sightseeing and eat at a good restaurant. I declined yesterday saying it is too early to be running around. His reply was they are healthy. I told him he could not actually know if they were infected for sure. I do not know if they ran around but I stayed home.

 

[RD.]

Well one thing that we know with certainty, and that is this virus easily travels from person to person. So the more we can distance ourselves, in public, at work, etc, the better we can keep this virus from taking off like a wildfire. If as a society we can manage that, we can at least control the rate of spread. This is not just a case of medical capacity, but more importantly keeping those working the front lines, free from stress overload. I have seen the result of that where I work, and we have yet to even come close to the flames. It doesn’t matter how much PPE is available, if we don’t have people to wear it.