Chat about Novel Coronavirus - 2019-nCoV - COVID-19

That would not be the case here at least. I dont take any other vitamin than D.
Most "young" ppl i know only take D actually but perhaps the older ppl take a multivit as well

I'm not ignoring you personally. I have this thread (and others, and people too) on ignore.
I dip in and out of here. Because I can't cope.

My summary on vitamin D:
It probs won't do any harm (apart from the over fishing, the money to vitamin companies, or the risk of e coli from unwashed vegetables, or increased skin cancer rates).
There's something nice about feeling you're doing something to help yourself. If you get coronavirus, a slice of mackerel a day is not a substitute for not being overweight, not smoking, generally being healthy, not living in poverty, having no underlying health conditions (known or unknown), not having the type of job that puts you at risk, not being BAME, not having the angiotensin receptor type that puts you at risk of getting fucked up, having a huge viral load exposure, being tired, being stressed etc.

But you know, have a slice of mackerel in the sunshine and feel safe.

taken out because I'm a bit ranty.

There are so many factors, unless you are clearly low in vitamin D (only way to find out is a blood test) it may do nothing anyway, and it won't resolve all the risk factors Chalfie mentions either.

I took vit D for a while and it did exactly nothing against the office winter bugs. Did I have low blood levels? No idea, I was didn't feel like bugging my GP with a blood test.

A colleague of mine has weak bones, so she has to take it for bone mineralization but that is one thing we are sure it works. Due to all the risk factors interpreting research is hard too, they would really need to do a trial with BAME people, test blood levels and then if they are low do a trial with vitamin D, but right now it is speculation.

Vit D won't fix my partner's asthma either :)

I think (IIRC) that they said it is not unexpected given the virus peaked in London before everywhere else, but it could suggest that there is now higher herd immunity in London than elsewhere. Which would be good news but note could and the other scenario is that we're about to have a second wave :/

Would recommend giving it a listen.

But you know, have a slice of mackerel in the sunshine and feel safe.

You should probably keep it in the fridge, or on ice, if you really wanted to be safe.

#dadjokes

Some of the modelling the government are using is here:
https://joshuablake.github.io/public-RTM-reports/iframe.html

The "number of infections" tab is the interesting one. It reckons 24 new cases daily in London, and 15-25% of the population have already had it.

The R numbers for other parts of the country are weirdly high. Not sure if it's because they're taking it less seriously ("it's a London problem") or they're full of packed call centres and nursing homes, or just earlier in the curve (but lockdown happened everywhere at the same time).

Is there a coincidence between this push to 'get back to work' and lots of surfacing (potentially misleading) discussion about herd immunity and antibody tests? Are we not miles off both in reality? i.e. herd immunity being based off 60% plus of the population being previously infected and antibodies not necessarily confirming lasting immunity because we don't know if you can't get it more than once still.

There is no evidence to suggest there is less lasting immunity from this virus than most others is there? As i have understood it most if not all expert believe that you will have protection from the virus if you have been infected. How long is beeing speculated. Ofc they are worried that maybe one wouldent have any immunity even if you have been infected but that is just that, right, a worry? Or have i missed something here.

Herd immunity as used when beeing discussed in this setting is not an on or off button.
You will get more and more protection as larger part of the population are beeing infected.
As i have understood it the "herd immunity" is achieved once the R value is below 1 as the virus will then eventually go away. We have achieved this value with the help of other means in various places allrdy i guess but a larger increase of ppl infected allrdy helps slow down the spread more n more.

That is at least how i have understood it.

I think herd immunity is reached when R is below 1 and we aren't taking other measures. We seem a long way off the later.

There are thought to be two strains (L-type and S-type), but the differences are tiny and they're generally regarded as so similar that it's highly debatable whether they are really two strains at all

Brompton thread >>>>>>>

I thought thats what i was saying? Thats at least what i was trying to say.

Sorry. I thought you were implying that as R is currently below 1 we have achieved herd immunity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity explains it well obviously.

The R value going below 1 doesn't mean the virus will be gone in a few weeks.

At R=0.95, for example, it'll still be around for a long long time. If you start with 100,000 people infected then 5 days later 95000 people will be infected, etc. 6 months later you've still got ~16,000 people infected. (And with a 1% mortality rate that's still ~200 people dying per week).

(I've picked a bunch of numbers at random here, just to illustrate the point.)

At R=0.4 it will be much much quicker. You'll be down to one death a week in just over a month.

Herd immunity is achieved when there are only sporadic random cases of infection amongst the population. So, yes, by definition R must be below 1 for this, but it's not just as simple as R dipping below 1. The original estimates for R for SARS-Cov-2 was somewhere around 2.5-3.5. Given that the herd immunity percentage (the formula is discussed on the Wikipedia page) is 1 - (1/R) this gives a percentage somewhere near 60%-70%.

The problem with it is that the population isn't spread out evenly. Population wide herd immunity won't protect residents of a care home if only 10% of those residents have immunity, a single case could rip through the remaining residents in a care home with nothing to stop it. The 66% (or whatever) percentage of people outside the care home with immunity do nothing to protect them once a case gets inside.

[EDIT] Also, you can get R down to 0.4 of whatever with social distancing in place and pubs/bars/restaurants closed. But if you relax those restrictions then the infections will just start climbing again as it starts to spread. For herd immunity to work long term (with no restrictions in place) you need to get the appropriate number of people with immunity based on the R value at the beginning of the outbreak. That means having 2/3 of the population with immunity (either acquired or via vaccine). And if you have a vaccine then you don't just stop at 66% of the population (otherwise it's a lottery for the remaining third) you aim for as many people as possible (i.e. you try and vaccinate everyone knowing that you can't vaccinate the anti-vaxxers, or people with health conditions that mean you can't vaccinate them, or people who just choose not to).

I live in the north and I take only Möller fish oil capsules that have vitamin D in them.

Nothing else as I eat healthy.

That would not be the case here at least. I dont take any other vitamin than D.

So Finland and Sweden the same in this case as well. :DD

They think immunity is about 2 years for Covid, based on what they know about the other ones.

Some virus infections will get never result in immunity (aids is an extreme example) for others it is lifelong.

I've changed to fatty sustainable fish (MSC) as often fish oil capsules are not from sustainable caught fish. Tesco, for example, has msc mackarel / tinned sardines / tinned mackarel / wild frozen salmon and others.

Maybe Möller is sustainable, I don't know the brand.

they claim to be sustainable at least

Yeah, no need to worry about Norwegian and Icelandic cod fisheries. Can't be fucked to find any sources right now, but basically they've been at sustainable levels for decades.

But yes, you are right to be suspicious in general. Lower priced brands mix in fish oil caught in the Pacific. Not only are they mostly not monitored, but the liver oil is pretty much a by product that they throw together with a shrug in whichever container they have at hand.
Hidden camera reports from Peru and Chile have shown buckets full of rank mouldy shit. Probably more harmful than healthy to the human consumer.

Not at all.
I take a Vitamin D supplement because I live in the UK and spend most of my time indoors.
I also get regular blood tests done so I know I have low vitamin d normally.
I don't take other vitamins/minerals because it's not necessary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multivitamin#Cohort_studies

Probably more harmful than healthy to the human consumer.

Off oils and maybe some extras you don't want in there...

https://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20111206/some-fish-oil-supplements-fishy-on-quality

Plenty of Mushroom derived Vit D options, as long as they're certified free of heavy metals, prob a good way to go for sustainability?

wake up people it's all in the name ! CO-VItamin-D