Quote (Surfpunk @ Jan 26 2022 12:31pm)

Quote (Goomshill @ Jan 26 2022 12:33pm)

maybe he's Torm1 returned from Kolob, I wasn't paying attention

Quote (Goomshill @ Jan 26 2022 12:27pm)

I'm certainly not going to disregard it as a possible factor, but to take a step back into the context, these health providers are citing the CDC for their guidance, and the CDC's official line is that 'There is insufficient evidence to recommend either for or against the use of vitamin D for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19.' Afaik there are still some studies on prophylactic use that are underway, but its a very long leap from the hypothesis of a condition, to associating that condition with a population, to using it to justify systemic racial discrimination. That's several unsupported leaps, and there's an obvious exit ramp for non-discriminatory policy- treating vitamin D deficiency as a condition, not race as a condition.

Quote (lodd222 @ Jan 26 2022 02:37pm)

"no evidence":
https://i.ibb.co/89FZBBd/Screen-Shot-2022-01-26-at-12-35-18-PM.png

https://scitechdaily.com/experiments-show-sunlight-destroys-covid-virus-8-times-faster-than-scientists-thought/

hmmm, i wonder who could be so afraid of sunlight? :rofl:

Quote (lodd222 @ Jan 26 2022 02:17pm)

Why are you so scared of the truth? you this cowardly irl?

sunlight= vitamin D= covid prevention or management, not rocket science guy.

Quote (Goomshill @ Jan 26 2022 02:27pm)

I'm certainly not going to disregard it as a possible factor, but to take a step back into the context, these health providers are citing the CDC for their guidance, and the CDC's official line is that 'There is insufficient evidence to recommend either for or against the use of vitamin D for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19.' Afaik there are still some studies on prophylactic use that are underway, but its a very long leap from the hypothesis of a condition, to associating that condition with a population, to using it to justify systemic racial discrimination. That's several unsupported leaps, and there's an obvious exit ramp for non-discriminatory policy- treating vitamin D deficiency as a condition, not race as a condition.

Quote (Santara @ 26 Jan 2022 22:20)

I'm not making that claim. I'm saying it's a natural outcome of darker skin tones being well known as being less able to metabolize vitamin D via sunlight.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Jan 26 2022 03:29pm)

Let's assume for the sake of the argument that you are right and vitamin D deficiency is a really major covid risk factor, and a lot of dark-skinned people in northern places like Minnesota suffer from it. Then we would hypothetically have an example of this fabled causal link between race and worse covid outcomes that a lot of the earlier debate in this thread centered around. But even then, there would still be a straightforward, cheap and efficient remedy (handing out vit D supplements). Hence, resorting to outright racial discrimination would still be unethical and most definitely unconstitutional.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Jan 26 2022 03:29pm)

Let's assume for the sake of the argument that you are right and vitamin D deficiency is a really major covid risk factor, and a lot of dark-skinned people in northern places like Minnesota suffer from it. Then we would hypothetically have an example of this fabled causal link between race and worse covid outcomes that a lot of the earlier debate in this thread centered around. But even then, there would still be a straightforward, cheap and efficient remedy (handing out vit D supplements). Hence, resorting to outright racial discrimination would still be unethical and most definitely unconstitutional.

Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ 26 Jan 2022 23:07)

None of that matters, because the state of affairs *now* is that some communities are differentially effected, and the observed rates are what we have to base medical police interventions on.

That's the crux of the issue. Nowhere in the constitution does it say "You can't make any decision based on race". Sometimes race is an important factor to consider and that doesn't make it discrimination to do so.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ 26 Jan 2022 23:21)

Out of curiousity: replace the word "medical" with "police" in your statement, it turns into an emphatic defense of racial profiling discrimination and stop-and-frisk policies in high-crime areas. Do you support such policies? If not: what's the difference?