A bottle of 360 5,000 IU Vitamin D pills is $16 on Amazon. Each pill is 4.5 cents, so you’re looking at 45 cents a week for 50k IU. I don’t think you can get better insurance for $2/month.
How does an ordinary person test that we’ve actually received the supplement that was ordered, and not something else entirely? Amazon is the Wild West compared to a drug store.
Besides, what are the chances that a local store's vitamin D is actually higher-quality? It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they both ended up coming from the same place.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect that people in financially difficult situations are able to order online. These are often people who can only pay with cash, food stamps, or other methods that Amazon won't accept. If you're shopping on Amazon, you're probably in a position whereby you have a bit more flexibility in your life.
I know that in Massachusetts (United States), you can see a PCP, get blood work, and get a Vitamin D prescription for free if you don't have sufficient income or insurance. I have friends and neighbors who don't have jobs right now; that's how they get their healthcare. Of course, they're lucky: from what I hear, it's certainly not like that in most of the US, let alone the rest of the world.
Regardless, I don't think it's constructive to insist that self-medicating with Vitamin D should be a priority for people in such a financial position. There are other priorities. If your life is comfortable enough that you can worry about supplements, you probably have enough money to get better insurance or get proper blood tests.
Edit: I don't understand the downvotes. There are an awful lot of people for whom buying medications on Amazon just isn't an option. They don't have and can't get credit cards or bank accounts. They don't have a stable place to live or a way to receive packages. "I don't understand why these people can't afford X; I can order it online for just Y cents" is entitled and dismissive: that's not the reality for many people, especially in the US.
Meanwhile, a not-insignificant percentage of these people live in places where they can, in fact, see a doctor, get blood tests, and get basic prescriptions for free (money). They often can't take advantage of these benefits--not because of the costs, but because of the time (taking a day off from work? Not an option.), bureaucratic red tape (paperwork, call random people and wait on hold for hours), and lack of awareness (how do you know these services exist, especially if you don't speak English or even know to look for them?).
Gentle reminder: every CVS and Walgreens I've ever gone into has Amazon gift cards someone can buy with cash and use them to pay for stuff on Amazon.
1. Know that the option is available
2. Have a stable home--Amazon doesn't work well if you're homeless or couch-surfing
3. Speak English, assuming you're in the US (this is a big one)
4. Have consistent access to a computer or a cell phone
5. Have consistent access to the internet--not a given when you keep defaulting on your cell phone payments
6. Have the time, energy, and intelligence to figure out how to get an Amazon account working via non-traditional methods--it sounds silly, but this is a real problem if you're juggling just as many jobs as kids.
#1, #2, #3 are really difficult for a lot of people. Even in places where people would be eligible for some minimal level of free healthcare, they're still significant hurdles.
Yes, there are people who absolutely cannot readily make their lives work. I still struggle to make ends meet, though it's better than it used to be and I'm at least no longer homeless.
But you seem to be pointlessly beating a dead horse here. There may be a good argument for "We should just give away help for the most vulnerable during the pandemic because protecting them protects others." but beyond that I don't know what your point is.
The ancestor to which I'm responding was suggesting that self-medicating at prescription-level doses was a viable option. It's not:
1. If you can get the tests to show that you actually need prescription-level dosing (rather than OTC dosing), then you can get the prescription far cheaper than the OTC medication anyway.
2. If you can't get the tests, then you shouldn't be taking a higher-than-OTC dose without a damn good reason, and we sure as heck shouldn't be encouraging that here or treating it as a priority--although I think the ancestor was half-joking.
This particular branch of the discussion isn't about OTC dosing. If you want to just take normal supplements at normal doses, go right ahead. Don't think you need to allocate money to go higher than that, especially when there isn't really a guarantee that it will even be safe, much less necessary.
A lot of people on this forum are very comfortably well off. I'm not one of them and I do what I can to educate people, both here and elsewhere, about the reality of what a lot of poor people live with. But that seems to mostly be irrelevant to the points people here are making today.
I'm not sure why you seem to feel so compelled to argue so strenuously that everyone here is missing some important details about how the poorest of the poor live in the US. I really don't think they are. I think that's just mostly got nothing to do with this discussion at the moment.
I also think HN is fairly well informed these days overall on such topics because they put up with me being openly homeless for nearly six years and I still sometimes write about that and sometimes hit the front page on such topics. So the crowd here isn't generally all "la la la, not listening." This just seems honestly not relevant to the discussion, at least not in the way it is being approached.
I think it was probably intended to be somewhat humorous, and yes, it's technically correct. However, it makes little sense if taken as factual rather than humorous: you shouldn't be exceeding the OTC dosage unless you know you need to; you can't know you need to exceed the OTC dosage unless you are tested; if you're tested, you're eligible for a prescription to get it cheaper anyway.
> I'm not sure why you seem to feel so compelled to argue so strenuously that everyone here is missing some important details about how the poorest of the poor live in the US.
Money is only one factor, and I think that's something people on HN tend to forget.
> I'm not sure why you seem to feel so compelled to argue so strenuously that everyone here is missing some important details about how the poorest of the poor live in the US.
I should clarify that this is largely anecdotal. I only know a handful of people who have been in these situations. I wouldn't even say they're the poorest of the poor: there are often other factors at play, be it mental disorders, language barriers, or a combination thereof.
> I also think HN is fairly well informed these days overall on such topics because they put up with me being openly homeless for nearly six years and I still sometimes write about that and sometimes hit the front page on such topics. So the crowd here isn't generally all "la la la, not listening."
I would agree; it's certainly one of the better communities in that regard.
> This just seems honestly not relevant to the discussion, at least not in the way it is being approached.
Quite possibly, especially considering that the ancestor was probably joking. Still, I can't help but cringe at the thought of someone I care about hearing that the solution to their COVID troubles is to waltz into the nearest pharmacy, spend their food money on a bottle of vitamin D, and down 10 of them at once.
I think you are just reading in something that wasn't intended. That's not at all uncommon. HN is somewhat prone to being more literal than a lot of people expect other people to be.
Anyway, in the interest of not putting more focus on this, I don't intend to reply further.
Almost certainly, as I'm wont to do. I appreciate you humoring me and taking the time to explain regardless.
Ultimately, I don't see the logic in encouraging people to prioritize self-medication with vitamin D. Of all the issues about which we could raise awareness, that seems like one of the most misguided and short-sighted: it's focused on the pandemic of today, not the healthcare of tomorrow. Of course, it's possible to raise awareness about multiple issues, but to me this feels like one of the most out-of-touch with reality. As a concrete, one-step-up example, what about vitamin C? I would assume you're more likely to get scurvy than rickets as a working-class Westerner, though I haven't checked the numbers.
And, the point of vitamin D supplementation isn’t to avoid rickets. That’s what the RDA is based on and there’s increasing evidence that while that’s an easy threshold to cross, it’s way too low. People don’t get enough sun and low vitamin D levels seem to have a serious negative impact on health.