I dislike when an article 'interprets' the result from a research but I see the appeal. However I was curious and found this excerpt from the research about the sample size and statistic that I found very relevant and important:<p>Mean overall age was 54.5 years, mean age for expired cases was 65.2 years, higher compared to active cases (46.3 years). Of the 780 sample, majority (58.8%) aged below 50 years, most of the them (83.0%) are still admitted in the hospital. Of the 321 samples aged 50 years and above, majority (66.6%) died due to the disease. Females (51.3%) outnumbered males (48.7%); however, there were more male cases who died (66.6%) than female (33.4%). Patients with existing condition (84.9%) comprised majority of the death cases.<p>Interestingly, majority of the cases had normal Vitamin D status (49.7%), most of them (93.0%) are still hospitalized. Of the 213 cases with insufficient Vitamin D status, majority (49.1%) died. The same distribution was observed in Vitamin D deficient cases where majority (46.7%) died due to the disease.<p>Source: <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3585561" rel="nofollow">https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3585561</a>