But it does expose more skin, which [3] recommends!
Sadly, it doesn't say how long you should exposure yourself with a UV index of 1, which is what Winnipeg has today, and it's not even proper winter yet.
Yes, yes, you're an invincible winter god upon whom the temperature means nothing. Let us all acknowledge that and bow before you.
Now tell me everyone is doing that, all the time. I also live fairly north, which is part of why I've learned this about Vitamin D in my own research, and I can't help but notice that stores selling winter coats and gloves and other assorted cold gear don't go out of business ever year because nobody is buying them. Nor do I walk through a crowd of people in the middle of winter and have people point and laugh at me because I'm the only one in a coat.
Come on. You're just arguing to argue and swagger a bit, not because you actually think people are getting enough sun exposure in the middle of winter to get enough Vitamin D and there's nothing to worry about.
I'm not sure that people downvoting you have been around northerners much. Down here in the upper midwest US, we tend to consider 4 or 5C to be shorts weather in the spring. I've a friend who would wear flip flops / sandals outside down to roughly -10C.
Then again, most people aren't getting the equivalent of 15 minutes of index 7 UVB exposure at those temperatures, so it's not quite the same thing, but still.
People are downvoting because it has nothing to do with the comment they're replying to or the original post. Most people are well aware temperature is relative too, I live in the American South and there are certainly people here who will wear shorts in cold or freezing weather too.