The first rule of medicine is to do no harm. To harm millions of people and kill thousands to save people from a illness (even if you say that these measures help) is a very big mistake.
The experience in Melbourne (Victoria Australia) has been interesting. They locked down for a number of months and have got effective control of the virus, with 9 days no infection so far since lifting movement restrictions. There has been a lot of concern about peoples mental health and money is being spent both on highlighting the problem as well as making sure people are aware of services available. My understanding is that the services are under pressure, but coping.
Lockdown is going to cause secondary social, health and economic problems, but if you can do it well and get control of the virus then you gain flexibility to deal with the secondary problems. If you don't control the virus, you will end up with those other problems as well as the out of control virus.
This is a no win situation. If you aren't lucky enough to live in an isolated country and avoid the problem from the start, something that only worked for some of the really isolated island nations, then you have to move hard and fast to control the virus and hope to deal with the flow on problems once you have the immediate threat under control.
Problem is actually you don’t because unless the virus is completely eliminated it can only be controlled using infinite lockdowns, or it’ll simply flare up again and every sacrifice will be wasted.
That is the problem. Indeed unless you plan on doing the job properly I would question the value of even trying. It requires a strong sense of purpose and a full communication with the public on what is being attempted. The good thing is that the infection pattern of this thing is pretty well understood at this stage so this should be possible.
There is a tremendous element of morbidity to the mental health aspect as well, not just mortality.
I see a lot of arguments that are along the lines of the only negative outcome of COVID is death, and anything short of that doesn't deserve to be considered. I read your argument as being structured in a similar way.
There are really bad things happening both with the mental health impact of this whole thing, as well as the impact of the virus itself. They're both tragic, and serious, and we need to be thinking about both.
I'm not saying that you're not on-board with this argument, and I'm not saying you are. I just wanted to add this to the discussion for discussion's sake.
This is so vague.
Do you expect to close all bars, restaurant, venues until further notice and let thousands of business die while also putting millions into poverty while increasing depression and suicide rates?
Pretty much. Long predates WSL1, though, and facing many of the same difficulties that prompted the Windows team to just run Linux in a hypervisor (WSL2).
> facing many of the same difficulties that prompted the Windows team to just run Linux in a hypervisor
How's that?
WSL had serious performance issues due to design differences between linux and NT. Linux and freebsd both being unices, there is no such impedance. Some features (like cgroups) remain unimplemented, true, but there haven't been any big difficulties afaik.
One that comes to mind is FreeBSD's kqueue, which opens a file descriptor for every file watched [1]
So inotify, inotify_add_watch, inotify_rm_watch isn't started. Lots of applications need watching of changes on directories. Even plain old FreeBSD gets messed since a large webpack project is going to chew up way too much.
Namely in WSL1, there were serious issues with package systems like npm, node_modules/ would have file descriptors get clogged, and it took a full system reboot to get WSL working again: https://github.com/microsoft/WSL/issues/1529. WSL2 Fixes it.
Sure, "BSL" doesn't have all the same difficulties as Windows WSL1 had. There are still design mismatches between FreeBSD and Linux that make implementing Linux features difficult (just for example, compare Linux clone() to FreeBSD fork()), and there are many, many features that remain unimplemented (inotify, cgroups, namespaces, ...).
I agree it's largely "just" a matter of implementing the missing functionality, which has a large surface area and requires building novel infrastructure in the FreeBSD kernel.
I'd say it doesn't have ~90% of the difficulties WSL1 had. From what I remember WSL1 had problems with even most basic functionality, like the filesystem semantics, and never got to support eg DRI for X11.
Regarding clone() - it's rfork(2) you want to compare to, not fork(2). Not the same, sure, but much closer.
(Disclaimer: I'm one of the people working on it, so I'm obviously biased.)
That would make more grammatical sense, but the parent comment is presumably referencing Windows Subsystem for Linux[1], which is a subsystem for Windows that runs Linux.
“He said flu and other winter conditions usually brought in 3,000 extra people to hospitals but there were already more than 10,000 coronavirus patients in England even before winter pressures had arrived.”
Considering there are high numbers of asymptomatic (or pre-symptomatic) doesn’t that become much much harder as the virus spreads. You still need to have some semblance of control over the virus in the broader population, no?
Not sure why you say “even iPhones” as this kind of high-end tech is likely among the most difficult to manufacture outside of China. But even iPhones are starting to get manufactured in India, and you also have other smartphones being manufactured in Vietnam (I believe this include the new Pixel).
Trump’s China tariffs have already forced many companies to move to Vietnam/India/Mexico/etc. The few remaining are likely hoping Biden will win since he said he would end Trump’s China tariffs.
Just like nobody is boycotting the US/EU from its illegal wars and border concentration camps. Gotta make that cash to feed and keep people happy. The sad stone cold truth.
