For some, hindsight is saying that it was a big deal. You'd expect that group to be resolute that early access was needed. It could easily have been offered to the elderly. That's pretty clear cut. For sure, if it had gone bad, there would have been naysayers ... but that could have been mitigated by allowing individuals to choose for themselves, and restricting early access to the elderly.
The other group who didn't think it so pressing could easily have been satisfied to wait.
So although hindsight is 20/20, it's pretty clear that Public Health acted against both groups' interests here.
It would be interesting if you could choose, instead of paying carbon taxes, to pay for a fraction of the plane's fuel to come from e-fuel produced from green electricity.
In fact, maybe flying is the wrong place to start — we should make green e-fuel available at the pump.
I think you perhaps meant to be pedantic and ironically trite.
But imagine being 4 years behind when you hit secondary/senior school. Either the child has to adjust and catch up (but it's a /lot/ to catch up), or the school system has to adjust to accommodate (which is far from easy).
In discussion, most people associate lockdowns directly with the wider Covid response.
The subhead expands and explains, drawing in the "world of masks and remote health visits has created a generation at risk of social and emotional difficulties".
All the while forgetting that benefit is heavily skewed.
Those that would really benefit from its protection are often the same group that would be knocked sideways by its side effects (the very old, infirm, already sick or otherwise vulnerable).
The majority get nothing much in terms of side-effects, but also nothing much in terms of protection over what our bodies could already do for us.
There’s only a small group that are vulnerable enough to benefit significantly, while also being strong enough to tolerate it.
At the time, a friend asked why I didn’t want the vaccine. I’d done my research, and I knew my benefit was marginal and that my risk from COVID itself was close to nil.
But best I could articulate at the time was that it was too tied up with letting us visit public places (remember passports?). It seemed manipulative, too much about theatre and very little about public or individual health.
Didn’t want to ruin a friendship by being too honest, although I wish I had been now.
But assuming he decided that tack would not work, then his options are basically to double down with the government line, or to assert FB as an independent. The first option is a real humdinger that would win it only popular criticism.
Do you mean that my process might get killed [by the OOM killer] if /another process/ fails to get more backing pages?
Or are you suggesting that there is some other failure path that results in my process getting killed if my own malloc() fails to get pages? (That seems wrong. Should simply return NULL in that case, no?)
> Do you mean that my process might get killed [by the OOM killer] if /another process/ fails to get more backing pages?
It can be your process or some other process, depending on the OOM killer weights and heuristics.
> Or are you suggesting that there is some other failure path that results in my process getting killed if my own malloc() fails to get pages? (That seems wrong. Should simply return NULL in that case, no?)
No, malloc() in Linux will never return NULL for small allocations. What happens is that glibc will try to get more pages for its heap by calling mmap(). The call to mmap() will result in the OOM killer waking up and freeing some memory.
It then can kill some other process, and your process mmap() will succeed, or it can kill your process, and in this case mmap() never returns.
This study is still using definitions of Long COVID that encompass just about anything. I do think there’s such a thing as a post viral effect, and it could be that COVID is worse than the norm. But I’m sorry — 5-10% of the population are impacted? It simply doesn’t match my day to day experience.
Right. But the comments thread for the referenced paper got flagged.
It’s not really clear why. (Perhaps dang can clarify?) Maybe that it got a bit political.
But it is a shame, because trust in science has taken a bit of a hammering in recent times. And although it is easy to slip into partisan rhetoric, I rather think it’s the duty of forums like this to entertain that as a kind of cost of doing business. (Of course, the business being showing that despite inevitable political distraction, science as an institution is trustworthy.)
It's clear why, if you know where to look- there are more comments than votes and (more to the point) there are a lot of flagged and flagged-dead comments.
Long time HN users with points get to [flag] posts and it only takes a few (likely less than 5) to move a post to flagged - what triggers flagging by users tends to be contraversial topics appearing for the N'th time and lots of bickering in comments.
When it comes to topics such as COVID, Lableaks, Isreal-Gaza, Climate Change, Trans-<something> posts get flagged more often than not - and near as I can see it's usually because these things have been hashed over many times in the past, there's generally not a lot of movement on opinions held by opposing parties, and threads often rapidly devolve into entrenched opposing camps firing at each other.
For some, hindsight is saying that it was a big deal. You'd expect that group to be resolute that early access was needed. It could easily have been offered to the elderly. That's pretty clear cut. For sure, if it had gone bad, there would have been naysayers ... but that could have been mitigated by allowing individuals to choose for themselves, and restricting early access to the elderly.
The other group who didn't think it so pressing could easily have been satisfied to wait.
So although hindsight is 20/20, it's pretty clear that Public Health acted against both groups' interests here.
reply