Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.

What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.

Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.

Download on the App Store

Loopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.

OT: Positive advice for dealing with Covid-19 (no politics or complaints about governance please)

1…2021222426

Comments

  • espiegel123espiegel123

    In Italy, 2100 people died from coronavirus in the past week aloe (ending last night). The entire pre-March 11 total was just over 800.

    What the number looks like a week from now will tell us a lot. As those dying tend to be people exposed around 3 weeks ago. So, most of the dead now were infected before the lockdown started.

    In the U.S. where only a few states locked down starting this past weekend, we won't have a sense of how those are impacting things for at least two more weeks.

    In the U.S., 112 new deaths occurred in the previous 7 days. Prior to that there were 38 total total deaths since the outbreak began. The curve is probably even worse than it sounds since quite a few of those first 38 were from a single nursing home. In any case, the death rate in the U.S. is accelerated (which is expected) and is likely to continue accelerating since the people dying now and in the next 3 weeks were people exposed before the lockdowns started.

    In Italy, the total death toll went from 148 to 1016 in one week. A week after (today) the total death toll appears to be 3405.

    If one thinks about how those curves look without extreme measures, one can maybe understand why epidemiologists are so worried about the consequences of not flattening the curve.

  • robosardinerobosardine

    @espiegel123 said:

    @robosardine said:
    Interesting to read about Italy above.

    Does anyone know- what is the actual number of deaths to date - not projected or expected - theorised or risk assessed (specific to any other country or all countries) for people who have died with the Corona Virus but who had NO underlying predisposing conditions or contra indications.

    There are a few sites with reliable data. Keep in mind that what "cases" means is positive tests -- if you read the Medium article I linked to earlier, you will also know that how positive tests correlates to actual cases is highly variable and depends on how widespread testing is. We know that in the U.S. that there are FAR more actual cases than positive tests because of how little testing we have had.

    https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

    The worldometers site now seems to have pretty accurate figures -- it uses some a.i. to pull the data from public sites. There were some glitches early that seem to have been worked out and the numbers seem to tally with the Johns Hopkins site.

    On the worldometers site, you can also look at the stats (with various graphic representations) by country.

    I appreciate your response. I have followed your links.
    What I am actually looking for at the moment (which I should have been clearer about) is for people to provide an actual number as far as their understanding allows - approximate or specific - for all countries or a specific one- which shows their interpretation as to what the current recorded number of deaths are due to the Corona virus where there were none of the well documented comorbidity factors present.

    I am trying to gauge what the understanding is on an individual basis given the information available.

  • espiegel123espiegel123

    @robosardine said:

    @espiegel123 said:

    @robosardine said:
    Interesting to read about Italy above.

    Does anyone know- what is the actual number of deaths to date - not projected or expected - theorised or risk assessed (specific to any other country or all countries) for people who have died with the Corona Virus but who had NO underlying predisposing conditions or contra indications.

    There are a few sites with reliable data. Keep in mind that what "cases" means is positive tests -- if you read the Medium article I linked to earlier, you will also know that how positive tests correlates to actual cases is highly variable and depends on how widespread testing is. We know that in the U.S. that there are FAR more actual cases than positive tests because of how little testing we have had.

    https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

    The worldometers site now seems to have pretty accurate figures -- it uses some a.i. to pull the data from public sites. There were some glitches early that seem to have been worked out and the numbers seem to tally with the Johns Hopkins site.

    On the worldometers site, you can also look at the stats (with various graphic representations) by country.

    I appreciate your response. I have followed your links.
    What I am actually looking for at the moment (which I should have been clearer about) is for people to provide an actual number as far as their understanding allows - approximate or specific - for all countries or a specific one- which shows their interpretation as to what the current recorded number of deaths are due to the Corona virus where there were none of the well documented comorbidity factors present.

    I am trying to gauge what the understanding is on an individual basis given the information available.

    That data is VERY noisy. One of the medical journals just released a draft of a paper indicating that in the U.S. a significantly higher percentage of the hospitalizations in the U.s. are 20-40 than was the case in China.

    I haven't seen a detailed analysis of mortality and associated co-morbidities.

  • ExAsperis99ExAsperis99

  • robosardinerobosardine

    @espiegel123 said:

    @robosardine said:

    @espiegel123 said:

    @robosardine said:
    Interesting to read about Italy above.

    Does anyone know- what is the actual number of deaths to date - not projected or expected - theorised or risk assessed (specific to any other country or all countries) for people who have died with the Corona Virus but who had NO underlying predisposing conditions or contra indications.

    There are a few sites with reliable data. Keep in mind that what "cases" means is positive tests -- if you read the Medium article I linked to earlier, you will also know that how positive tests correlates to actual cases is highly variable and depends on how widespread testing is. We know that in the U.S. that there are FAR more actual cases than positive tests because of how little testing we have had.

    https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

    The worldometers site now seems to have pretty accurate figures -- it uses some a.i. to pull the data from public sites. There were some glitches early that seem to have been worked out and the numbers seem to tally with the Johns Hopkins site.

    On the worldometers site, you can also look at the stats (with various graphic representations) by country.

    I appreciate your response. I have followed your links.
    What I am actually looking for at the moment (which I should have been clearer about) is for people to provide an actual number as far as their understanding allows - approximate or specific - for all countries or a specific one- which shows their interpretation as to what the current recorded number of deaths are due to the Corona virus where there were none of the well documented comorbidity factors present.

    I am trying to gauge what the understanding is on an individual basis given the information available.

    That data is VERY noisy. One of the medical journals just released a draft of a paper indicating that in the U.S. a significantly higher percentage of the hospitalizations in the U.s. are 20-40 than was the case in China.

    I haven't seen a detailed analysis of mortality and associated co-morbidities.

    Thank you. I am glad none of the hospital admissions you mentioned as it turned out resulted in fatalities.

  • espiegel123espiegel123

    @robosardine said:

    @espiegel123 said:

    @robosardine said:

    @espiegel123 said:

    @robosardine said:
    Interesting to read about Italy above.

    Does anyone know- what is the actual number of deaths to date - not projected or expected - theorised or risk assessed (specific to any other country or all countries) for people who have died with the Corona Virus but who had NO underlying predisposing conditions or contra indications.

    There are a few sites with reliable data. Keep in mind that what "cases" means is positive tests -- if you read the Medium article I linked to earlier, you will also know that how positive tests correlates to actual cases is highly variable and depends on how widespread testing is. We know that in the U.S. that there are FAR more actual cases than positive tests because of how little testing we have had.

    https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

    The worldometers site now seems to have pretty accurate figures -- it uses some a.i. to pull the data from public sites. There were some glitches early that seem to have been worked out and the numbers seem to tally with the Johns Hopkins site.

    On the worldometers site, you can also look at the stats (with various graphic representations) by country.

    I appreciate your response. I have followed your links.
    What I am actually looking for at the moment (which I should have been clearer about) is for people to provide an actual number as far as their understanding allows - approximate or specific - for all countries or a specific one- which shows their interpretation as to what the current recorded number of deaths are due to the Corona virus where there were none of the well documented comorbidity factors present.

    I am trying to gauge what the understanding is on an individual basis given the information available.

    That data is VERY noisy. One of the medical journals just released a draft of a paper indicating that in the U.S. a significantly higher percentage of the hospitalizations in the U.s. are 20-40 than was the case in China.

    I haven't seen a detailed analysis of mortality and associated co-morbidities.

    Thank you. I am glad none of the hospital admissions you mentioned as it turned out resulted in fatalities.

    I am not sure that it is the case that none of them resulted in fatalities. In China, an early victim was the doctor that first realized that something bad was going on. He was in his forties and as far as I have read he didn't have any co-morbidities.

    It is also super super super important for people to realize that when there is an association between co-morbidities and death there can be a whole range of importance of those co-morbidities. For instance, the early data seems to indicate that mere age is a bigger factor with coronavirus than it is with the flu.

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User]
    edited March 2020

    @david_2017 said:

    @robosardine said:
    Interesting to read about Italy above.

    Does anyone know- what is the actual number of deaths to date - not projected or expected - theorised or risk assessed (specific to any other country or all countries) for people who have died with the Corona Virus but who had NO underlying predisposing conditions or contra indications.

    9.819

    https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

    of Italy's dead - 87 percent - were over age 70. I thoughts the deaths were 3,405 for Italy.

  • u0421793u0421793

    @espiegel123 said:
    … In China, an early victim was the doctor that first realized that something bad was going on. He was in his forties and as far as I have read he didn't have any co-morbidities.
    …

    He was only 33.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Wenliang

  • espiegel123espiegel123

    @u0421793 said:

    @espiegel123 said:
    … In China, an early victim was the doctor that first realized that something bad was going on. He was in his forties and as far as I have read he didn't have any co-morbidities.
    …

    He was only 33.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Wenliang

    Thanks for the correction.

  • MichaelMichael

    @ExAsperis99: 🤣

  • KrupaKrupa

    Best simple article I've read on the way the virus works in the body...

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/20/coronavirus-what-happens-to-peoples-lungs-when-they-get-covid-19?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0d1YXJkaWFuVG9kYXlVS19XZWVrZGF5cy0yMDAzMjA=&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=GTUK_email&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayUK

  • knewspeakknewspeak

    Don’t forget the lockdown in Italy, wasn’t as strict as China etc., so it’s effectiveness would still probably be less effective than the eventual strick Chinese method, all countries apart from South Korea didn’t give this virus serious thought at first.

  • knewspeakknewspeak

    Came across this news,

    The documents, prepared by the UK's Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage), said alternating between more and less strict measures could "plausibly be effective at keeping the number of critical care cases within capacity".

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User]

    @knewspeak said:
    Don’t forget the lockdown in Italy, wasn’t as strict as China etc., so it’s effectiveness would still probably be less effective than the eventual strick Chinese method, all countries apart from South Korea didn’t give this virus serious thought at first.

    This isn’t accurate as Taiwan among others did.

  • knewspeakknewspeak

    @InfoCheck said:

    @knewspeak said:
    Don’t forget the lockdown in Italy, wasn’t as strict as China etc., so it’s effectiveness would still probably be less effective than the eventual strick Chinese method, all countries apart from South Korea didn’t give this virus serious thought at first.

    This isn’t accurate as Taiwan among others did.

    It was just a reminder

  • espiegel123espiegel123

    @knewspeak said:
    Don’t forget the lockdown in Italy, wasn’t as strict as China etc., so it’s effectiveness would still probably be less effective than the eventual strick Chinese method, all countries apart from South Korea didn’t give this virus serious thought at first.

    Japan and Singapore took it seriously as well as Taiwan as someone else pointed out. Not just South Korea. It will take about 3 weeks for a change in transmission rate to show up in the death rate. So it'll be a bit before things will look better in Italy.

  • knewspeakknewspeak

    @espiegel123 said:

    @knewspeak said:
    Don’t forget the lockdown in Italy, wasn’t as strict as China etc., so it’s effectiveness would still probably be less effective than the eventual strick Chinese method, all countries apart from South Korea didn’t give this virus serious thought at first.

    Japan and Singapore took it seriously as well as Taiwan as someone else pointed out. Not just South Korea. It will take about 3 weeks for a change in transmission rate to show up in the death rate. So it'll be a bit before things will look better in Italy.

    Maybe a little longer.

  • espiegel123espiegel123

    @knewspeak said:
    Came across this news,

    The documents, prepared by the UK's Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage), said alternating between more and less strict measures could "plausibly be effective at keeping the number of critical care cases within capacity".

    Please read the article that I posted yesterday:

    https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56

    Of course, what the paper outlines is subject to change (as the author notes) as we get more and better data.

    But, he makes a strong case that there is a long-term risk for allowing large-scale swings of the infection rate (read the article twice...it is pretty dense) but if you can get the transmission rate well below one, some slight swings can be tolerated if they still keep the transmission rate below 1.

  • AudioGusAudioGus

    There is some blood type chatter going on regarding this. Could be hellah bunk of course but any thoughts/decent links from the smart folks here?

  • espiegel123espiegel123
    edited March 2020

    @AudioGus said:
    There is some blood type chatter going on regarding this. Could be hellah bunk of course but any thoughts/decent links from the smart folks here?

    The articles you have seen are based on a study that has not yet been subject to peer review, and its authors point out that there is not yet enough data for safely drawing strong conclusions.

    The original article is https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.11.20031096v1

    REMEMBER this is a preliminary article and the authors basically say (my paraphrase) "this finding is interesting and merits more study to see if there is anything to it)

    It looks like most of what you find on the the internet about it is from popular media. One report includes a quote from a researcher in Britain who cautions about reading anything into the results until their has been follow-up to see if the same pattern is found in data elsewhere.

  • AudioGusAudioGus
    edited March 2020

    @espiegel123 said:

    @AudioGus said:
    There is some blood type chatter going on regarding this. Could be hellah bunk of course but any thoughts/decent links from the smart folks here?

    The articles you have seen are based on a study that has not yet been subject to peer review, and its authors point out that there is not yet enough data for safely drawing strong conclusions.

    The original article is https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.11.20031096v1

    REMEMBER this is a preliminary article and the authors basically say (my paraphrase) "this finding is interesting and merits more study to see if there is anything to it)

    It looks like most of what you find on the the internet about it is from popular media. One report includes a quote from a researcher in Britain who cautions about reading anything into the results until their has been follow-up to see if the same pattern is found in data elsewhere.

    Cool thanks for the link. I am pretty much just in meat space chatter at the moment with limited mobile data and don't see many articles so i appreciate the vetting! Rumor has it they will be lifting our data caps.

  • mungbeansmungbeans
    edited March 2020

    The magical figure for social distancing is specified as being 6 feet. However I'm wondering if this is way too short because:
    a) yesterday I was walking in a park, there were a couple of teenagers sat on a bench vaping and exhaling. Due to the smoke I could see that their exhalations spread out a distance of much much more than 6 feet, more like 15 to 20 feet (they weren't forcing the smoke out, just normal pushing smoke out that smokers do and there was a very very gentle breeze causing the smoke to slowly drift this distance).
    b) studies are showing the virus could remain suspended in the air for more than an hour
    c) I've seen a few doctors say you can catch it just by talking to someone or being near someone, they don't need to sneeze or cough etc. to infect you.

    If the virus can get transmitted into the air just through ordinary breathing, and if the air can spread much further than 6 feet, then seems that could be too short a distance to be the "official" mandate.

  • zeropointzeropoint

    ^^ yeah... and you don’t hear that in the government warnings as far as I can tell

    https://www.livescience.com/61483-flu-virus-spread-

  • zeropointzeropoint

    whoops, a government reference slipped in accidentally . forgot which thread I was in.....apologies.

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User]
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • AudioGusAudioGus

    @Max23 said:

    @AudioGus said:
    There is some blood type chatter going on regarding this. Could be hellah bunk of course but any thoughts/decent links from the smart folks here?

    forget it.
    its just rumors.

    What about astrological signs?

  • JohnnyGoodyearJohnnyGoodyear

    @AudioGus said:

    @Max23 said:

    @AudioGus said:
    There is some blood type chatter going on regarding this. Could be hellah bunk of course but any thoughts/decent links from the smart folks here?

    forget it.
    its just rumors.

    What about astrological signs?

    I do think we introverts seem to be doing a bit better than most :)

  • chandrojichandroji

    I am always happy if people in this situation do not lose their humour and creativity.
    A neighbour here has marked all pedestrian crossings at traffic lights with chalk. 👍

    Please keep at least 1.50m distance from each other... 🙏

  • LinearLinemanLinearLineman

    Hey guys, don’t forget to clip your fingernails short!
    Seems I spend a lot of time with minutiae lately...and they do get under my nails.

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User]

    @LinearLineman said:
    Hey guys, don’t forget to clip your fingernails short!
    Seems I spend a lot of time with minutiae lately...and they do get under my nails.

    Yeah I did that a couple of weeks ago - normally they're long for guitar playing.

Sign In or Register to comment.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2024