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: Vent About Global Pandemic Management *HERE*

11819212324159

Comments

  • The best way for the world to work through this is to endure an almost complete shutdown for about 2 weeks then going back to work for a few weeks, then repeat, whilst producing the medical equipment and medicines we need to lessen the impact of this virus.

  • edited March 2020

    Stereophonics are really stupid dumb motherfuckers.

    14.3., Manchester

    15.3. , Cardiff.

    Let's see a spike in infections and possibly deaths few weeks from now in those cities. They will be personally responsible for every single one.

  • @dendy said:
    Stereophonics are really stupid dumb motherfuckers.

    14.3., Manchester

    15.3. , Cardiff.

    Let's see a spike in infections and possibly deaths few weeks from now in those cities. They will be personally responsible for every single one.

    Fucking INSANE.

  • @LSV said:

    @Max23 said:
    “Respirators, ventilators, all of the equipment — try getting it yourselves,” Donald Trump told state governors on an emergency pandemic conference call.

    The full quote, which you did not post, makes it clear that Trump stated that the gov't is doing its part but for quicker expediting, it is suggested to use faster POS when purchasing.

    QUOTE: "We will be backing you, but try getting it yourselves. Point of sales, much better, much more direct if you can get it yourself"

    It's no wonder why the approval rating of Mass Media is in the toilet. This exact truncated quote is burning through social media right now. Exactly as if it is intentional disinformation meant to raise rage & panic levels. It can be safely assumed that journalists have the requisite IQ to understand what they are hearing from the president. Or can it be?

    I don't give a toss what your politics are. I'm not defending Trump per se so your potential hate towards what I've written here will be laughed off. I'm just sick of disingenuous media making it more & more difficult to get straight facts when it matters more than ever.

    Please be more discerning when spreading things around. It seems that many here are deranged with hate for Trump and others but that doesn't give you the right to negatively impact the People you so often claim to care about.

    I thought it was already stated that checking sources is required before letting your patellar reflex engage. TIA.

    why the people no trust the MSM ???

  • edited March 2020

    UK policy based on flawed modelling (it's worth reading the full Twitter thread):

  • @Paul16 said:

    @LSV said:

    @Max23 said:
    “Respirators, ventilators, all of the equipment — try getting it yourselves,” Donald Trump told state governors on an emergency pandemic conference call.

    The full quote, which you did not post, makes it clear that Trump stated that the gov't is doing its part but for quicker expediting, it is suggested to use faster POS when purchasing.

    QUOTE: "We will be backing you, but try getting it yourselves. Point of sales, much better, much more direct if you can get it yourself"

    It's no wonder why the approval rating of Mass Media is in the toilet. This exact truncated quote is burning through social media right now. Exactly as if it is intentional disinformation meant to raise rage & panic levels. It can be safely assumed that journalists have the requisite IQ to understand what they are hearing from the president. Or can it be?

    I don't give a toss what your politics are. I'm not defending Trump per se so your potential hate towards what I've written here will be laughed off. I'm just sick of disingenuous media making it more & more difficult to get straight facts when it matters more than ever.

    Please be more discerning when spreading things around. It seems that many here are deranged with hate for Trump and others but that doesn't give you the right to negatively impact the People you so often claim to care about.

    I thought it was already stated that checking sources is required before letting your patellar reflex engage. TIA.

    why the people no trust the MSM ???

    If that were in an 80s movie about a dystopian future, you'd think it was unbelievable. But we should point out that this isn't the so-called MSM, whatever that is. This is right-wing propaganda pumped out by Sinclair.

    But credit where it's due: Tucker Carlson, at probably some risk to his career on Fox, led the charge away from the network's appalling stand that coronavirus was a Democratic Party "hoax" to make the president look bad. (Of course, now all the coverage is about how brave and excellent his response is, but it's a start.)

    Just a reminder, there is no paywall on coronavirus coverage at the NY Times.

  • So been trawling for stats ..... https://fullfact.org/health/coronavirus-compare-influenza/

    You will find here that last year was a low in flu deaths , under 2,000

    2014-2015 had nearly 30,000 deaths from flu ....... why no freak out then ?
    Don’t get me wrong , I think this could be the best thing to happen for our aging population in that it is educating everyone on the dangers of flu and how easy cross contamination is ...... We are after all heading towards a far older population So it makes sense those powers that be are wanting to smarten the planets healthy habits up 🤔 most politicians are in 60’s or older or at least most are around this age and most at risk 🤔. Mountains n mole hills people .... it may not be a global conspiracy but it certainly ticks more boxes for me than this virus COULD be more worse than any other flu we get EVERY year ........ Forgive me for having a suspicious look at life .... Must be I have I high fight or flight response so tend to over analyse things after a bowl 😁
    Keep washin n party on people , we need to learn how to dance in the rain not wait the storm to pass ffs ....
    it seems to me people won’t get on their knees for tyrants but they’ll allow tyrants to bring them to their knees through propaganda n lies 🤔

  • edited March 2020

    @ExAsperis99 said:

    @Paul16 said:

    @LSV said:

    @Max23 said:
    “Respirators, ventilators, all of the equipment — try getting it yourselves,” Donald Trump told state governors on an emergency pandemic conference call.

    The full quote, which you did not post, makes it clear that Trump stated that the gov't is doing its part but for quicker expediting, it is suggested to use faster POS when purchasing.

    QUOTE: "We will be backing you, but try getting it yourselves. Point of sales, much better, much more direct if you can get it yourself"

    It's no wonder why the approval rating of Mass Media is in the toilet. This exact truncated quote is burning through social media right now. Exactly as if it is intentional disinformation meant to raise rage & panic levels. It can be safely assumed that journalists have the requisite IQ to understand what they are hearing from the president. Or can it be?

    I don't give a toss what your politics are. I'm not defending Trump per se so your potential hate towards what I've written here will be laughed off. I'm just sick of disingenuous media making it more & more difficult to get straight facts when it matters more than ever.

    Please be more discerning when spreading things around. It seems that many here are deranged with hate for Trump and others but that doesn't give you the right to negatively impact the People you so often claim to care about.

    I thought it was already stated that checking sources is required before letting your patellar reflex engage. TIA.

    why the people no trust the MSM ???

    If that were in an 80s movie about a dystopian future, you'd think it was unbelievable. But we should point out that this isn't the so-called MSM, whatever that is. This is right-wing propaganda pumped out by Sinclair.

    But credit where it's due: Tucker Carlson, at probably some risk to his career on Fox, led the charge away from the network's appalling stand that coronavirus was a Democratic Party "hoax" to make the president look bad. (Of course, now all the coverage is about how brave and excellent his response is, but it's a start.)

    Just a reminder, there is no paywall on coronavirus coverage at the NY Times.

    'not MSM' ? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_media )

    'Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (SBG) is a publicly traded American telecommunications conglomerate which is controlled by the family of company founder Julian Sinclair Smith. Headquartered in the Baltimore suburb of Hunt Valley, Maryland, the company is the second-largest television station operator in the United States by number of stations (after Nexstar Media Group), owning or operating a total of 193 stations across the country in over 100 markets (covering 40% of American households), many of which are located in the South and Midwest, and is the largest owner of stations affiliated with Fox, ABC, and The CW.'

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

  • edited March 2020
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • @Paul16 : maybe the person that said it wasn't MSM is exempting right-wing propaganda sources like Sinclair Broadcasting and FOX News?

    In my opinion, lumping all media in a basket tends often not to be meaningful.

    Things are confusing in the U.S. because there are large media companies (like Sinclair and FOX) that have a lot of eyeballs but aren't mainstream. Although. they are mainstream for the 40-ish percent of American voters that are loyal to our GOP.

  • @SilverK said:
    So been trawling for stats ..... https://fullfact.org/health/coronavirus-compare-influenza/

    You will find here that last year was a low in flu deaths , under 2,000

    2014-2015 had nearly 30,000 deaths from flu ....... why no freak out then ?

    I can walk you through why epidemiologists and public health experts are worried step-by-step if you are interested in the answer.

    If you are interested, let me know.

    (The short version has three parts--each of which have important ramifications. Main parts:
    1) no one is immune to it (so the number of people that will contract it will be orders of magnitude larger than the number of people that get the flu)
    2) coronavirus seems to be 5-20 times more lethal than the flu
    3) the lethality for older people is radically higher than for the flu.

    Anyway, we can go over the numbers step by step and see how it goes. Maybe you will find a flaw in the reasoning.

    But rather than have a post with lots of parts, how about looking at it piece by piece?

    You game?

  • @SilverK said:
    they’ll allow tyrants to bring them to their knees through propaganda n lies

    OK. You fear tyrants more than single digit deaths from a virus. And the tyrants are everywhere. Your research, reasoning and findings then are clear based upon perceived personal threats.

    This thread is fame game for getting that out and the opportunity to be heard is good. So, there's that
    benefit. Still, sheep do prefer the safety of numbers and try to avoid the dogs.

  • @Max23 said:

    @knewspeak said:
    The best way for the world to work through this is to endure an almost complete shutdown for about 2 weeks then going back to work for a few weeks, then repeat, whilst producing the medical equipment and medicines we need to lessen the impact of this virus.

    it doesnt work like this
    every time you say lets get back to normal, infection rate will rise like crazy 2 weeks later.
    I hope this is not an option any government is discussing.
    you need to keep the machine running differently. this is not an option.

    It would rise, but why would it rise crazily, quarantine period is 14 days, for larger households it would be longer. Most people should not be infectious or else they would be in hospital.

  • Sinclair is a special case. I would think that those who use the term "mainstream media" wouldn't include it. They don't have a national presence like Viacom, Time Warner, Disney, News Corp.; Sinclair buys up distressed local outlets, the kind "mainstream media" abandoned as not profitable in the past decades. But they make their local affiliates run hard-right opinion segments produced in house. It's pretty dystopian (there's that word again!).

    Believe me, the "mainstream media" has huge problems. But Sinclair make Pravda look like Entertainment Tonight.

    If you're interested:

  • edited March 2020
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • @Max23 said:

    @knewspeak said:

    @Max23 said:

    @knewspeak said:
    The best way for the world to work through this is to endure an almost complete shutdown for about 2 weeks then going back to work for a few weeks, then repeat, whilst producing the medical equipment and medicines we need to lessen the impact of this virus.

    it doesnt work like this
    every time you say lets get back to normal, infection rate will rise like crazy 2 weeks later.
    I hope this is not an option any government is discussing.
    you need to keep the machine running differently. this is not an option.

    It would rise, but why would it rise crazily, quarantine period is 14 days, for larger households it would be longer. Most people should not be infectious or else they would be in hospital.

    nope. 90% have mild symptoms. they dont show up in hospitals.
    if you have only a few showing up in hospitals it means it is running wild and spreading like crazy - you just can't see it in the numbers.

    That’s correct, but the 90% would be in quarantine total lockdown for 14 days too, after 14 days should no longer be infectious.

  • edited March 2020
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • @Max23 said:

    @knewspeak said:

    @Max23 said:

    @knewspeak said:

    @Max23 said:

    @knewspeak said:
    The best way for the world to work through this is to endure an almost complete shutdown for about 2 weeks then going back to work for a few weeks, then repeat, whilst producing the medical equipment and medicines we need to lessen the impact of this virus.

    it doesnt work like this
    every time you say lets get back to normal, infection rate will rise like crazy 2 weeks later.
    I hope this is not an option any government is discussing.
    you need to keep the machine running differently. this is not an option.

    It would rise, but why would it rise crazily, quarantine period is 14 days, for larger households it would be longer. Most people should not be infectious or else they would be in hospital.

    nope. 90% have mild symptoms. they dont show up in hospitals.
    if you have only a few showing up in hospitals it means it is running wild and spreading like crazy - you just can't see it in the numbers.

    That’s correct, but the 90% would be in quarantine total lockdown for 14 days too, after 14 days should no longer be infectious.

    you cant fix it really down to 2 weeks, some get sick sooner some later ...
    its individual body and biology not a clock.

    Hate to disagree @Max23 when you're on a roll, but as a bass player I AM a f^*%g clock.

    OK, carry on!

  • edited March 2020

    I appreciate this thread and all who are commenting. I heard the chief of a hospital in Danbury, CT say his hospital is already swamped. Give it a couple of weeks when the tests start to kick in the US. infection rate is projected by some model to be 75,000. We might just all be on the same page then.

  • @Max23 said:

    @knewspeak said:

    @Max23 said:

    @knewspeak said:

    @Max23 said:

    @knewspeak said:
    The best way for the world to work through this is to endure an almost complete shutdown for about 2 weeks then going back to work for a few weeks, then repeat, whilst producing the medical equipment and medicines we need to lessen the impact of this virus.

    it doesnt work like this
    every time you say lets get back to normal, infection rate will rise like crazy 2 weeks later.
    I hope this is not an option any government is discussing.
    you need to keep the machine running differently. this is not an option.

    It would rise, but why would it rise crazily, quarantine period is 14 days, for larger households it would be longer. Most people should not be infectious or else they would be in hospital.

    nope. 90% have mild symptoms. they dont show up in hospitals.
    if you have only a few showing up in hospitals it means it is running wild and spreading like crazy - you just can't see it in the numbers.

    That’s correct, but the 90% would be in quarantine total lockdown for 14 days too, after 14 days should no longer be infectious.

    you cant fix it really down to 2 weeks, some get sick sooner some later ...
    its body and biology not a clock.

    Two weeks I used just because this is the suggested quarantine model for the infectious period, yes lockdown would have to be stringent, it would keep resetting the virus back to its initial exponential growth spurt, while keeping economies ticking over, whilst concentrating effort to mitigate the virus.

  • @knewspeak said:

    @Max23 said:

    @knewspeak said:
    The best way for the world to work through this is to endure an almost complete shutdown for about 2 weeks then going back to work for a few weeks, then repeat, whilst producing the medical equipment and medicines we need to lessen the impact of this virus.

    it doesnt work like this
    every time you say lets get back to normal, infection rate will rise like crazy 2 weeks later.
    I hope this is not an option any government is discussing.
    you need to keep the machine running differently. this is not an option.

    It would rise, but why would it rise crazily, quarantine period is 14 days, for larger households it would be longer. Most people should not be infectious or else they would be in hospital.

    In the medical community (by which I mean epidemiology/public health sectors), there are a lot of open questions about these topics. There are so many non-obvious interconnected factors for modeling epidemics that are heavily impacted by even slight differences in the accuracies of the estimates that use that -- as I understand it -- there is not a huge amount of confidence that a two-week lockdown is sufficient to prevent a rapid spread that will overwhelm the hospital system

    Keep in mind: probably the biggest general factor affecting the lethality is availability of necessary resources when people show up at the hospital. Hospitals in the U.S. generally run very close to capacity. So, they can absorb a handful of unexpected hospitalizations at a time (and seriously only a handful at a time).

    Here is an actual example of how that plays out in a year with only a slight increase in usual demand. Two years ago there was a particularly bad flu year in California -- my 90 year-old mother had a health problem that required hospitalization and seemed life-threatening -- and the hospital wasn't sure they could take her because the ICU was full AND they were worried that she might become exposed to the flu if she went to the emergency room to wait for a hospital bed). The hospital tried to find a bed for her in another hospital and there were no hospitals nearby with any rooms in their ICU. Fortunately, a bed did open up.

    During that same flu season, most of the Bay Area hospitals had a one or two week period where there were not enough beds.

    That was a year where just a moderate uptick in the flu season really messed things up.

    Even the best-case scenario for coronavirus in the U.S. (which is particularly bad in terms of number of hospital beds available per person), the situation would be many times worse. Another thing to consider is that the lethality stats don't take into account people that die from non-coronavirus-related illness due to lack of available healthcare -- because the hospitals are full and doctors and nurses overwhelmed.

    If the flow of the epidemic remains such that the number of beds, respirators and masks is sufficient, the lethality seems to be much much lower than if they run short of any of those things.

    Back to the modeling.

    The modeling that epidemiologists use to determine recommendations relies on some reasonable estimates for some of the varials. Here are some things that we still don't have a great understanding of that makes it hard for them to have confidence in their models:

    • how long does it take people to fully recover so that they can't be re-infected? Currently, they detect virus in people long after they expect not to find any. There are indications that people are contagious at this point BUT there is a concern that people might still be subject to re-infection. They don't know. It also could be due to problems in the tests (which is yet another problem).
    • will the weather impact the virus? if it reduces likelihood of transmission that would be important to know. they can't assume that things will get better when the weather is warm, but it might.
    • are asymptomatic kids transmitting the virus -- this seems to be a major unknown at the moment
    • how widespread has the virus spread in places where there is community spread. Now that we are locked down in the Bay Area, they will have a better idea IN TWO WEEKS. What they see during that period will give them some valuable data they need to model the impact of allowing us all to be more widely exposed.

    No one wants to make a goof that results in a lot of deaths -- so they are cautious -- because while being cautious might be expensive it will also minimize death.

    There seems to be some recent shift in epidemiologists hopes/predictions as just a week or so ago, there was a lot of talk of aggressive self-distancing for two weeks followed by more of a back-to-normal situation. From what I can gather, that has shifted.

    If the supply of respirators and protective gear (masks and such) increases, or if the experimental anti-virals prove to be as effective as they are starting to seem AND their supply increases, then there will be more of a buffer -- which means there is less risk for lightening up.

    But until we know all those things, no one wants to be the person that says "go back to life as normal" and be wrong about how safe that was.

  • @espiegel123 said:

    @knewspeak said:

    @Max23 said:

    @knewspeak said:
    The best way for the world to work through this is to endure an almost complete shutdown for about 2 weeks then going back to work for a few weeks, then repeat, whilst producing the medical equipment and medicines we need to lessen the impact of this virus.

    it doesnt work like this
    every time you say lets get back to normal, infection rate will rise like crazy 2 weeks later.
    I hope this is not an option any government is discussing.
    you need to keep the machine running differently. this is not an option.

    It would rise, but why would it rise crazily, quarantine period is 14 days, for larger households it would be longer. Most people should not be infectious or else they would be in hospital.

    In the medical community (by which I mean epidemiology/public health sectors), there are a lot of open questions about these topics. There are so many non-obvious interconnected factors for modeling epidemics that are heavily impacted by even slight differences in the accuracies of the estimates that use that -- as I understand it -- there is not a huge amount of confidence that a two-week lockdown is sufficient to prevent a rapid spread that will overwhelm the hospital system

    Keep in mind: probably the biggest general factor affecting the lethality is availability of necessary resources when people show up at the hospital. Hospitals in the U.S. generally run very close to capacity. So, they can absorb a handful of unexpected hospitalizations at a time (and seriously only a handful at a time).

    Here is an actual example of how that plays out in a year with only a slight increase in usual demand. Two years ago there was a particularly bad flu year in California -- my 90 year-old mother had a health problem that required hospitalization and seemed life-threatening -- and the hospital wasn't sure they could take her because the ICU was full AND they were worried that she might become exposed to the flu if she went to the emergency room to wait for a hospital bed). The hospital tried to find a bed for her in another hospital and there were no hospitals nearby with any rooms in their ICU. Fortunately, a bed did open up.

    During that same flu season, most of the Bay Area hospitals had a one or two week period where there were not enough beds.

    That was a year where just a moderate uptick in the flu season really messed things up.

    Even the best-case scenario for coronavirus in the U.S. (which is particularly bad in terms of number of hospital beds available per person), the situation would be many times worse. Another thing to consider is that the lethality stats don't take into account people that die from non-coronavirus-related illness due to lack of available healthcare -- because the hospitals are full and doctors and nurses overwhelmed.

    If the flow of the epidemic remains such that the number of beds, respirators and masks is sufficient, the lethality seems to be much much lower than if they run short of any of those things.

    Back to the modeling.

    The modeling that epidemiologists use to determine recommendations relies on some reasonable estimates for some of the varials. Here are some things that we still don't have a great understanding of that makes it hard for them to have confidence in their models:

    • how long does it take people to fully recover so that they can't be re-infected? Currently, they detect virus in people long after they expect not to find any. There are indications that people are contagious at this point BUT there is a concern that people might still be subject to re-infection. They don't know. It also could be due to problems in the tests (which is yet another problem).
    • will the weather impact the virus? if it reduces likelihood of transmission that would be important to know. they can't assume that things will get better when the weather is warm, but it might.
    • are asymptomatic kids transmitting the virus -- this seems to be a major unknown at the moment
    • how widespread has the virus spread in places where there is community spread. Now that we are locked down in the Bay Area, they will have a better idea IN TWO WEEKS. What they see during that period will give them some valuable data they need to model the impact of allowing us all to be more widely exposed.

    No one wants to make a goof that results in a lot of deaths -- so they are cautious -- because while being cautious might be expensive it will also minimize death.

    There seems to be some recent shift in epidemiologists hopes/predictions as just a week or so ago, there was a lot of talk of aggressive self-distancing for two weeks followed by more of a back-to-normal situation. From what I can gather, that has shifted.

    If the supply of respirators and protective gear (masks and such) increases, or if the experimental anti-virals prove to be as effective as they are starting to seem AND their supply increases, then there will be more of a buffer -- which means there is less risk for lightening up.

    But until we know all those things, no one wants to be the person that says "go back to life as normal" and be wrong about how safe that was.

    I agree, with all you say and it should be taken cautiously possibly altering the 14 day lockdown and the period of ‘normality’, which would still require social distancing, hygiene regimen etc. But if we go for no stringent lockdown the effects will be catastrophic for healthcare systems, if we go for too long a lockdown, the economic results could be far worse.

  • For those that still think that no one could have seen this coming and that the Trump administration shouldn't be taking heat for what is happening here, two years ago at John Bolton's recommendation, he broke up the pandemic response team. He said: "“some of the people we’ve cut they haven’t been used for many, many years and if we ever need them we can get them very quickly and rather then spending the money”. The group had been put in place by President Obama in response to Ebola -- recognizing that we needed some people around watching for pandemics and assessing risks and responses.

    One of those doctors has gone on the record as saying that breaking up the group was likely a factor in the U.S. government being so ill-prepared and slow to respond.

    See:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/nsc-pandemic-office-trump-closed/2020/03/13/a70de09c-6491-11ea-acca-80c22bbee96f_story.html

    and

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/coronavirus-video-trump-pandemic-team-cut-2018-a9405191.html

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • edited March 2020

    @Max23 said:

    @Max23 said:

    @knewspeak said:

    @Max23 said:

    @knewspeak said:

    @Max23 said:

    @knewspeak said:
    The best way for the world to work through this is to endure an almost complete shutdown for about 2 weeks then going back to work for a few weeks, then repeat, whilst producing the medical equipment and medicines we need to lessen the impact of this virus.

    it doesnt work like this
    every time you say lets get back to normal, infection rate will rise like crazy 2 weeks later.
    I hope this is not an option any government is discussing.
    you need to keep the machine running differently. this is not an option.

    It would rise, but why would it rise crazily, quarantine period is 14 days, for larger households it would be longer. Most people should not be infectious or else they would be in hospital.

    nope. 90% have mild symptoms. they dont show up in hospitals.
    if you have only a few showing up in hospitals it means it is running wild and spreading like crazy - you just can't see it in the numbers.

    That’s correct, but the 90% would be in quarantine total lockdown for 14 days too, after 14 days should no longer be infectious.

    you cant fix it really down to 2 weeks, some get sick sooner some later ...
    its individual body and biology not a clock.

    @knewspeak said:

    @Max23 said:

    @knewspeak said:

    @Max23 said:

    @knewspeak said:

    @Max23 said:

    @knewspeak said:
    The best way for the world to work through this is to endure an almost complete shutdown for about 2 weeks then going back to work for a few weeks, then repeat, whilst producing the medical equipment and medicines we need to lessen the impact of this virus.

    it doesnt work like this
    every time you say lets get back to normal, infection rate will rise like crazy 2 weeks later.
    I hope this is not an option any government is discussing.
    you need to keep the machine running differently. this is not an option.

    It would rise, but why would it rise crazily, quarantine period is 14 days, for larger households it would be longer. Most people should not be infectious or else they would be in hospital.

    nope. 90% have mild symptoms. they dont show up in hospitals.
    if you have only a few showing up in hospitals it means it is running wild and spreading like crazy - you just can't see it in the numbers.

    That’s correct, but the 90% would be in quarantine total lockdown for 14 days too, after 14 days should no longer be infectious.

    you cant fix it really down to 2 weeks, some get sick sooner some later ...
    its body and biology not a clock.

    Two weeks I used just because this is the suggested quarantine model for the infectious period, yes lockdown would have to be stringent, it would keep resetting the virus back to its initial exponential growth spurt, while keeping economies ticking over, whilst concentrating effort to mitigate the virus.

    I understand very little about economy, but I understand medicine.

    @knewspeak said:

    @Max23 said:

    @knewspeak said:

    @Max23 said:

    @knewspeak said:

    @Max23 said:

    @knewspeak said:
    The best way for the world to work through this is to endure an almost complete shutdown for about 2 weeks then going back to work for a few weeks, then repeat, whilst producing the medical equipment and medicines we need to lessen the impact of this virus.

    it doesnt work like this
    every time you say lets get back to normal, infection rate will rise like crazy 2 weeks later.
    I hope this is not an option any government is discussing.
    you need to keep the machine running differently. this is not an option.

    It would rise, but why would it rise crazily, quarantine period is 14 days, for larger households it would be longer. Most people should not be infectious or else they would be in hospital.

    nope. 90% have mild symptoms. they dont show up in hospitals.
    if you have only a few showing up in hospitals it means it is running wild and spreading like crazy - you just can't see it in the numbers.

    That’s correct, but the 90% would be in quarantine total lockdown for 14 days too, after 14 days should no longer be infectious.

    you cant fix it really down to 2 weeks, some get sick sooner some later ...
    its body and biology not a clock.

    Two weeks I used just because this is the suggested quarantine model for the infectious period, yes lockdown would have to be stringent, it would keep resetting the virus back to its initial exponential growth spurt, while keeping economies ticking over, whilst concentrating effort to mitigate the virus.

    I understand very little about world economy, but I understand medicine. ;)

    About economics I know the outcome of the Wall Street crash, and the following Great Depression, wasn’t an outcome I’d like to see repeated.

    Back then our nations rushed to make machines for death, this time we could try to work together to make machines for life.

  • And still people here sitting outside, eat ice cream, party etc.
    Just saw a doctor (i know her) in food store while their children run along, touch everything and put their fingers in the mouth.
    Stupid humans.
    A family member feels not good, got fever, another one nearby has already bad lungs.
    Not good.
    Planes from italy still landing at airport people go where they want.

  • edited March 2020

    “PM: We only have a few weeks to build thousands of ventilators”

    Johnson, you useless fat piece of fucking shite, we’ve known for several months they would be needed but you’ve had your thick head up your fat arse, doing nothing about it.

    Johnson will have the blood of tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths on his hands.

    Carry on.

  • The really important question we all want to know

Sign In or Register to comment.