hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 230 of 253 FirstFirst ... 130180220227228229230231232233240 ... LastLast
Results 4,581 to 4,600 of 5055

Thread: PLAGUE: Not even Best Korea is safe

  1. #4581
    Duckslayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 23, 2017
    Posts
    2,503
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Crush View Post
    I love their logic, kind of " if I don't have family members or friends killed in car accidents, it means car accidents are fake".
    How many of them are in ICU right now?
    Seatbelts are a deepstate method of maintaining hegemony and should be fought against! Much like the risks of mass protest at a time of global pandemic defers to fighting for the civil rights of the people, we must oppose tyranny through seatbelts even in the face of health risks.

  2. #4582
    Mallet Head Donor 56k Lagman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 5, 2011
    Location
    Who fucking knows
    Posts
    4,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Crush View Post
    I love their logic, kind of " if I don't have family members or friends killed in car accidents, it means car accidents are fake".
    How many of them are in ICU right now?
    idk

    Quote Originally Posted by Duckslayer View Post
    I should be home.now but I keep stopping to post. I'm in need of a mega poo. so much so that I'm tempted to leave slurry across one of these gardens and deal with the wiping later. gonna toss a coin

    phoneposting

  3. #4583

    Join Date
    November 5, 2011
    Posts
    13,684
    A lot of that summary flies straight in the face of what worked in every fucking country that took it seriously.

    So lol ok. More hand wringing about masks and proofs and pointless lockdowns,that will help.

  4. #4584
    Ashaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 29, 2011
    Posts
    3,987

  5. #4585

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Pizza delivery van
    Posts
    7,539
    zero corona deaths in finland for the last two weeks, I would say that distancing and a heavy lockdown straight from the start has been working quite nicely. We still have some limitations on mass events but most of the measures have been removed.

  6. #4586
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    9,775
    Quote Originally Posted by depili View Post
    zero corona deaths in finland for the last two weeks, I would say that distancing and a heavy lockdown straight from the start has been working quite nicely. We still have some limitations on mass events but most of the measures have been removed.


    >usa

  7. #4587

    Join Date
    July 3, 2014
    Posts
    5,301
    A tutorial on how to have sex during COVID-19 courtesy of the Ministry of Health, Serbia.
    Interesting how only the female is represented as the infected one.


  8. #4588
    VARRAKK's Avatar
    Join Date
    September 27, 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    6,933
    Why is it called earth, when it is mostly water???

  9. #4589
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    15,838
    Quote Originally Posted by VARRAKK View Post
    If the covid doesn’t get them, their lack of belief in the climate change will.
    meh

  10. #4590
    dzajic's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 15, 2011
    Posts
    3,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Crush View Post
    A tutorial on how to have sex during COVID-19 courtesy of the Ministry of Health, Serbia.
    Interesting how only the female is represented as the infected one.

    I don't watch that thrash TV station so I still don't know if its real or just a meme. Everyone here was "has to be photoshop" since it started going viral. And yes, casual sexism as truly stunning.

  11. #4591

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    7,939
    Quote Originally Posted by Lief Siddhe View Post


    tl;dr:

    On masks:

    Tom Jefferson: “Aside from people who are exposed on the frontlines, there is no evidence that masks make any difference, but what’s even more extraordinary is the uncertainty: we don’t know if these things make any difference…. We should have done randomised control trials in February, March and April but not anymore because viral circulation is low and we will need huge number of enrolees to show whether there was any difference”.
    Carl Heneghan: “By all means people can wear masks but they can’t say it’s an evidence-based decision… there is a real separation between an evidence-based decision and the opaque term that ‘we are being led by the science’, which isn’t the evidence”.

    On the life cycle of the pandemic:

    CH: “One of the keys of the infection is to look at who’s been infected, which shows a crucial difference when comparing the pandemic theory to seasonal theory. In a pandemic you’d expect to see young people disproportionately affected, but in the UK we’ve only had six child deaths, which is far less than we’d normally see in a pandemic. The high number of deaths with over-75s fits with the seasonal theory”.

    On Covid seasonality:

    CH: “The stability of the virus is far less when the temperature goes up but humidity seems to be particularly important. The lower the humidity, the more stable the virus is in the atmosphere and on surfaces… It’s now winter in the southern hemisphere, which is why places like Australia are suddenly having outbreaks.”

    On lockdown:

    CH: “Many people said that we should have locked down earlier, but 50% of care homes developed outbreaks during the lockdown period so there are issues within the transmission of this virus that are not clear… Lockdown is a blunt tool and there needs to be intelligent conversations about what mitigation strategies can keep society functioning while we keep the most vulnerable shielded”.

    On Nightingale hospitals:

    CH: “They are the wrong structure. What you need is fever hospitals which were here until around the 1980s or 90s. They were on single floors and had isolation within isolation. Theere were no lift shafts and staff were trained, which meant that everyone was protected from each other… It looks like at leats 20% of people got the infection while they were in hospital”

    On suppression strategy:

    CH: “The benefits of the current strategy are outweighed by the harms…When it comes to suppression, only the virus will have a determination in that. If you follow the New Zealand policy of suppressing it to zero and locking down the country forever, then you’re going to have a problem… This virus is so out there now, I cannot see a strategy that makes suppression the viable option. The strategy right now should be how we learn to live with this virus”

    On the response to the virus:

    TJ: “I am a survivor of four pandemics and for the other three, I didn’t even realise they were going on. People died but nothing changed and none of the fabric of society was eroded like this response… Do I see steps being taken at a European level about learning from our mistakes and changing policies? The answer is no…

    On the politics of the virus:

    CH: “We as individuals are part of the problem because sensationalism drives people to click and read the information. So it’s a big circle because we’ve created the problem — if we put the worst case scenario out there, we will go and have a look. If you want a solution, you’ve got to get people to stop clicking on this sensationalist stuff”.

    On IFR:

    CH: “We will be down about where we were with the swine flu: around 0.1-0.3% which is much lower than what we think because at the moment we are seeing the case fatality”.
    TJ: “If you look at the whole narrative, it was distorted from the very beginning by the obsession with influenza which was just one or two agents and nothing else existed. We’re no different now”.
    Pretty much every statement of fact of this summary is just patently untrue. please stop using youtube as a source. it is rotting your brain.

  12. #4592
    Ski Boot Fortior's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    2,974
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lief Siddhe View Post


    tl;dr:

    On masks:

    Tom Jefferson: “Aside from people who are exposed on the frontlines, there is no evidence that masks make any difference, but what’s even more extraordinary is the uncertainty: we don’t know if these things make any difference…. We should have done randomised control trials in February, March and April but not anymore because viral circulation is low and we will need huge number of enrolees to show whether there was any difference”.
    Carl Heneghan: “By all means people can wear masks but they can’t say it’s an evidence-based decision… there is a real separation between an evidence-based decision and the opaque term that ‘we are being led by the science’, which isn’t the evidence”.

    On the life cycle of the pandemic:

    CH: “One of the keys of the infection is to look at who’s been infected, which shows a crucial difference when comparing the pandemic theory to seasonal theory. In a pandemic you’d expect to see young people disproportionately affected, but in the UK we’ve only had six child deaths, which is far less than we’d normally see in a pandemic. The high number of deaths with over-75s fits with the seasonal theory”.

    On Covid seasonality:

    CH: “The stability of the virus is far less when the temperature goes up but humidity seems to be particularly important. The lower the humidity, the more stable the virus is in the atmosphere and on surfaces… It’s now winter in the southern hemisphere, which is why places like Australia are suddenly having outbreaks.”

    On lockdown:

    CH: “Many people said that we should have locked down earlier, but 50% of care homes developed outbreaks during the lockdown period so there are issues within the transmission of this virus that are not clear… Lockdown is a blunt tool and there needs to be intelligent conversations about what mitigation strategies can keep society functioning while we keep the most vulnerable shielded”.

    On Nightingale hospitals:

    CH: “They are the wrong structure. What you need is fever hospitals which were here until around the 1980s or 90s. They were on single floors and had isolation within isolation. Theere were no lift shafts and staff were trained, which meant that everyone was protected from each other… It looks like at leats 20% of people got the infection while they were in hospital”

    On suppression strategy:

    CH: “The benefits of the current strategy are outweighed by the harms…When it comes to suppression, only the virus will have a determination in that. If you follow the New Zealand policy of suppressing it to zero and locking down the country forever, then you’re going to have a problem… This virus is so out there now, I cannot see a strategy that makes suppression the viable option. The strategy right now should be how we learn to live with this virus”

    On the response to the virus:

    TJ: “I am a survivor of four pandemics and for the other three, I didn’t even realise they were going on. People died but nothing changed and none of the fabric of society was eroded like this response… Do I see steps being taken at a European level about learning from our mistakes and changing policies? The answer is no…

    On the politics of the virus:

    CH: “We as individuals are part of the problem because sensationalism drives people to click and read the information. So it’s a big circle because we’ve created the problem — if we put the worst case scenario out there, we will go and have a look. If you want a solution, you’ve got to get people to stop clicking on this sensationalist stuff”.

    On IFR:

    CH: “We will be down about where we were with the swine flu: around 0.1-0.3% which is much lower than what we think because at the moment we are seeing the case fatality”.
    TJ: “If you look at the whole narrative, it was distorted from the very beginning by the obsession with influenza which was just one or two agents and nothing else existed. We’re no different now”.
    Pretty much every statement of fact of this summary is just patently untrue. please stop using youtube as a source. it is rotting your brain.
    I mean, those are some fairly qualified people speaking there and the science around COVID certainly is ongoing. Not that everything they say makes sense, but care to back up that blanket statement?
    Real men pvp in barges.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amantus View Post
    good to see that Fortior seems like a decent bloke and isn't a gay fat faggot nerd despite his pony avatar

  13. #4593
    DerWish's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Budapest
    Posts
    1,738
    Quote Originally Posted by Fortior View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lief Siddhe View Post


    tl;dr:
    On lockdown:

    CH: “Many people said that we should have locked down earlier, but 50% of care homes developed outbreaks during the lockdown period so there are issues within the transmission of this virus that are not clear… Lockdown is a blunt tool and there needs to be intelligent conversations about what mitigation strategies can keep society functioning while we keep the most vulnerable shielded”.
    Pretty much every statement of fact of this summary is just patently untrue. please stop using youtube as a source. it is rotting your brain.
    I mean, those are some fairly qualified people speaking there and the science around COVID certainly is ongoing. Not that everything they say makes sense, but care to back up that blanket statement?
    When the protocol was to send back any coughing senior to the care home they came from without a test, his statement on lockdown is simply moronic and sounds like BoJo's shit on a plate.

    Any shitposter denying what UK gov did with the care homes feel free to go and <censored>
    ( I would be banned for life if not censored.)

  14. #4594
    Movember 2012 Stoffl's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The original viennese waffle
    Posts
    23,051
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lief Siddhe View Post


    tl;dr:

    On masks:

    Tom Jefferson: “Aside from people who are exposed on the frontlines, there is no evidence that masks make any difference, but what’s even more extraordinary is the uncertainty: we don’t know if these things make any difference…. We should have done randomised control trials in February, March and April but not anymore because viral circulation is low and we will need huge number of enrolees to show whether there was any difference”.
    Carl Heneghan: “By all means people can wear masks but they can’t say it’s an evidence-based decision… there is a real separation between an evidence-based decision and the opaque term that ‘we are being led by the science’, which isn’t the evidence”.

    On the life cycle of the pandemic:

    CH: “One of the keys of the infection is to look at who’s been infected, which shows a crucial difference when comparing the pandemic theory to seasonal theory. In a pandemic you’d expect to see young people disproportionately affected, but in the UK we’ve only had six child deaths, which is far less than we’d normally see in a pandemic. The high number of deaths with over-75s fits with the seasonal theory”.

    On Covid seasonality:

    CH: “The stability of the virus is far less when the temperature goes up but humidity seems to be particularly important. The lower the humidity, the more stable the virus is in the atmosphere and on surfaces… It’s now winter in the southern hemisphere, which is why places like Australia are suddenly having outbreaks.”

    On lockdown:

    CH: “Many people said that we should have locked down earlier, but 50% of care homes developed outbreaks during the lockdown period so there are issues within the transmission of this virus that are not clear… Lockdown is a blunt tool and there needs to be intelligent conversations about what mitigation strategies can keep society functioning while we keep the most vulnerable shielded”.

    On Nightingale hospitals:

    CH: “They are the wrong structure. What you need is fever hospitals which were here until around the 1980s or 90s. They were on single floors and had isolation within isolation. Theere were no lift shafts and staff were trained, which meant that everyone was protected from each other… It looks like at leats 20% of people got the infection while they were in hospital”

    On suppression strategy:

    CH: “The benefits of the current strategy are outweighed by the harms…When it comes to suppression, only the virus will have a determination in that. If you follow the New Zealand policy of suppressing it to zero and locking down the country forever, then you’re going to have a problem… This virus is so out there now, I cannot see a strategy that makes suppression the viable option. The strategy right now should be how we learn to live with this virus”

    On the response to the virus:

    TJ: “I am a survivor of four pandemics and for the other three, I didn’t even realise they were going on. People died but nothing changed and none of the fabric of society was eroded like this response… Do I see steps being taken at a European level about learning from our mistakes and changing policies? The answer is no…

    On the politics of the virus:

    CH: “We as individuals are part of the problem because sensationalism drives people to click and read the information. So it’s a big circle because we’ve created the problem — if we put the worst case scenario out there, we will go and have a look. If you want a solution, you’ve got to get people to stop clicking on this sensationalist stuff”.

    On IFR:

    CH: “We will be down about where we were with the swine flu: around 0.1-0.3% which is much lower than what we think because at the moment we are seeing the case fatality”.
    TJ: “If you look at the whole narrative, it was distorted from the very beginning by the obsession with influenza which was just one or two agents and nothing else existed. We’re no different now”.
    Pretty much every statement of fact of this summary is just patently untrue. please stop using youtube as a source. it is rotting your brain.
    We'll just go ahead by not not taking your word for it Mr I'd don't need to wear Masksmicker

    *edit*
    Damnit, ok parts of it do seem rather moronic.
    Last edited by Stoffl; July 20 2020 at 06:53:45 AM.

  15. #4595
    Lief Siddhe's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 15, 2011
    Location
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Posts
    7,760
    Nothing is gospel.
    I was somewhere around Old Man Star, on the edge of Essence, when drugs began to take hold.

  16. #4596
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    9,775


    nope.avi

  17. #4597
    Lief Siddhe's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 15, 2011
    Location
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Posts
    7,760
    In other, more positive news:

    Coronavirus: Protein treatment trial 'a breakthrough'

    https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53467022

    The preliminary results of a clinical trial suggest a new treatment for Covid-19 dramatically reduces the number of patients needing intensive care, according to the UK company that developed it.

    The treatment from Southampton-based biotech Synairgen uses a protein called interferon beta which the body produces when it gets a viral infection.
    I was somewhere around Old Man Star, on the edge of Essence, when drugs began to take hold.

  18. #4598

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    7,939
    Quote Originally Posted by Stoffl View Post
    We'll just go ahead by not not taking your word for it Mr I'd don't need to wear Masksmicker
    I've never said you don't need to wear a mask. What I was saying is that health authorities should be carefully explaining to the public that the large-scale evidence for wearing masks is thin on the ground, but you should do it anyway because of the precautionary principle. This is important to ensure the consent governments are getting from their people is fairly won and not coerced through misinformation, risking disengagement. This is markedly different from the quotes listed in the summary, which are problematic across a number of dimension, e.g.

    there is no evidence that masks make any difference
    This is increasingly less and less true. It's true there are no RCTs and that large-scale population studies have been inconclusive (for a whole host of reasons), so if they're talking in a strictly epidemiological sense for the highest standards of evidence then they are arguably correct. Unfortunately in terms of reading the plain english text - which their audience will be doing - they're outright wrong. The body of evidence from both historic and new studies done at the micro level and looking in particular at potential modes of transmission is both strong and convincing.

    but what’s even more extraordinary is the uncertainty: we don’t know if these things make any difference…. We should have done randomised control trials in February, March and April but not anymore because viral circulation is low and we will need huge number of enrolees to show whether there was any difference
    This is challenging in a couple of ways.
    1) The reliance on RCTs is problematic for public health. They're rightly the gold standard for medicine in general, but they can be very difficult to properly implement for the public at large. How would you even do an RCT for masks and viral transmission in the community? Arguably the only way one could construct an RCT for mask effectiveness would be a closed-cohort challenger trial [as we're planning for vaccine trials], which would be shockingly unethical, particularly if done at a time in the months listed when the health system as a whole was close to breaking point, and would materially be not that different from a healthcare context population study due to the invasiveness of the controls required.
    2) Dependence on RCTs is quickly being recognised as a reason why the UK's "science-led" approach resulted in indecisive action. A large part of the reason SAGE only softly approved social distancing and then eventually lockdown was the perceived lack of "hard" evidence, until the ICL statistical studies came along. A significant fraction of the Oxford/Royal Society paper I linked above is discussing in detail why you should really take a dim view of anyone clamouring for RCTs above all other evidence at a time of crisis.

    Correlated to that second point, this snippet

    By all means people can wear masks but they can’t say it’s an evidence-based decision… there is a real separation between an evidence-based decision
    Is just a no-true-scotsman of a statement. There is a lot of evidence. It's not very strong, but the decision is being made based on that evidence in full awareness of that weakness. They're rejecting this as a type of evidence-based decision because they don't like the types of evidence being used, rejecting the public health reality of the need to apply the precautionary principle. That's just wrong.

    Once we get past that we're getting into very strange territory.

    CH: “One of the keys of the infection is to look at who’s been infected, which shows a crucial difference when comparing the pandemic theory to seasonal theory. In a pandemic you’d expect to see young people disproportionately affected, but in the UK we’ve only had six child deaths, which is far less than we’d normally see in a pandemic. The high number of deaths with over-75s fits with the seasonal theory”.
    This is one of the areas where the statement of fact is correct - very few young children have died in the UK in this pandemic. What's odd is they're using that to try and redefine what is and what is not a pandemic. I had to do a bit of background reading here, but these two are helpful enough to post blogs explaining their thinking.

    https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-...ith-swine-flu/

    What they're doing here is using the epidemiological evidence from influenza pandemics to try and redefine what should constitute a pandemic - they're effectively redefining it to be any outbreak that predominantly kills the young. This is contrary to the widely accepted definition of pandemic. They're then extending that argument to apparently [based on this limited quote - i'm not listening to the interview] argue COVID-19 isn't a pandemic, which is contrary to literally every other authoritative source on the matter and apparently ignorant of the purpose of classifying something as a pandemic. They appear to be - though this isn't clear cut from the summary - further arguing any policy response treating it like a pandemic is inherently flawed. That's so far removed from scientific consensus that it can and arguably should be dismissed as crankery, particularly when the argument appears to only be made on their blog and to such esteemed publications as Unherd.

    It's also notable this exploration of death patterns makes absolutely no attempt to analyse the actual clinical impact of COVID-19 (which is very different from influenza), nor the significant policy failings in the UK that have led to a massively disproportionate impact on older populations. This is surprising to me for a group billed as an evidence-based research community.

    “The stability of the virus is far less when the temperature goes up but humidity seems to be particularly important. The lower the humidity, the more stable the virus is in the atmosphere and on surfaces… It’s now winter in the southern hemisphere, which is why places like Australia are suddenly having outbreaks.”
    They're right about the humidity/temperature links [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7187824/], but jumping from relatively modest changes in temperature/humidity to causality with outbreaks - bearing in mind the outbreaks happen across the course of 5-10 days not weeks - is a leap missing a few steps. In particular they're missing the very obvious link between the spike in Australian cases (particularly in Victoria) and the end of the Australian lockdown.

    “Many people said that we should have locked down earlier, but 50% of care homes developed outbreaks during the lockdown period so there are issues within the transmission of this virus that are not clear… Lockdown is a blunt tool and there needs to be intelligent conversations about what mitigation strategies can keep society functioning while we keep the most vulnerable shielded”.
    Lockdown caused us to accelerate discharge of significant numbers of COVID-19 positive people into care homes which were ill equipped with little PPE, subpar training and many hundreds of staff bouncing between care homes on bank shifts. There's nothing unclear here and using the failures to protect care home residents to attack the clearly effective lockdown as a crisis response is dangerous. I would hope this quote is trimmed down because a lot of that locally-oriented, targeted intervention is exactly what is happening now under the control of local public health directors. This quote implies we're still just applying blunt, broad lockdowns.

    “They are the wrong structure. What you need is fever hospitals which were here until around the 1980s or 90s. They were on single floors and had isolation within isolation. Theere were no lift shafts and staff were trained, which meant that everyone was protected from each other… It looks like at leats 20% of people got the infection while they were in hospital”
    This is just wrong. It betrays a lack of fundamental knowledge of modern IPC procedures, notably the use of hot/warm/cold/supercold wards and staff cohorts. It also ignores the fact that the Nightingale hospitals simply weren't used for COVID. This is adding onto a picture of a pair of researchers who are happy to parrot far right wing political points based on the protection of being partially technically correct. The Telegraph's headline today is another example of this.

    The benefits of the current strategy are outweighed by the harms
    This is a very stupid (dangerous) view on three fronts:

    1) It is, generously, a baseless assertion. If these lads are going to give in depth interviews to the fringe right-wing press about how little evidence there is behind the community wearing of masks, it is only fair that they explain at length how there is absolutely no evidence behind this line of thinking. In reality this is a political statement from people who don't give a shit about public deaths.
    2a) It is based on a thesis that the prior strategy of broad-based lockdown (which is what they're talking about) is one that has been imposed on an unwilling populace who are just dying to break free from the fetters of government oppression and exercise their god-given rights to walk the street and lick door handles while spending their pennies. This is in stark contravention to the fact that the public at large in the UK are overwhelmingly in favour of the government's strategy and that largely the government were following the public's insistence that lockdown must be implemented. Sporting events weren't banned by the government - they stopped happening because organisers and the public couldn't conscience holding it. So what they're proposing here is that the government's strategy should be to reject the popular opinion and inflict hundreds of thousands of deaths in the interests of a better economic outcome
    2b) Correlated to the above this thesis is based on the idea that if people aren't in lockdown they'd just continue at a similar level of activity. The simple fear of COVID is enough to put a huge dent in economic activity. If we ended all lockdown rules tomorrow people wouldn't just hop out and carry on as they did before. We must get to a point of public confidence, not just remove the restrictions.
    3) This is a simple violation of ethical principles - they're putting the economic advantages of the few capital holders ahead of the health and economic advantages of the individual employees who would lose out.

    The picture continues to build.

    I am a survivor of four pandemics and for the other three, I didn’t even realise they were going on
    I know these guys are very senior researchers at a prestigious institution, but this doesn't get them a free pass to say stupid shit. This is enormously stupid.

    We as individuals are part of the problem because sensationalism drives people to click and read the information.
    No shit. So stop giving interviews at places like Unherd that are going to manipulate you into producing clickbait quotes for their youtube views.

  19. #4599
    Duckslayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 23, 2017
    Posts
    2,503
    Can we get an approved list of sources for entertainment stickied pls.

  20. #4600
    Ashaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 29, 2011
    Posts
    3,987
    Quote Originally Posted by depili View Post
    zero corona deaths in finland for the last two weeks, I would say that distancing and a heavy lockdown straight from the start has been working quite nicely. We still have some limitations on mass events but most of the measures have been removed.
    You do however have the problem with not being anywhere close to herd imunity yet. That might cause a backlash when the 2nd wave rolls in.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •