NPR

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 4:22 pm**

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 4:15 pm
Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:44 pm
Sandstorm wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:00 pm

Except this one is vascular
Spanish Flu - four waves
Russian Flu (1890s) - five waves
Asian Flu - two waves then shifted into Hong Kong flu with a further two waves.

Bimbo making shit up again.
Swine flu is now just part of the regular yearly mix of flus, so that must have had a few waves too. As has basically every other cold/flu virus out there in theory...

It is, but because it's flu it was rapidly included in the annual flu virus, which prevented huge waves in the vulnerable.

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 4:30 pm**

Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 4:22 pm
Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 4:15 pm
Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:44 pm

Spanish Flu - four waves
Russian Flu (1890s) - five waves
Asian Flu - two waves then shifted into Hong Kong flu with a further two waves.

Bimbo making shit up again.
Swine flu is now just part of the regular yearly mix of flus, so that must have had a few waves too. As has basically every other cold/flu virus out there in theory...
It is, but because it's flu it was rapidly included in the annual flu virus, which prevented huge waves in the vulnerable.

I'm sure, but it's still wavy. It goes up in the winter and down in the summer. I was just getting sucked into debating someone I have on ignore. Viruses don't magically disappear after they've got to their designated number of waves basically.

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 4:45 pm**

Openside wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:37 pm
Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 8:31 pm
Jock42 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 7:50 pm

NHS

Then bartenders in my favourite pubs.
That might leave you with only nurses in the pub for company, so you might need to rethink your plan
You say that like it would be a bad thing??

Erm how many colours can you identify??

I think most of us got the joke.

Well done for realising that something didn't quite add up, though.

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 4:53 pm**

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:00 pm
Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:53 pm
A third wave would be very unusual for a Respiratory virus ....
Except this one is vascular

Eh? A growing hypothesis is now a fact?

Have you got the research showing the normal waves of a “vascular” virus?

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 4:57 pm**

I've not before bothered to loom at the efficacy of vaccines.
However today I took some time out and looked at the efficacy of the flu vaccines since the 1950's and to say I was shocked is an understatement especially looking at the numbers for the last 10 years.

Potentially 90% efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine is quite astounding if true when compared with the influenza vaccine.

Now that we are being tested weekly it's quite astounding how many asymptomatic staff have been and are being tested positive atm.

The lack of any symptoms whatsoever is baffling tbh

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 4:59 pm**

C69 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 4:57 pm I've not before bothered to loom at the efficacy of vaccines.
However today I took some time out and looked at the efficacy of the flu vaccines since the 1950's and to say I was shocked is an understatement especially looking at the numbers for the last 10 years.

Potentially 90% efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine is quite astounding if true when compared with the influenza vaccine.

Now that we are being tested weekly it's quite astounding how many asymptomatic staff have been and are being tested positive atm.

The lack of any symptoms whatsoever is baffling tbh

Not if you accept the theory of false positives and the PCR test sensitivity.

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 5:05 pm**

So, some more detail on the Pfizer vaccine - apparently it's good for 5 days or so at regular fridge temps (and has to be defrosted fully before use anyway) so GP surgeries and pharmacies should probably be good for this after all. However, very few doses will be available to the UK before Christmas and not that many after Christmas - so this is good for getting an emergency vaccination into the high resolution and health/care sectors......

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 6:53 pm**

#DailyCovidUpdate | 10th November 2020

- Cases: +20,412
- Deaths: +532

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 7:03 pm**

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 4:59 pm
C69 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 4:57 pm I've not before bothered to loom at the efficacy of vaccines.
However today I took some time out and looked at the efficacy of the flu vaccines since the 1950's and to say I was shocked is an understatement especially looking at the numbers for the last 10 years.

Potentially 90% efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine is quite astounding if true when compared with the influenza vaccine.

Now that we are being tested weekly it's quite astounding how many asymptomatic staff have been and are being tested positive atm.

The lack of any symptoms whatsoever is baffling tbh

Not if you accept the theory of false positives and the PCR test sensitivity.

But you’d have to be immune to information to accept that.

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 7:23 pm**

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 7:03 pm
Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 4:59 pm
C69 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 4:57 pm I've not before bothered to loom at the efficacy of vaccines.
However today I took some time out and looked at the efficacy of the flu vaccines since the 1950's and to say I was shocked is an understatement especially looking at the numbers for the last 10 years.

Potentially 90% efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine is quite astounding if true when compared with the influenza vaccine.

Now that we are being tested weekly it's quite astounding how many asymptomatic staff have been and are being tested positive atm.

The lack of any symptoms whatsoever is baffling tbh

Not if you accept the theory of false positives and the PCR test sensitivity.

But you’d have to be immune to information to accept that.

Or be a professor at Oxford .....

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 7:34 pm**

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 7:23 pm
Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 7:03 pm
Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 4:59 pm

Not if you accept the theory of false positives and the PCR test sensitivity.

But you’d have to be immune to information to accept that.

Or be a professor at Oxford .....

Like I say, totally immune to information

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 7:38 pm**

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 7:40 pm**

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 7:34 pm
Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 7:23 pm
Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 7:03 pm

But you’d have to be immune to information to accept that.

Or be a professor at Oxford .....
Like I say, totally immune to information

Oh I’m sure you know better. It drips from you.

This will all come out in the wash,

Anyone noticed herd immunity is back in fashion?

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:06 pm**

Saint wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:22 pm
Uncle fester wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:09 pm Honest question with the vaccine.
Does it need to be given to everybody?
If it's given to high risk groups at first, that alone should slow down the spread of the virus and reduce the R0 rate.
Could the virus already be under control before they get around to vaccinating everybody else?
If you're just talking about reducing deaths, then giving it to high risk/elderly first will reduce the death rate. It won't seriously impact r0 as the high risk and elderly aren't driving that number. - and there are still the concerns about Long COVID

To reach "herd immunity", you need to get to somewhere around 66%-70% immunised, ideally more. Of course by the time we get to the bulk of the population we'll be into next spring, so should be on the downslope again, and we're really talking about preventing a third wave

I'm not suggesting to do this as a policy but production of the vaccine will likely see a long drawn out process in getting the vaccine to everybody.
Would it then be better to give the virus to the people most likely to transmit it and keep the high risk of dying people in isolation?

Wouldn't like to be in the product introduction team for that one. Stress levels would be off the scale.

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:24 pm
Uncle fester wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:09 pm Honest question with the vaccine.
Does it need to be given to everybody?
If it's given to high risk groups at first, that alone should slow down the spread of the virus and reduce the R0 rate.
Could the virus already be under control before they get around to vaccinating everybody else?
Think the estimates were 60% coverage. So 90% effectiveness would mean you want around 67% vaccinated. Probably best to aim for 75%. Given the long term effects however, you probably want to be vaccinating everyone since unless it's wiped out ( which is unlikely if it can still survive in animal populations) it's probably the healthier option.

So for life to return to normal 70% uptake i reckon. But make available to 100% for health benefits.

Production rates required for that would be insane. Could take years to achieve that level of penetration.

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:31 pm**

Uncle fester wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:06 pm
Saint wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:22 pm
Uncle fester wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:09 pm Honest question with the vaccine.
Does it need to be given to everybody?
If it's given to high risk groups at first, that alone should slow down the spread of the virus and reduce the R0 rate.
Could the virus already be under control before they get around to vaccinating everybody else?
If you're just talking about reducing deaths, then giving it to high risk/elderly first will reduce the death rate. It won't seriously impact r0 as the high risk and elderly aren't driving that number. - and there are still the concerns about Long COVID

To reach "herd immunity", you need to get to somewhere around 66%-70% immunised, ideally more. Of course by the time we get to the bulk of the population we'll be into next spring, so should be on the downslope again, and we're really talking about preventing a third wave
I'm not suggesting to do this as a policy but production of the vaccine will likely see a long drawn out process in getting the vaccine to everybody.
Would it then be better to give the virus to the people most likely to transmit it and keep the high risk of dying people in isolation?

Wouldn't like to be in the product introduction team for that one. Stress levels would be off the scale.
Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:24 pm
Uncle fester wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:09 pm Honest question with the vaccine.
Does it need to be given to everybody?
If it's given to high risk groups at first, that alone should slow down the spread of the virus and reduce the R0 rate.
Could the virus already be under control before they get around to vaccinating everybody else?
Think the estimates were 60% coverage. So 90% effectiveness would mean you want around 67% vaccinated. Probably best to aim for 75%. Given the long term effects however, you probably want to be vaccinating everyone since unless it's wiped out ( which is unlikely if it can still survive in animal populations) it's probably the healthier option.

So for life to return to normal 70% uptake i reckon. But make available to 100% for health benefits.
Production rates required for that would be insane. Could take years to achieve that level of penetration.

Lots and lots of unknowns for all of this. It's not at all clear whether people are immune, or just asymptomatic. As for the rest of it, production of any single vaccine at scale to immunise 70% of any population is tough - hence the multiple vaccine approach. But Pfizer reckon 1.2 billion doses of production by the end of next year. So that would be enough for 10% of the world's population at the moment. Assuming the Astrazeneca works as well, that looks like production and logistics scale far better.

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:36 pm**

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 7:40 pm
Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 7:34 pm
Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 7:23 pm

Or be a professor at Oxford .....
Like I say, totally immune to information

Oh I’m sure you know better. It drips from you.

This will all come out in the wash,

Anyone noticed herd immunity is back in fashion?

Herd immunity has always been a concept of vaccination. The problem with it for hust letting a virus like this run through a population is the collateral deaths......

No-one doubts that we could have got to herd immunity with Covid naturally at some point. The issue was how long, and how many would die in the process

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:43 pm**

Saint wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:36 pm
Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 7:40 pm
Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 7:34 pm

Like I say, totally immune to information

Oh I’m sure you know better. It drips from you.

This will all come out in the wash,

Anyone noticed herd immunity is back in fashion?
Herd immunity has always been a concept of vaccination. The problem with it for hust letting a virus like this run through a population is the collateral deaths......

No-one doubts that we could have got to herd immunity with Covid naturally at some point. The issue was how long, and how many would die in the process

There’s plenty of comment even from health ministers in the UK saying otherwise,

For the record of course you’re right.

For the record we may be at that death total anyway if they don’t protect the care homes (they’re not ).

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 9:11 pm**

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 7:34 pm
Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 7:23 pm
Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 7:03 pm

But you’d have to be immune to information to accept that.

Or be a professor at Oxford .....
Like I say, totally immune to information

Information you say

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 9:46 pm**

Saint wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:36 pmHerd immunity has always been a concept of vaccination. The problem with it for hust letting a virus like this run through a population is the collateral deaths......

No-one doubts that we could have got to herd immunity with Covid naturally at some point. The issue was how long, and how many would die in the process

Not just how many would die, but how many would suffer life changing long term effects. Increased rates of dementia, loss of iq, tooth loss due to vascular damage, long term loss of smell, this thing is nasty in ways we're still learning about. And not a single nation is even coming close to natural herd immunity, as can be seen from the fact that a ton of people are still getting infected (let alone how many are dying) in the worst effected countries (that have reasonable records).

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 10:25 pm**

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 4:15 pm
Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:44 pm
Sandstorm wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:00 pm

Except this one is vascular
Spanish Flu - four waves
Russian Flu (1890s) - five waves
Asian Flu - two waves then shifted into Hong Kong flu with a further two waves.

Bimbo making shit up again.
Swine flu is now just part of the regular yearly mix of flus, so that must have had a few waves too. As has basically every other cold/flu virus out there in theory...

Modelling would suggest a third wave in late Feb to April triggered by Christmas and New Year. However severity depends on how lock downs go on for, how successful they are implemented and of course if a vaccine is available and how far it has been deployed. However it looks like a third wave of some sort if expected early next year.

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 10:26 pm**

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 9:11 pm
Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 7:34 pm
Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 7:23 pm

Or be a professor at Oxford .....
Like I say, totally immune to information
Information you say

I'm not entirely sure what you think that proves.

I'd never heard of the group that tweeted that, but from a quick squint at their website they seem to be anti-lockdown, anti-mask wearing etc

oh and anti-pcr testing by the looks of things.

I don't suppose you'll read this, but if you are interested in what viral RNA load means and what it means to have it present this is a worthwhile article https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lani ... 1/fulltext

As I understand it we've got a long way to go before we know everything there is to know about asymptomatic transmission and presymptomatic transmission of Covid

For me, I'll be happy to do a full 180 degrees if new findings come to light and show that everything I've read in the BMJ, Lancet, Nature, Scientific American etc are wrong. I don't take it personally.

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 10:32 pm**

He thinks it proves a massive issue with false positives. That's because he A) Grabbed the first thing that looked about right and didn't read it. or B) Did read it, and didn't understand it.

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 10:32 pm**

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 10:26 pm
For me, I'll be happy to do a full 180 degrees if new findings come to light and show that everything I've read in the BMJ, Lancet, Nature, Scientific American etc are wrong. I don't take it personally.

How can you possibly expect to win at the Internet with that attitude??

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 10:38 pm**

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 10:32 pm
Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 10:26 pm
For me, I'll be happy to do a full 180 degrees if new findings come to light and show that everything I've read in the BMJ, Lancet, Nature, Scientific American etc are wrong. I don't take it personally.
How can you possibly expect to win at the Internet with that attitude??

An oldy but goody

https://xkcd.com/386/

: duty_calls.png (13.77 KiB) Viewed 622 times

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 10:44 pm**

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 10:45 pm**

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 10:32 pm He thinks it proves a massive issue with false positives. That's because he A) Grabbed the first thing that looked about right and didn't read it. or B) Did read it, and didn't understand it.

I don’t think it proves anything at all , other than elements of doubt are healthy and there’s plenty more regarding the PCR sensitivity to suggest an issue with false positives even from the people who developed the methods in the first place.

By all means ignore that.

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 10:47 pm**

I'd never heard of the group that tweeted that, but from a quick squint at their website they seem to be anti-lockdown, anti-mask wearing etc

Unless you’re saying they faked the letter from Matt Hancock I’m not sure what this point means.

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 10:55 pm**

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 10:47 pm
I'd never heard of the group that tweeted that, but from a quick squint at their website they seem to be anti-lockdown, anti-mask wearing etc

Unless you’re saying they faked the letter from Matt Hancock I’m not sure what this point means.

I thought I had implied my point quite clearly, they are trying push an anti lockdown, anti mask wearing, anti pcr testing agenda

They appeal openly for anecdotes that support that point of view on their website.

I could be wrong.

btw, it's just a small matter, but I'm not sure the letter came directly from Matt Hancock

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 11:01 pm**

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 10:45 pm
Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 10:32 pm He thinks it proves a massive issue with false positives. That's because he A) Grabbed the first thing that looked about right and didn't read it. or B) Did read it, and didn't understand it.

I don’t think it proves anything at all , other than elements of doubt are healthy and there’s plenty more regarding the PCR sensitivity to suggest an issue with false positives even from the people who developed the methods in the first place.

By all means ignore that.

Healthy doubt? It says that it can show a positive result after someone has recovered. You may class that as a false positive but you're gong to be on your own i suspect.

By cutting out a single sentence the group have tried to get a "win" but it's clear what it refers to.

Let's see some actual evidence of genuine false positives to a level that'd would have this overwhelming effect you seem to be suggesting it does.

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 11:03 pm**

Of course you can test positive after the symptoms subside.
And you could test negative from a URT swab and positive from a LRT swab.

Its a bit complicated

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 11:03 pm**

More people who lack the information to be sensible.

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 11:07 pm**

At least we will know which tests are producing what results ...

Oh.

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 11:10 pm**

Bimbo now posting stuff from the Marxist alt sage guru Allysson Pollock.
Yes her of the anti privatisation fame who was a mastermind of the Doctors pay rise dispute.

Hmmm

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 11:22 pm**

She's also the one that wants all rugby tackling banned in school because her son got injured playing rugby.

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 11:34 pm**

C69 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 11:10 pm Bimbo now posting stuff from the Marxist alt sage guru Allysson Pollock.
Yes her of the anti privatisation fame who was a mastermind of the Doctors pay rise dispute.

Hmmm

A close examination of what she says actually disproves some of the points Bimbo has been trying to make, especially the point she makes over targeted testing of symptomatic people.

Anyway according to European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control

Viral RNA shedding is higher at the time of symptom onset and declines after days or weeks [4]. Over the course of the infection, the RNA of the virus has been identified in respiratory tract specimens 1-2 days before the onset of symptoms and it can persist for up to eight days in mild cases [5], and for longer periods in more severe cases, peaking in the second week after infection [5,6]. Prolonged viral RNA shedding has been reported from nasopharyngeal swabs (up to 67 days among adult patients) [7] and in faeces (more than one month after infection in paediatric patients) [8]. Infectious virus has been detected up to day eight post disease onset

So you can be infectious several days before symptoms and up to 8 days after symptoms start, but RNA will be present

it goes on

Detection of viral RNA by PCR does not equate with infectivity, unless infectious virus particles have been confirmed through virus isolation and cultured from the particular samples

However, doesn't that really only mean that you were probably infectious previously?

I'm tired, I'll leave this link here so I can read it properly tomorrow without having to search for it (it may even be pout of date by now)

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19/ ... 5B5%2C6%5D.

Posted: **Wed Nov 11, 2020 3:24 am**

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:55 pm
Or don’t bother with the population that isn’t at any risk from the virus.

That puts 10% of the "at risk" group under threat though. My (total guess) pick would be that we need to cover as much of the population as possible to reduce the risks.

Travel only allowed for the chosen ones!!!

Posted: **Wed Nov 11, 2020 7:42 am**

C69 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 11:10 pm Bimbo now posting stuff from the Marxist alt sage guru Allysson Pollock.
Yes her of the anti privatisation fame who was a mastermind of the Doctors pay rise dispute.

Hmmm

It’s a clip from a BBC interview you absolute throbber.

Posted: **Wed Nov 11, 2020 7:45 am**

A close examination of what she says actually disproves some of the points Bimbo has been trying to make, especially the point she makes over targeted testing of symptomatic people.

What ?

It’s just another view about the effectiveness of testing.

Detection of viral RNA by PCR does not equate with infectivity, unless infectious virus particles have been confirmed through virus isolation and cultured from the particular samples

Thank you for making my point so well.

Posted: **Wed Nov 11, 2020 8:01 am**

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Wed Nov 11, 2020 7:45 am
A close examination of what she says actually disproves some of the points Bimbo has been trying to make, especially the point she makes over targeted testing of symptomatic people.

What ?

It’s just another view about the effectiveness of testing.

Detection of viral RNA by PCR does not equate with infectivity, unless infectious virus particles have been confirmed through virus isolation and cultured from the particular samples
Thank you for making my point so well.

Read the whole paper, you can’t just do a word search on a page of text and lift something you think supports your point. It doesn’t.

Stop making this about you and being right on the internet.

Posted: **Wed Nov 11, 2020 8:26 am**

Read the whole paper, you can’t just do a word search on a page of text and lift something you think supports your point. It doesn’t.

Stop making this about you and being right on the internet.

I don’t care if I’m “right” .... I do care about whether the many billions of out money is being spent wisely, and that we are being kept safe.

NPR

So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...