|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
United States44382 Posts
In an apocalyptic situation toilet paper would be good for bartering but neither demand nor supply have changed so it's really just shortages caused by hoarding that are used to justify hoarding. But once you know that people are panic buying it makes sense to panic buy yourself before there is none left, even though there's enough for everyone. Still, it'll give some phd candidate in human economics or game theory something to write about in a year or three.
|
On November 16 2020 23:37 wimpwimpwimp wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2020 21:43 Vivax wrote:On November 16 2020 21:13 Incomplete..ReV wrote:
My wife caught corona at work (teacher) the week before last. She had a bit of a runny nose and sneezed a bit more than normal, plus feeling a bit like a normal cold, but that was the extent of it. The symptoms lasted about 4 days and she was as good as well again when she got the results from the lab. Our son (11 months) caught it as well, but only had a very mild fever for one day.
And then last week (Wednesday) I started getting symptoms as well. Runny nose at first, and then when I lost my sense of taste and smell on Thursday there was no doubt at all what I had. Got the reply from the lab yesterday.
Now I'm stuck in isolation after having essentially been in isolation already! Fortunately, my wife and son won't have to be quarantined because of me since they've already had it, so that's a plus ^_^
Guess it's as good as time as any to have it over with (assuming I keep getting better the way I am) since then we're good to go for Christmas!
It's a bit odd to think though that we are potentially (and most likely) immune. At least for a time. But we are also potentially at risk for getting a much worse round if it if we get it again. Potentially immune, potentially at risk - guess the best thing is to remain safe as always and hope for the best!
Isolation really sucks ass, especially when living in an apartment without the chance to go outside. Still, better than the health system going under, so I'll do it willingly and all that. But goodness but it sucks! By definition when the symptoms recede (making you immune-for yourself) and maybe a doctor can confirm your viral load isn't sufficient to infect others, why isn't there a legislation in place anywhere that would allow you to move freely as an immune person? This is really something that should have been implemented a long time ago. Oh yeah did a quick googling on this: https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-passports-in-the-context-of-covid-19WHO says no. They did that in April. F*ck knows what they've been up to in the last months but it's just mind boggling that they can't figure out this reinfection story, or maybe they don't want to (yeah tinfoil hat territory). Of the references in their article all but two are from Chinese studies. There's plenty of anecdotal evidence suggesting the possiblity of reinfections. I remember reading about a Russian scientiest purposefully trying to and succeeding in getting reinfected - and getting a much more severe illness the second time. Here's a paper describing a research project which examined immunity to the four other common coronaviruses over a 35 year period. It found reinfection was common after 12 months: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1083-1.pdf
Okay so evidence suggests after getting covid-19 in particular (assuming immunity lasts as long as for other coronavirus types) you might have 12 months of immunity and don't need to be locked in. The Russian scientist is at best a rumor without source.
It should be rather easy for an organization like the WHO to figure it out through animal experimentation (and you can really find out a lot by knocking out genes to alter the effect nowadays), but instead we get nothing for half a year and they just seem content to have provided reasons for lockdowns. I don't see why I should be restricted based on hearsay if I already had it.
Instead we get bombarded with vaccine news as if at least 98% weren't able to build immunity naturally. Getting flu shots was rather niche already but it was the main cause for pneumonias in elderly people.
By definition, if you could be reinfected within a short time spam (days to weeks to months), you wouldn't even be able to fight the first infection off in the first place.
Taking Sweden as example here (yes there are peculiarities in reporting, might be delayed numbers etc. but the big picture I think is clear on the log graphs. The curves are flat which was the point of the measures in the first place and during the summer months the testing was reduced)
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/
Try comparing the deceased/tested on Apr 07 (it looks like the disease is very lethal) with the recent Nov 11 spike (11 deaths to 5764 pos. tests) and it becomes obvious that ANYONE can manufacture rising numbers and justify a lockdown just by ramping up the testing.
If you want to make it appear more deadly than it is, you count the deaths and reduce the testing (spring). If you want to make it appear like the cases are on the rise again, you just ramp up the testing (now).
I'm not claiming that this is the way it's being done right now, but it opens it up to this type of abuse, especially when it's politicians deciding when to test. It's easy to manipulate when the pandemic response is centralized.
Why not report the positives / total tests done btw? That would also help in assessing it more accurately.
|
On November 17 2020 01:16 KwarK wrote:
In an apocalyptic situation toilet paper would be good for bartering but neither demand nor supply have changed so it's really just shortages caused by hoarding that are used to justify hoarding. But once you know that people are panic buying it makes sense to panic buy yourself before there is none left, even though there's enough for everyone. Still, it'll give some phd candidate in human economics or game theory something to write about in a year or three.
My understanding is that the TP shortages were pretty hugely catalyzed by supply chain issues post-closing of non-essential businesses. It's not like your neighborhood grocery store can call up the toilet paper wholesalers that stock the local office buildings. In that sense, it's at least (partly) rational to stock up again if you believe there's incoming widespread lockdowns.
It was much worse for perishable products, where the supply chain's failures resulted in just massive amounts of dumping of milk/eggs/etc. Again, the grocery store can't buy from the wholesalers that stock your office building cafeteria or the pub down the street.
On November 17 2020 01:21 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2020 23:37 wimpwimpwimp wrote:On November 16 2020 21:43 Vivax wrote:On November 16 2020 21:13 Incomplete..ReV wrote:
My wife caught corona at work (teacher) the week before last. She had a bit of a runny nose and sneezed a bit more than normal, plus feeling a bit like a normal cold, but that was the extent of it. The symptoms lasted about 4 days and she was as good as well again when she got the results from the lab. Our son (11 months) caught it as well, but only had a very mild fever for one day.
And then last week (Wednesday) I started getting symptoms as well. Runny nose at first, and then when I lost my sense of taste and smell on Thursday there was no doubt at all what I had. Got the reply from the lab yesterday.
Now I'm stuck in isolation after having essentially been in isolation already! Fortunately, my wife and son won't have to be quarantined because of me since they've already had it, so that's a plus ^_^
Guess it's as good as time as any to have it over with (assuming I keep getting better the way I am) since then we're good to go for Christmas!
It's a bit odd to think though that we are potentially (and most likely) immune. At least for a time. But we are also potentially at risk for getting a much worse round if it if we get it again. Potentially immune, potentially at risk - guess the best thing is to remain safe as always and hope for the best!
Isolation really sucks ass, especially when living in an apartment without the chance to go outside. Still, better than the health system going under, so I'll do it willingly and all that. But goodness but it sucks! By definition when the symptoms recede (making you immune-for yourself) and maybe a doctor can confirm your viral load isn't sufficient to infect others, why isn't there a legislation in place anywhere that would allow you to move freely as an immune person? This is really something that should have been implemented a long time ago. Oh yeah did a quick googling on this: https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-passports-in-the-context-of-covid-19WHO says no. They did that in April. F*ck knows what they've been up to in the last months but it's just mind boggling that they can't figure out this reinfection story, or maybe they don't want to (yeah tinfoil hat territory). Of the references in their article all but two are from Chinese studies. There's plenty of anecdotal evidence suggesting the possiblity of reinfections. I remember reading about a Russian scientiest purposefully trying to and succeeding in getting reinfected - and getting a much more severe illness the second time. Here's a paper describing a research project which examined immunity to the four other common coronaviruses over a 35 year period. It found reinfection was common after 12 months: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1083-1.pdf Okay so evidence suggests after getting covid-19 in particular (assuming immunity lasts as long as for other coronavirus types) you might have 12 months of immunity and don't need to be locked in. The Russian scientist is at best a rumor without source. It should be rather easy for an organization like the WHO to figure it out through animal experimentation (and you can really find out a lot by knocking out genes to alter the effect nowadays), but instead we get nothing for half a year and they just seem content to have provided reasons for lockdowns. I don't see why I should be restricted based on hearsay if I already had it. Instead we get bombarded with vaccine news as if at least 98% weren't able to build immunity naturally. Getting flu shots was rather niche already but it was the main cause for pneumonias in elderly people. By definition, if you could be reinfected within a short time spam (days to weeks to months), you wouldn't even be able to fight the first infection off in the first place.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's a good animal model yet for everything we need to do studies like this. My understanding is that when it comes to COVID-19 animal models you can have one of immunogenicity, transmission, and symptom severity. You can't really get even two out of three, let alone three out of three.
Heck to even get close to immunogenicity, you have to do so much genetic modification of the creatures that it's simply absurd to put much stock in the results translating to humans or the animals themselves.
|
On November 17 2020 01:00 Simberto wrote:
That is one of the most bizarre effects of the pandemic.
I can't even fathom the thought process which goes into hoarding toilet paper of all things. Food, okay. Water, maybe. If you expect and apocalypse, cigarettes for trade might also be useful. But why is it always toilet paper that the hoarders absolutely have to have?
And shouldn't they have enough left from the first time they started hoarding toilet paper?
Eh, supermarkets aren't really going to run out of literally 100% of food, so it's not like you won't be able to eat *anything*. On the other hand, sanitation and cleanliness can be sold out reasonably quickly, and there aren't as many substitutes for toilet paper as there are different kinds of food you could still eat, if your favorite food is sold out.
|
On November 17 2020 01:16 KwarK wrote:
In an apocalyptic situation toilet paper would be good for bartering but neither demand nor supply have changed so it's really just shortages caused by hoarding that are used to justify hoarding. But once you know that people are panic buying it makes sense to panic buy yourself before there is none left, even though there's enough for everyone. Still, it'll give some phd candidate in human economics or game theory something to write about in a year or three.
How much of that is hoarding and how much of that is capitalism though. I'm sure everyone saw a news story about some idiot who stocked their garage like a warehouse to get into the TP business due to the shortage. I'd be curious how many "small businesses" opened up and distorted the market.
On November 17 2020 01:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2020 01:00 Simberto wrote:
That is one of the most bizarre effects of the pandemic.
I can't even fathom the thought process which goes into hoarding toilet paper of all things. Food, okay. Water, maybe. If you expect and apocalypse, cigarettes for trade might also be useful. But why is it always toilet paper that the hoarders absolutely have to have?
And shouldn't they have enough left from the first time they started hoarding toilet paper? Eh, supermarkets aren't really going to run out of literally 100% of food, so it's not like you won't be able to eat *anything*. On the other hand, sanitation and cleanliness can be sold out reasonably quickly, and there aren't as many substitutes for toilet paper as there are different kinds of food you could still eat, if your favorite food is sold out.
You say this, but before every storm a lot of people go out and clean out the milk and bread. Whenever I see a shortage of milk sandwiches I know there is a storm coming.
|
|
|
On November 17 2020 01:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2020 01:00 Simberto wrote:
That is one of the most bizarre effects of the pandemic.
I can't even fathom the thought process which goes into hoarding toilet paper of all things. Food, okay. Water, maybe. If you expect and apocalypse, cigarettes for trade might also be useful. But why is it always toilet paper that the hoarders absolutely have to have?
And shouldn't they have enough left from the first time they started hoarding toilet paper? Eh, supermarkets aren't really going to run out of literally 100% of food, so it's not like you won't be able to eat *anything*. On the other hand, sanitation and cleanliness can be sold out reasonably quickly, and there aren't as many substitutes for toilet paper as there are different kinds of food you could still eat, if your favorite food is sold out.
Idk, it's not like a huge chunk of the world consider using toilet paper to wipe yourself, to not be very hygienic. Kinda like if you had shit in your hands, would you be comfortable with just wiping it off with some paper? I am sure they have some reasonable alternative ways of cleaning yourself.
|
On November 17 2020 01:16 KwarK wrote:
In an apocalyptic situation toilet paper would be good for bartering but neither demand nor supply have changed so it's really just shortages caused by hoarding that are used to justify hoarding. But once you know that people are panic buying it makes sense to panic buy yourself before there is none left, even though there's enough for everyone. Still, it'll give some phd candidate in human economics or game theory something to write about in a year or three.
Good luck carrying around enough toilet paper for it to be worthwhile in a zombie apocalypse. Cigarettes are going to be so much better. Plus, people can't use leaves/newspapers/water instead of tobacco, so it is guaranteed to maintain its value. Also, while it's not good if it gets rained on, it's kinda okay when dried out... whereas TP is just completely ruined.
|
On November 17 2020 01:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2020 01:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 17 2020 01:00 Simberto wrote:
That is one of the most bizarre effects of the pandemic.
I can't even fathom the thought process which goes into hoarding toilet paper of all things. Food, okay. Water, maybe. If you expect and apocalypse, cigarettes for trade might also be useful. But why is it always toilet paper that the hoarders absolutely have to have?
And shouldn't they have enough left from the first time they started hoarding toilet paper? Eh, supermarkets aren't really going to run out of literally 100% of food, so it's not like you won't be able to eat *anything*. On the other hand, sanitation and cleanliness can be sold out reasonably quickly, and there aren't as many substitutes for toilet paper as there are different kinds of food you could still eat, if your favorite food is sold out. You say this, but before every storm a lot of people go out and clean out the milk and bread. Whenever I see a shortage of milk sandwiches I know there is a storm coming.
That's... what I said. You can drink and eat things besides milk and bread, right? There are hundreds of other options!
On November 17 2020 01:45 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2020 01:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 17 2020 01:00 Simberto wrote:
That is one of the most bizarre effects of the pandemic.
I can't even fathom the thought process which goes into hoarding toilet paper of all things. Food, okay. Water, maybe. If you expect and apocalypse, cigarettes for trade might also be useful. But why is it always toilet paper that the hoarders absolutely have to have?
And shouldn't they have enough left from the first time they started hoarding toilet paper? Eh, supermarkets aren't really going to run out of literally 100% of food, so it's not like you won't be able to eat *anything*. On the other hand, sanitation and cleanliness can be sold out reasonably quickly, and there aren't as many substitutes for toilet paper as there are different kinds of food you could still eat, if your favorite food is sold out. Assuming you are at home you can always shower, sure it is kinda gross but you will likely be cleaner. The down side is th energy and water waste but TP has alternatives as well.
As I said, there aren't as many substitutes for toilet paper as there are for different foods to eat lol. I didn't say it was impossible to have a clean butt without toilet paper.
On November 17 2020 01:46 Neneu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2020 01:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 17 2020 01:00 Simberto wrote:
That is one of the most bizarre effects of the pandemic.
I can't even fathom the thought process which goes into hoarding toilet paper of all things. Food, okay. Water, maybe. If you expect and apocalypse, cigarettes for trade might also be useful. But why is it always toilet paper that the hoarders absolutely have to have?
And shouldn't they have enough left from the first time they started hoarding toilet paper? Eh, supermarkets aren't really going to run out of literally 100% of food, so it's not like you won't be able to eat *anything*. On the other hand, sanitation and cleanliness can be sold out reasonably quickly, and there aren't as many substitutes for toilet paper as there are different kinds of food you could still eat, if your favorite food is sold out. Idk, it's not like a huge chunk of the world consider using toilet paper to wipe yourself, to not be very hygienic. Kinda like if you had shit in your hands, would you be comfortable with just wiping it off with some paper? I am sure they have some reasonable alternative ways of cleaning yourself.
Fair enough; I was mostly thinking in terms of American households (and other first-world locations), but yes, I'd imagine there is a large part of the world that doesn't care too much about hygiene. I'm sure that in those places, toilet paper is mostly irrelevant to the conversation; people who don't use toilet paper would tautologically not be affected by a shortage of toilet paper.
|
On November 17 2020 02:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2020 01:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 17 2020 01:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 17 2020 01:00 Simberto wrote:
That is one of the most bizarre effects of the pandemic.
I can't even fathom the thought process which goes into hoarding toilet paper of all things. Food, okay. Water, maybe. If you expect and apocalypse, cigarettes for trade might also be useful. But why is it always toilet paper that the hoarders absolutely have to have?
And shouldn't they have enough left from the first time they started hoarding toilet paper? Eh, supermarkets aren't really going to run out of literally 100% of food, so it's not like you won't be able to eat *anything*. On the other hand, sanitation and cleanliness can be sold out reasonably quickly, and there aren't as many substitutes for toilet paper as there are different kinds of food you could still eat, if your favorite food is sold out. You say this, but before every storm a lot of people go out and clean out the milk and bread. Whenever I see a shortage of milk sandwiches I know there is a storm coming. That's... what I said. You can drink and eat things besides milk and bread, right? There are hundreds of other options! Show nested quote +On November 17 2020 01:45 JimmiC wrote:On November 17 2020 01:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 17 2020 01:00 Simberto wrote:
That is one of the most bizarre effects of the pandemic.
I can't even fathom the thought process which goes into hoarding toilet paper of all things. Food, okay. Water, maybe. If you expect and apocalypse, cigarettes for trade might also be useful. But why is it always toilet paper that the hoarders absolutely have to have?
And shouldn't they have enough left from the first time they started hoarding toilet paper? Eh, supermarkets aren't really going to run out of literally 100% of food, so it's not like you won't be able to eat *anything*. On the other hand, sanitation and cleanliness can be sold out reasonably quickly, and there aren't as many substitutes for toilet paper as there are different kinds of food you could still eat, if your favorite food is sold out. Assuming you are at home you can always shower, sure it is kinda gross but you will likely be cleaner. The down side is th energy and water waste but TP has alternatives as well. As I said, there aren't as many substitutes for toilet paper as there are for different foods to eat lol. I didn't say it was impossible to have a clean butt without toilet paper. Show nested quote +On November 17 2020 01:46 Neneu wrote:On November 17 2020 01:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 17 2020 01:00 Simberto wrote:
That is one of the most bizarre effects of the pandemic.
I can't even fathom the thought process which goes into hoarding toilet paper of all things. Food, okay. Water, maybe. If you expect and apocalypse, cigarettes for trade might also be useful. But why is it always toilet paper that the hoarders absolutely have to have?
And shouldn't they have enough left from the first time they started hoarding toilet paper? Eh, supermarkets aren't really going to run out of literally 100% of food, so it's not like you won't be able to eat *anything*. On the other hand, sanitation and cleanliness can be sold out reasonably quickly, and there aren't as many substitutes for toilet paper as there are different kinds of food you could still eat, if your favorite food is sold out. Idk, it's not like a huge chunk of the world consider using toilet paper to wipe yourself, to not be very hygienic. Kinda like if you had shit in your hands, would you be comfortable with just wiping it off with some paper? I am sure they have some reasonable alternative ways of cleaning yourself. Fair enough; I was mostly thinking in terms of American households (and other first-world locations), but yes, I'd imagine there is a large part of the world that doesn't care too much about hygiene. I'm sure that in those places, toilet paper is mostly irrelevant to the conversation; people who don't use toilet paper would tautologically not be affected by a shortage of toilet paper.
No it is the other way around. They care about hygiene so they don't settle for just using some paper to wipe the shit of your body. They use water.
|
On November 17 2020 01:21 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2020 23:37 wimpwimpwimp wrote:On November 16 2020 21:43 Vivax wrote:On November 16 2020 21:13 Incomplete..ReV wrote:
My wife caught corona at work (teacher) the week before last. She had a bit of a runny nose and sneezed a bit more than normal, plus feeling a bit like a normal cold, but that was the extent of it. The symptoms lasted about 4 days and she was as good as well again when she got the results from the lab. Our son (11 months) caught it as well, but only had a very mild fever for one day.
And then last week (Wednesday) I started getting symptoms as well. Runny nose at first, and then when I lost my sense of taste and smell on Thursday there was no doubt at all what I had. Got the reply from the lab yesterday.
Now I'm stuck in isolation after having essentially been in isolation already! Fortunately, my wife and son won't have to be quarantined because of me since they've already had it, so that's a plus ^_^
Guess it's as good as time as any to have it over with (assuming I keep getting better the way I am) since then we're good to go for Christmas!
It's a bit odd to think though that we are potentially (and most likely) immune. At least for a time. But we are also potentially at risk for getting a much worse round if it if we get it again. Potentially immune, potentially at risk - guess the best thing is to remain safe as always and hope for the best!
Isolation really sucks ass, especially when living in an apartment without the chance to go outside. Still, better than the health system going under, so I'll do it willingly and all that. But goodness but it sucks! By definition when the symptoms recede (making you immune-for yourself) and maybe a doctor can confirm your viral load isn't sufficient to infect others, why isn't there a legislation in place anywhere that would allow you to move freely as an immune person? This is really something that should have been implemented a long time ago. Oh yeah did a quick googling on this: https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-passports-in-the-context-of-covid-19WHO says no. They did that in April. F*ck knows what they've been up to in the last months but it's just mind boggling that they can't figure out this reinfection story, or maybe they don't want to (yeah tinfoil hat territory). Of the references in their article all but two are from Chinese studies. There's plenty of anecdotal evidence suggesting the possiblity of reinfections. I remember reading about a Russian scientiest purposefully trying to and succeeding in getting reinfected - and getting a much more severe illness the second time. Here's a paper describing a research project which examined immunity to the four other common coronaviruses over a 35 year period. It found reinfection was common after 12 months: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1083-1.pdf Okay so evidence suggests after getting covid-19 in particular (assuming immunity lasts as long as for other coronavirus types) you might have 12 months of immunity and don't need to be locked in. The Russian scientist is at best a rumor without source. It should be rather easy for an organization like the WHO to figure it out through animal experimentation (and you can really find out a lot by knocking out genes to alter the effect nowadays), but instead we get nothing for half a year and they just seem content to have provided reasons for lockdowns. I don't see why I should be restricted based on hearsay if I already had it. Instead we get bombarded with vaccine news as if at least 98% weren't able to build immunity naturally. Getting flu shots was rather niche already but it was the main cause for pneumonias in elderly people. By definition, if you could be reinfected within a short time spam (days to weeks to months), you wouldn't even be able to fight the first infection off in the first place. Taking Sweden as example here (yes there are peculiarities in reporting, might be delayed numbers etc. but the big picture I think is clear on the log graphs. The curves are flat which was the point of the measures in the first place and during the summer months the testing was reduced) https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/Try comparing the deceased/tested on Apr 07 (it looks like the disease is very lethal) with the recent Nov 11 spike (11 deaths to 5764 pos. tests) and it becomes obvious that ANYONE can manufacture rising numbers and justify a lockdown just by ramping up the testing. If you want to make it appear more deadly than it is, you count the deaths and reduce the testing (spring). If you want to make it appear like the cases are on the rise again, you just ramp up the testing (now). I'm not claiming that this is the way it's being done right now, but it opens it up to this type of abuse, especially when it's politicians deciding when to test. It's easy to manipulate when the pandemic response is centralized. Why not report the positives / total tests done btw? That would also help in assessing it more accurately.
Agree with that post, which is why France is publishing the test positivity ratio every day, and we take decisions based on the amount of hospital admissions and ICU admissions.
Numbers have been decreasing for a few days now, ratio is at 16% positive down from 21%, R0 and incidency rate lowering, and ICU plateauing (at 96% base capacity...). This is with a heavy lockdown and most shops closed... Hoping to reopen some shops (not restaurants/bar) in 2 weeks, we shall see...
|
On November 17 2020 01:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2020 01:16 KwarK wrote:
In an apocalyptic situation toilet paper would be good for bartering but neither demand nor supply have changed so it's really just shortages caused by hoarding that are used to justify hoarding. But once you know that people are panic buying it makes sense to panic buy yourself before there is none left, even though there's enough for everyone. Still, it'll give some phd candidate in human economics or game theory something to write about in a year or three. My understanding is that the TP shortages were pretty hugely catalyzed by supply chain issues post-closing of non-essential businesses. It's not like your neighborhood grocery store can call up the toilet paper wholesalers that stock the local office buildings. In that sense, it's at least (partly) rational to stock up again if you believe there's incoming widespread lockdowns. It was much worse for perishable products, where the supply chain's failures resulted in just massive amounts of dumping of milk/eggs/etc. Again, the grocery store can't buy from the wholesalers that stock your office building cafeteria or the pub down the street. Show nested quote +On November 17 2020 01:21 Vivax wrote:On November 16 2020 23:37 wimpwimpwimp wrote:On November 16 2020 21:43 Vivax wrote:On November 16 2020 21:13 Incomplete..ReV wrote:
My wife caught corona at work (teacher) the week before last. She had a bit of a runny nose and sneezed a bit more than normal, plus feeling a bit like a normal cold, but that was the extent of it. The symptoms lasted about 4 days and she was as good as well again when she got the results from the lab. Our son (11 months) caught it as well, but only had a very mild fever for one day.
And then last week (Wednesday) I started getting symptoms as well. Runny nose at first, and then when I lost my sense of taste and smell on Thursday there was no doubt at all what I had. Got the reply from the lab yesterday.
Now I'm stuck in isolation after having essentially been in isolation already! Fortunately, my wife and son won't have to be quarantined because of me since they've already had it, so that's a plus ^_^
Guess it's as good as time as any to have it over with (assuming I keep getting better the way I am) since then we're good to go for Christmas!
It's a bit odd to think though that we are potentially (and most likely) immune. At least for a time. But we are also potentially at risk for getting a much worse round if it if we get it again. Potentially immune, potentially at risk - guess the best thing is to remain safe as always and hope for the best!
Isolation really sucks ass, especially when living in an apartment without the chance to go outside. Still, better than the health system going under, so I'll do it willingly and all that. But goodness but it sucks! By definition when the symptoms recede (making you immune-for yourself) and maybe a doctor can confirm your viral load isn't sufficient to infect others, why isn't there a legislation in place anywhere that would allow you to move freely as an immune person? This is really something that should have been implemented a long time ago. Oh yeah did a quick googling on this: https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-passports-in-the-context-of-covid-19WHO says no. They did that in April. F*ck knows what they've been up to in the last months but it's just mind boggling that they can't figure out this reinfection story, or maybe they don't want to (yeah tinfoil hat territory). Of the references in their article all but two are from Chinese studies. There's plenty of anecdotal evidence suggesting the possiblity of reinfections. I remember reading about a Russian scientiest purposefully trying to and succeeding in getting reinfected - and getting a much more severe illness the second time. Here's a paper describing a research project which examined immunity to the four other common coronaviruses over a 35 year period. It found reinfection was common after 12 months: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1083-1.pdf Okay so evidence suggests after getting covid-19 in particular (assuming immunity lasts as long as for other coronavirus types) you might have 12 months of immunity and don't need to be locked in. The Russian scientist is at best a rumor without source. It should be rather easy for an organization like the WHO to figure it out through animal experimentation (and you can really find out a lot by knocking out genes to alter the effect nowadays), but instead we get nothing for half a year and they just seem content to have provided reasons for lockdowns. I don't see why I should be restricted based on hearsay if I already had it. Instead we get bombarded with vaccine news as if at least 98% weren't able to build immunity naturally. Getting flu shots was rather niche already but it was the main cause for pneumonias in elderly people. By definition, if you could be reinfected within a short time spam (days to weeks to months), you wouldn't even be able to fight the first infection off in the first place. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's a good animal model yet for everything we need to do studies like this. My understanding is that when it comes to COVID-19 animal models you can have one of immunogenicity, transmission, and symptom severity. You can't really get even two out of three, let alone three out of three. Heck to even get close to immunogenicity, you have to do so much genetic modification of the creatures that it's simply absurd to put much stock in the results translating to humans or the animals themselves.
Aside from the knockout (rather used for studying the effect of oncogens and suppressors now that I think of it), varying degrees of immunosuppression in the animal of choice should be simple to arrange.
It should be a priority since it's probably the most important information when it comes to defining the measures of containment.
It doesn't inspire awe when you get subjected to measures based on a rumor that a single strain can infect you multiple times.
For Sars-Cov-1 (the less infectious but more severe precursor type) it was shown that three patients had an immune response 9 years after the infection, whereas an experimental vaccine on mice provided just 18 weeks of immunity. How should it be different for this one, Sars-Cov-2? It's a backwards assumption.
I have no issue at all when occupied ICU beds are the metric though, even then though the lockdown should happen regionally, and be lifted by the same metric. That was the original concern sold to us.
It's nonsense to aim at having healthy, young individuals avoid exposure, or restrict individuals that already went through it. That's just deliberately prolonging the epidemic.
|
I think making an animal model for your specific strain of disease takes a few years to get right actually, which is a kind of leniency this pandemic doesn't quite offer at the moment I'm afraid.
|
|
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/11/16/covid-moderna-vaccine/
95% efficacy, no need for -70C freezer. It'll be 1 month in fridge, 6 months in freezer, which is far more manageable.
It's also quite expensive.
Estimate from the article is all healthcare/high risk vaccinated by april next year, and general availability afterwards (Which means we might be able to salvage a summer out of this)
|
On November 17 2020 03:22 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2020 03:14 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 01:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 17 2020 01:16 KwarK wrote:
In an apocalyptic situation toilet paper would be good for bartering but neither demand nor supply have changed so it's really just shortages caused by hoarding that are used to justify hoarding. But once you know that people are panic buying it makes sense to panic buy yourself before there is none left, even though there's enough for everyone. Still, it'll give some phd candidate in human economics or game theory something to write about in a year or three. My understanding is that the TP shortages were pretty hugely catalyzed by supply chain issues post-closing of non-essential businesses. It's not like your neighborhood grocery store can call up the toilet paper wholesalers that stock the local office buildings. In that sense, it's at least (partly) rational to stock up again if you believe there's incoming widespread lockdowns. It was much worse for perishable products, where the supply chain's failures resulted in just massive amounts of dumping of milk/eggs/etc. Again, the grocery store can't buy from the wholesalers that stock your office building cafeteria or the pub down the street. On November 17 2020 01:21 Vivax wrote:On November 16 2020 23:37 wimpwimpwimp wrote:On November 16 2020 21:43 Vivax wrote:On November 16 2020 21:13 Incomplete..ReV wrote:
My wife caught corona at work (teacher) the week before last. She had a bit of a runny nose and sneezed a bit more than normal, plus feeling a bit like a normal cold, but that was the extent of it. The symptoms lasted about 4 days and she was as good as well again when she got the results from the lab. Our son (11 months) caught it as well, but only had a very mild fever for one day.
And then last week (Wednesday) I started getting symptoms as well. Runny nose at first, and then when I lost my sense of taste and smell on Thursday there was no doubt at all what I had. Got the reply from the lab yesterday.
Now I'm stuck in isolation after having essentially been in isolation already! Fortunately, my wife and son won't have to be quarantined because of me since they've already had it, so that's a plus ^_^
Guess it's as good as time as any to have it over with (assuming I keep getting better the way I am) since then we're good to go for Christmas!
It's a bit odd to think though that we are potentially (and most likely) immune. At least for a time. But we are also potentially at risk for getting a much worse round if it if we get it again. Potentially immune, potentially at risk - guess the best thing is to remain safe as always and hope for the best!
Isolation really sucks ass, especially when living in an apartment without the chance to go outside. Still, better than the health system going under, so I'll do it willingly and all that. But goodness but it sucks! By definition when the symptoms recede (making you immune-for yourself) and maybe a doctor can confirm your viral load isn't sufficient to infect others, why isn't there a legislation in place anywhere that would allow you to move freely as an immune person? This is really something that should have been implemented a long time ago. Oh yeah did a quick googling on this: https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-passports-in-the-context-of-covid-19WHO says no. They did that in April. F*ck knows what they've been up to in the last months but it's just mind boggling that they can't figure out this reinfection story, or maybe they don't want to (yeah tinfoil hat territory). Of the references in their article all but two are from Chinese studies. There's plenty of anecdotal evidence suggesting the possiblity of reinfections. I remember reading about a Russian scientiest purposefully trying to and succeeding in getting reinfected - and getting a much more severe illness the second time. Here's a paper describing a research project which examined immunity to the four other common coronaviruses over a 35 year period. It found reinfection was common after 12 months: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1083-1.pdf Okay so evidence suggests after getting covid-19 in particular (assuming immunity lasts as long as for other coronavirus types) you might have 12 months of immunity and don't need to be locked in. The Russian scientist is at best a rumor without source. It should be rather easy for an organization like the WHO to figure it out through animal experimentation (and you can really find out a lot by knocking out genes to alter the effect nowadays), but instead we get nothing for half a year and they just seem content to have provided reasons for lockdowns. I don't see why I should be restricted based on hearsay if I already had it. Instead we get bombarded with vaccine news as if at least 98% weren't able to build immunity naturally. Getting flu shots was rather niche already but it was the main cause for pneumonias in elderly people. By definition, if you could be reinfected within a short time spam (days to weeks to months), you wouldn't even be able to fight the first infection off in the first place. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's a good animal model yet for everything we need to do studies like this. My understanding is that when it comes to COVID-19 animal models you can have one of immunogenicity, transmission, and symptom severity. You can't really get even two out of three, let alone three out of three. Heck to even get close to immunogenicity, you have to do so much genetic modification of the creatures that it's simply absurd to put much stock in the results translating to humans or the animals themselves. Aside from the knockout (rather used for studying the effect of oncogens and suppressors now that I think of it), varying degrees of immunosuppression in the animal of choice should be simple to arrange. It should be a priority since it's probably the most important information when it comes to defining the measures of containment. It doesn't inspire awe when you get subjected to measures based on a rumor that a single strain can infect you multiple times. For Sars-Cov-1 (the less infectious but more severe precursor type) it was shown that three patients had an immune response 9 years after the infection, whereas an experimental vaccine on mice provided just 18 weeks of immunity. How should it be different for this one, Sars-Cov-2? It's a backwards assumption. I have no issue at all when occupied ICU beds are the metric though, even then though the lockdown should happen regionally, and be lifted by the same metric. That was the original concern sold to us. It's nonsense to aim at having healthy, young individuals avoid exposure, or restrict individuals that already went through it. That's just deliberately prolonging the epidemic. it is not nonsense, those young people have lots of people they can transmit it too, also long COVID. Not every decision is based on what is best for each individual, it is what is best for society and the systems like health care.
Okay but what about those that went through it? Assuming they don't get it and they don't transmit it, which is the more probable case, what's the societal value in restricting them?
Sure, swine flu was less severe ("just" 300k deaths) , but there were no restrictions in place and it basically went away by itself, because that's how we deal with these respiratory diseases since forever.
Are you able to assess the long term consequences of stopping people from earning their keep or mantain mental wellbeing? Or the imo inevitable shift to more radical political parties?
In two years tops more people will have died from smoking than during the entire covid pandemic I wager, but I'm told the restrictions are in place to save lives. Do smokers choose to smoke? Initially they do. Then they don't.
|
United States44382 Posts
On November 17 2020 03:38 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2020 03:22 JimmiC wrote:On November 17 2020 03:14 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 01:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 17 2020 01:16 KwarK wrote:
In an apocalyptic situation toilet paper would be good for bartering but neither demand nor supply have changed so it's really just shortages caused by hoarding that are used to justify hoarding. But once you know that people are panic buying it makes sense to panic buy yourself before there is none left, even though there's enough for everyone. Still, it'll give some phd candidate in human economics or game theory something to write about in a year or three. My understanding is that the TP shortages were pretty hugely catalyzed by supply chain issues post-closing of non-essential businesses. It's not like your neighborhood grocery store can call up the toilet paper wholesalers that stock the local office buildings. In that sense, it's at least (partly) rational to stock up again if you believe there's incoming widespread lockdowns. It was much worse for perishable products, where the supply chain's failures resulted in just massive amounts of dumping of milk/eggs/etc. Again, the grocery store can't buy from the wholesalers that stock your office building cafeteria or the pub down the street. On November 17 2020 01:21 Vivax wrote:On November 16 2020 23:37 wimpwimpwimp wrote:On November 16 2020 21:43 Vivax wrote:On November 16 2020 21:13 Incomplete..ReV wrote:
My wife caught corona at work (teacher) the week before last. She had a bit of a runny nose and sneezed a bit more than normal, plus feeling a bit like a normal cold, but that was the extent of it. The symptoms lasted about 4 days and she was as good as well again when she got the results from the lab. Our son (11 months) caught it as well, but only had a very mild fever for one day.
And then last week (Wednesday) I started getting symptoms as well. Runny nose at first, and then when I lost my sense of taste and smell on Thursday there was no doubt at all what I had. Got the reply from the lab yesterday.
Now I'm stuck in isolation after having essentially been in isolation already! Fortunately, my wife and son won't have to be quarantined because of me since they've already had it, so that's a plus ^_^
Guess it's as good as time as any to have it over with (assuming I keep getting better the way I am) since then we're good to go for Christmas!
It's a bit odd to think though that we are potentially (and most likely) immune. At least for a time. But we are also potentially at risk for getting a much worse round if it if we get it again. Potentially immune, potentially at risk - guess the best thing is to remain safe as always and hope for the best!
Isolation really sucks ass, especially when living in an apartment without the chance to go outside. Still, better than the health system going under, so I'll do it willingly and all that. But goodness but it sucks! By definition when the symptoms recede (making you immune-for yourself) and maybe a doctor can confirm your viral load isn't sufficient to infect others, why isn't there a legislation in place anywhere that would allow you to move freely as an immune person? This is really something that should have been implemented a long time ago. Oh yeah did a quick googling on this: https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-passports-in-the-context-of-covid-19WHO says no. They did that in April. F*ck knows what they've been up to in the last months but it's just mind boggling that they can't figure out this reinfection story, or maybe they don't want to (yeah tinfoil hat territory). Of the references in their article all but two are from Chinese studies. There's plenty of anecdotal evidence suggesting the possiblity of reinfections. I remember reading about a Russian scientiest purposefully trying to and succeeding in getting reinfected - and getting a much more severe illness the second time. Here's a paper describing a research project which examined immunity to the four other common coronaviruses over a 35 year period. It found reinfection was common after 12 months: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1083-1.pdf Okay so evidence suggests after getting covid-19 in particular (assuming immunity lasts as long as for other coronavirus types) you might have 12 months of immunity and don't need to be locked in. The Russian scientist is at best a rumor without source. It should be rather easy for an organization like the WHO to figure it out through animal experimentation (and you can really find out a lot by knocking out genes to alter the effect nowadays), but instead we get nothing for half a year and they just seem content to have provided reasons for lockdowns. I don't see why I should be restricted based on hearsay if I already had it. Instead we get bombarded with vaccine news as if at least 98% weren't able to build immunity naturally. Getting flu shots was rather niche already but it was the main cause for pneumonias in elderly people. By definition, if you could be reinfected within a short time spam (days to weeks to months), you wouldn't even be able to fight the first infection off in the first place. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's a good animal model yet for everything we need to do studies like this. My understanding is that when it comes to COVID-19 animal models you can have one of immunogenicity, transmission, and symptom severity. You can't really get even two out of three, let alone three out of three. Heck to even get close to immunogenicity, you have to do so much genetic modification of the creatures that it's simply absurd to put much stock in the results translating to humans or the animals themselves. Aside from the knockout (rather used for studying the effect of oncogens and suppressors now that I think of it), varying degrees of immunosuppression in the animal of choice should be simple to arrange. It should be a priority since it's probably the most important information when it comes to defining the measures of containment. It doesn't inspire awe when you get subjected to measures based on a rumor that a single strain can infect you multiple times. For Sars-Cov-1 (the less infectious but more severe precursor type) it was shown that three patients had an immune response 9 years after the infection, whereas an experimental vaccine on mice provided just 18 weeks of immunity. How should it be different for this one, Sars-Cov-2? It's a backwards assumption. I have no issue at all when occupied ICU beds are the metric though, even then though the lockdown should happen regionally, and be lifted by the same metric. That was the original concern sold to us. It's nonsense to aim at having healthy, young individuals avoid exposure, or restrict individuals that already went through it. That's just deliberately prolonging the epidemic. it is not nonsense, those young people have lots of people they can transmit it too, also long COVID. Not every decision is based on what is best for each individual, it is what is best for society and the systems like health care. Okay but what about those that went through it? Assuming they don't get it and they don't transmit it, which is the more probable case, what's the societal value in restricting them? Sure, swine flu was less severe ("just" 300k deaths) , but there were no restrictions in place and it basically went away by itself, because that's how we deal with these respiratory diseases since forever. Are you able to assess the long term consequences of stopping people from earning their keep or mantain mental wellbeing? Or the imo inevitable shift to more radical political parties? In two years tops more people will have died from smoking than during the entire covid pandemic I wager, but I'm told the restrictions are in place to save lives. Do smokers choose to smoke? Initially they do. Then they don't.
A) Smoking isn't contagious
B) We already restrict smoking
|
On November 17 2020 03:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2020 03:38 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 03:22 JimmiC wrote:On November 17 2020 03:14 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 01:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 17 2020 01:16 KwarK wrote:
In an apocalyptic situation toilet paper would be good for bartering but neither demand nor supply have changed so it's really just shortages caused by hoarding that are used to justify hoarding. But once you know that people are panic buying it makes sense to panic buy yourself before there is none left, even though there's enough for everyone. Still, it'll give some phd candidate in human economics or game theory something to write about in a year or three. My understanding is that the TP shortages were pretty hugely catalyzed by supply chain issues post-closing of non-essential businesses. It's not like your neighborhood grocery store can call up the toilet paper wholesalers that stock the local office buildings. In that sense, it's at least (partly) rational to stock up again if you believe there's incoming widespread lockdowns. It was much worse for perishable products, where the supply chain's failures resulted in just massive amounts of dumping of milk/eggs/etc. Again, the grocery store can't buy from the wholesalers that stock your office building cafeteria or the pub down the street. On November 17 2020 01:21 Vivax wrote:On November 16 2020 23:37 wimpwimpwimp wrote:On November 16 2020 21:43 Vivax wrote:On November 16 2020 21:13 Incomplete..ReV wrote:
My wife caught corona at work (teacher) the week before last. She had a bit of a runny nose and sneezed a bit more than normal, plus feeling a bit like a normal cold, but that was the extent of it. The symptoms lasted about 4 days and she was as good as well again when she got the results from the lab. Our son (11 months) caught it as well, but only had a very mild fever for one day.
And then last week (Wednesday) I started getting symptoms as well. Runny nose at first, and then when I lost my sense of taste and smell on Thursday there was no doubt at all what I had. Got the reply from the lab yesterday.
Now I'm stuck in isolation after having essentially been in isolation already! Fortunately, my wife and son won't have to be quarantined because of me since they've already had it, so that's a plus ^_^
Guess it's as good as time as any to have it over with (assuming I keep getting better the way I am) since then we're good to go for Christmas!
It's a bit odd to think though that we are potentially (and most likely) immune. At least for a time. But we are also potentially at risk for getting a much worse round if it if we get it again. Potentially immune, potentially at risk - guess the best thing is to remain safe as always and hope for the best!
Isolation really sucks ass, especially when living in an apartment without the chance to go outside. Still, better than the health system going under, so I'll do it willingly and all that. But goodness but it sucks! By definition when the symptoms recede (making you immune-for yourself) and maybe a doctor can confirm your viral load isn't sufficient to infect others, why isn't there a legislation in place anywhere that would allow you to move freely as an immune person? This is really something that should have been implemented a long time ago. Oh yeah did a quick googling on this: https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-passports-in-the-context-of-covid-19WHO says no. They did that in April. F*ck knows what they've been up to in the last months but it's just mind boggling that they can't figure out this reinfection story, or maybe they don't want to (yeah tinfoil hat territory). Of the references in their article all but two are from Chinese studies. There's plenty of anecdotal evidence suggesting the possiblity of reinfections. I remember reading about a Russian scientiest purposefully trying to and succeeding in getting reinfected - and getting a much more severe illness the second time. Here's a paper describing a research project which examined immunity to the four other common coronaviruses over a 35 year period. It found reinfection was common after 12 months: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1083-1.pdf Okay so evidence suggests after getting covid-19 in particular (assuming immunity lasts as long as for other coronavirus types) you might have 12 months of immunity and don't need to be locked in. The Russian scientist is at best a rumor without source. It should be rather easy for an organization like the WHO to figure it out through animal experimentation (and you can really find out a lot by knocking out genes to alter the effect nowadays), but instead we get nothing for half a year and they just seem content to have provided reasons for lockdowns. I don't see why I should be restricted based on hearsay if I already had it. Instead we get bombarded with vaccine news as if at least 98% weren't able to build immunity naturally. Getting flu shots was rather niche already but it was the main cause for pneumonias in elderly people. By definition, if you could be reinfected within a short time spam (days to weeks to months), you wouldn't even be able to fight the first infection off in the first place. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's a good animal model yet for everything we need to do studies like this. My understanding is that when it comes to COVID-19 animal models you can have one of immunogenicity, transmission, and symptom severity. You can't really get even two out of three, let alone three out of three. Heck to even get close to immunogenicity, you have to do so much genetic modification of the creatures that it's simply absurd to put much stock in the results translating to humans or the animals themselves. Aside from the knockout (rather used for studying the effect of oncogens and suppressors now that I think of it), varying degrees of immunosuppression in the animal of choice should be simple to arrange. It should be a priority since it's probably the most important information when it comes to defining the measures of containment. It doesn't inspire awe when you get subjected to measures based on a rumor that a single strain can infect you multiple times. For Sars-Cov-1 (the less infectious but more severe precursor type) it was shown that three patients had an immune response 9 years after the infection, whereas an experimental vaccine on mice provided just 18 weeks of immunity. How should it be different for this one, Sars-Cov-2? It's a backwards assumption. I have no issue at all when occupied ICU beds are the metric though, even then though the lockdown should happen regionally, and be lifted by the same metric. That was the original concern sold to us. It's nonsense to aim at having healthy, young individuals avoid exposure, or restrict individuals that already went through it. That's just deliberately prolonging the epidemic. it is not nonsense, those young people have lots of people they can transmit it too, also long COVID. Not every decision is based on what is best for each individual, it is what is best for society and the systems like health care. Okay but what about those that went through it? Assuming they don't get it and they don't transmit it, which is the more probable case, what's the societal value in restricting them? Sure, swine flu was less severe ("just" 300k deaths) , but there were no restrictions in place and it basically went away by itself, because that's how we deal with these respiratory diseases since forever. Are you able to assess the long term consequences of stopping people from earning their keep or mantain mental wellbeing? Or the imo inevitable shift to more radical political parties? In two years tops more people will have died from smoking than during the entire covid pandemic I wager, but I'm told the restrictions are in place to save lives. Do smokers choose to smoke? Initially they do. Then they don't. A) Smoking isn't contagious B) We already restrict smoking
Yeah it's a bad comparison sort of but I can't get past noticing the hypocrisy by people in charge in keeping that giant trap in place several decades after figuring out it kills people and shapes their brain towards being an addict in general.
Also my country has like 40% smokers.
|
|
|
Bisutopia19393 Posts
Does anyone trust a vaccine that comes out? I've always followed the software rule, "Never trust a 1.0". That being said, I'd like to hear thoughts on the following.
Even if we assume the vaccine is safe for me:
1. Should high risk and elderly take the vaccine first?
2. Should we focus on giving it to people in high population areas like NYC?
3. You can still catch the Flu weeks after taking the vaccine if it hasn't had time to build an immune response. Are we concerned that people who get the vaccine will walk around recklessly as if it's not their problem anymore? Should they still be expected to follow pandemic protocols?
4. Lastly, does anyone believe this should be a mandatory vaccine?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
