Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On the notion that "Big Pharma" or government are somehow "gatekeeping" or preventing drugs from being prescribed that they somehow cannot profit from:

The Oxford University PRINCIPLE study (and yes that's the same Oxford University behind the Oxford Astrazenica vaccine) has examined a number of different cheap, readily available drugs as possible treatments for covid-19. This study is currently investigating Ivermectin, among others.

An example of a drug that they have identified as having actual clinical evidence to support its efficacy is the steroid budesonide, a medication more commonly used to teat asthma. The study found it was effective in treating symptoms of covid-19 and could reduce both the severity and the duration of a covid-19 infection.

source: https://www.phc.ox.ac.uk/research/covid-19/projects/principle-trial

The NHS now recommends the selected use of budesonide in treating covid-19.

Source:https://i-base.info/htb/40963

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 13.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

3 hours ago, nitflegal said:

What I do know is the more histrionic the media and politicians, the more lies to truth there have been.

And that's probably marking the rift between USians and, at least, the German contingent here. Overall the reporting about Covid has been relatively calm and collected. There were overbearing regulations, but they didn't get out of hand and were usually reverted after a relatively short period. There were stupid decisions, and the stupidity was quickly revealed in the case statistics. And once that vaccines became available, well, apparently more people got themselves the jab than the  official statistics originally showed.

The one group (in Germany) that I can see consistently propagating absurd policies - and, where they dominate local politics, their attitude demonstrably results in elevated covid hospitalizations - are right-wing populists in the wake of crazy overexcited USians. And that seems to be largely a result of likewise overly politicized drama generated along party lines. So my conclusion is, broad vaccination is our best strategy to win back a pre-Covid lifestyle. And indeed, life is becoming normal again in Germany, with a vaccination rate apparently well over 70%. Life is normal again in the Netherlands, and in Denmark, and what they all have in common are high vaccination rates.

I'm pro liberty. But I'm also conscious about the fact that nobody lives in a vacuum, and we have a certain responsibility for our fellow man. If I didn't feel that way I probably wouldn't have become a professional soldier either. So, the vaccination simply is a no-brainer for me. It gives me protection, it helps to protect others around me, it seems to work, and the associated risks about which we know are lower than the known risks of contracting the Covid infection. Benefits and risks are, with overwhelming clarity, in favor of the vaccination. Covid isn't the worst infectious disease ever, but it's not harmless either, not even "as harmless as the flu" (which isn't, either). The longer we debate whether or not the vaccine should be administered (rather than actually doing it), the longer the freedom-limiting regulations need to remain in place.

So, this debate in the name of freedom is about as dysfunctional as it gets.

 

Don't get me wrong - not everything that was mandated made sense, and especially in the US it seems to have been pretty stupid in many places. That's not cool. Nevertheless, the remedy is right there, and credit where it's due: "Trump invented it".

So, if I were a MAGA hat wearing Trumpist I'd stand in line and demand to get the Trump Vax first. Every jab against Covid is a jab for Trump's strategy of broad vaccination. I didn't like the guy, but here he was actually right about something, so why isn't that opportunity seized to re-frame the whole debate. Argue like that, and you'd see your favorite program on TV: Exploding liberal heads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, sunday said:

Colin Powell just died from panda flu, despite being vaccinated. Of course, he was 84yo.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/10/18/nation/former-secretary-state-colin-powell-dies/

He died of complications arising from blood cancer, his immune system was totally compromised.    This is like saying somebody that was diagnosed with AIDS died of complications of the common cold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Harold Jones said:

Repeated infections

People with multiple myeloma are particularly vulnerable to infection because the condition interferes with the immune system, the body's natural defence against infection and illness.

You may find you get frequent infections that last for a long time.

Brandon did nobody any favors by stating Powell's vaccine didn't work for him.  Also, his family, or whoever it was that released the details of his death, did nobody any favors by suggesting he died of Covid.  He died of complications arising from a compromised immune system, the result of battling a blood cancer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, nitflegal said:

How effective are the vaccines?  We don't actually know.  We know their mechanism of action, we do not understand the action of the virus so we don't know what the coverage is.  is it a respiratory virus?  Dunno.  Is it a vascular virus? Dunno.  Is it an endocrine disease?  Dunno.  Is it a combination of all of them?  Dunno. 

You might as well save the People's Tribunals some time and money, by reporting yourself to the camps.

And pray for a merciful execution, because you come across as the kind of right-wing nutjob who gives rat poison to cardiovascular surgery patients.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, DKTanker said:

Who is the final arbiter of truth?

Death.

If you (not "you", personally) have to resort to "doctored statistics, everywhere" to make a point, that's where you're losing me. Neither the US nor Europe are a Stalinist horror house of Lysenkoism. We can quibble the finer point of death "by" or "with" Covid. But look at excess mortality, and the picture becomes pretty clear and unambiguous, especially in the absence of a flu wave like last winter. Rather than 500,000 cases, not even 500. I'm not even sure if there was a single recorded death by (or with) flu in Germany. If people aren't dying from the flu and the death rate is still higher than in other years, the truth is out there for everybody to see who wants to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Death.

The "truth" to which I was referring is the one authoritarians / Censors are always referring to and must not, under any circumstances, be questioned.  Most especially, the "truth" that obligates me to do their bidding.  If people are so deathly afraid of the unvaccinated or even unmasked, I have some simple advise for them, avoid at all costs going out into public.  Their fear, their "truth," should not obligate the rest of us to alter our lives so that they may feel "safe." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, bojan said:

Same could be said of the people afraid of vaccination, you know.

Those who fear the vaccination are not demanding that nobody else be vaccinated as well.  They may believe they own the truth, but that truth is allowed to be debated.

Edited by DKTanker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting word

Quote

presumably

(prɪzjuːməbli, US -zuːm-)

ADVERB [ADVERB before verb]

If you say that something is presumably the case, you mean that you think it is very likely to be the case, although you are not certain.

[vagueness]

Presumably the front door was locked when you came down this morning? 

The spear is presumably the murder weapon. 

He had gone to the reception desk, presumably to check out. 

Synonyms: it would seem, probably, likely, apparently   More Synonyms of presumably

 

4 hours ago, Adam_S said:

The title of the graph was 'Rates (per 100,000) by vaccination status from week 37 to week 40 2021". This means that they have taken the number of infections, divided it by, presumably, the number of people in the adult population of the UK and multiplied by 100,000. They have then further sorted it by grouping the data into age groups and vaccination status.

How do you "further sort by grouping" a rate of infected by 100,000 people?

Thus, is there is a total population of 1,000,000 and there are 10,000 infected, the first step of your process is to divide the 10,000 by 1,000,000, and multiply by 100,000, thus obtaining an infection rate of 1,000 per 100,000. Now, according to you, next step is "grouping into age groups and vaccination status". How? Are you going to assume that if there are 150,000 people aged 15-30, with a vaccination ratio of 33.33%, i.e. 50,000 vaccinated and the rest unvaccinated, there shold be 500 (50,000x1,000/100,000) infected among the vaccinated, and 1,000 infected among the unvaccinated?

Then the vaccine would have no effect. Of course, you are welcomed to provide an step-by-step procedure.

It is more likely that, if in that 15-30 cohort, with that vaccination ratio of 33.33%, you find in the tests that every person in the unvaccinated group is infected, and one of every two in the vaccinated group is infected, then there are 100,000 infected in the unvaccinated group, and 25,000 infected in the vaccinated group, so the infection rates are 100% in the unvaccinated group, and 50% in the vaccinated group, or 100,000 per 100,000, and 50,000 per 100,000.

Now I go back to your explanation about how things should be done.

Quote

VE-graph-211015.jpg

Now, back to the graph above again. The rate is given as being per 100,000 people, so presumably that means that if you took a sufficiently randomised sample of 100,000 people from the UK, approximately 1,400 people would be vaccinated with 2 doses and would have covid and maybe 700 would be unvaccinated and have covid.

What the report fails to consider is that the number of people in this age group who are vaccinated with two doses is 3 times the size of the number of people who are unvaccinated. To compare the two, you would need to divide the number for the fully vaccinated group by 3 which would then give a number substantially smaller than the unvaccinated group (1400 / 3 gives around 467 cases for a sample group the same size as the unvaccinated group).

What you are saying, applied to the hypothetical case is that, as the number of unvaccinated is 2 times the number of vaccinated, so in order to "compare apples with apples", we need to divide the infection rate of the unvaccinated by 2, thus obtaining 50%, or 50,000 per 100,000. Curiously, this is the same figure (50%) as the infection rate among the vaccinated, so the conclusion is that the vaccine has no effect in the hypothetical case, despite halving the number of infecteds, from 100% of the unvaccinated population to 50% in the vaccinated population.

This bit of you (remember the bold part):

Quote

Now, back to the graph above again. The rate is given as being per 100,000 people, so presumably that means that if you took a sufficiently randomised sample of 100,000 people from the UK, approximately 1,400 people would be vaccinated with 2 doses and would have covid and maybe 700 would be unvaccinated and have covid.

is not true. A rate of 1,400 per 100k infected in the vaccinated belonging to the 40-49 age group, and 700 per 100k in the unvaccinated belonging to the 40-49 age group, means:

"If you took a sufficiently randomised sample of 100,000 people from the UK with ages between 40 and 49, and vaccinated with 2 doses, then approximately 1,400 people would have covid,  and  If you took a sufficiently randomised sample of 100,000 people from the UK with ages between 40 and 49, and unvaccinated, then approximately 700 people would have covid"

The correlation shown is that vaccinated likelihood to being infected is double of the unvaccinated's.

Quote

so presumably

There is nothing "presumably" in that report. Infection rates, vaccine effectiveness rates, and similar rates have clear and unambiguos definitions, like the ones provided in this pdf:

Quote

Calculation of Infection Rates

Knowing just the numbers of infections identified by surveillance activities is not sufficient to identify the risk (probability) of infection occurring in the facility residents; rates must be used. An incidence rate is typically used to measure the frequency of occurrence of new cases of infection within a defined population during a specified time frame.

(# of Infections) / (Population at Risk X constant (k)) = Rate of Infection

The “number (#) of infections” is the cases identified by surveillance activities (for example five UTIs), during a defined time frame in a defined population. The “population at risk” would be all the patients in the facility during the time frame when surveillance occurs (for example, 120 patients - average daily census- in the facility in April). The “constant or K” is usually an assigned value of 100, 1,000, 10,000 or 100,000, which represents a standard population and time period for interpretation of the rate. Using 100 as the “K” will give an infection rate that may be expressed as a percentage.

Or in this Nature paper, where they give this definition of population fatality rates by age groups:

Quote

Population fatality rates were analyzed and defined as the number of COVID-19 deaths divided by the total number of persons in the respective age groups.

Finally, this bit of you shows that you do not understand what "Rate by 100,000" means:

Quote

tl;dr, the black bar for the 40-49 age group should be about 3 times higher than the grey one because there are about 3 times as many people in that group. It's not, and the likely explanation for this is that the vaccine is reducing the rates of infection.

 

Edited by sunday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Death.

If you (not "you", personally) have to resort to "doctored statistics, everywhere" to make a point, that's where you're losing me. Neither the US nor Europe are a Stalinist horror house of Lysenkoism. We can quibble the finer point of death "by" or "with" Covid. But look at excess mortality, and the picture becomes pretty clear and unambiguous, especially in the absence of a flu wave like last winter. Rather than 500,000 cases, not even 500. I'm not even sure if there was a single recorded death by (or with) flu in Germany. If people aren't dying from the flu and the death rate is still higher than in other years, the truth is out there for everybody to see who wants to see.

VAERS, and EudraVigilance data are "doctored statistics". Remarkable.

In the meanwhile, a vaccination fan boy just reinvented the concept of infection rate, and you kept mum. What was that word? Dyscalculia?

Edited by sunday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ssnake said:

The one group (in Germany) that I can see consistently propagating absurd policies - and, where they dominate local politics, their attitude demonstrably results in elevated covid hospitalizations - are right-wing populists in the wake of crazy overexcited USians.

Funny thing about this. In July of last year, ie 2020, before the vaccines were out, the folks in the rural part of the US was over it, they were past the 1st wave and were ready to go back to work and get back to living. They weren't the excited, crazy, hysterical ones. It was the left that was crazy and hysterical. 

2 hours ago, Ssnake said:

I'm pro liberty. But I'm also conscious about the fact that nobody lives in a vacuum, and we have a certain responsibility for our fellow man. If I didn't feel that way I probably wouldn't have become a professional soldier either. So, the vaccination simply is a no-brainer for me. It gives me protection, it helps to protect others around me, it seems to work, and the associated risks about which we know are lower than the known risks of contracting the Covid infection. Benefits and risks are, with overwhelming clarity, in favor of the vaccination. Covid isn't the worst infectious disease ever, but it's not harmless either, not even "as harmless as the flu" (which isn't, either). The longer we debate whether or not the vaccine should be administered (rather than actually doing it), the longer the freedom-limiting regulations need to remain in place.

The former is negated by the latter. 

To be clear:

Liberty

noun, plural lib·er·ties.

  • freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
  • freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
  • freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

If you force people to have no choice then you're not pro Liberty. 

More so, you assert that the longer we TALK about the rules, the longer we take your freedom from you. Just talking makes you lose your freedom? How utterly absurd. This is why you don't understand the American perspective. 

The pro-freedom stance is that one gets to decide for one's self. PERIOD. There is no other qualifier. That one has the choice is the freedom. That you should be FORCE to take it, regardless of any other factors is decidedly overbearing and anything but pro liberty. 

2 hours ago, Ssnake said:

So, this debate in the name of freedom is about as dysfunctional as it gets.

Just debating about freedom is dysfunctional. How utterly dystopian-ly statist. 

2 hours ago, Ssnake said:

So, if I were a MAGA hat wearing Trumpist I'd stand in line and demand to get the Trump Vax first. Every jab against Covid is a jab for Trump's strategy of broad vaccination.

You'd have that choice. And if you look at what the Democrats were saying BEFORE Biden was elected, they would have avoided the same jab just on principle. 

Trump engendered the freedom by fast tracking the program and making it available inside of a year, a task that was claimed to be beyond possible by many on the left. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DKTanker said:

Those who fear the vaccination are not demanding that nobody else be vaccinated as well.  They may believe they own the truth, but that truth is allowed to be debated.

I don't demand that anyone should be vaccinated, and most vaxxed people I know don't either. I am all for Darwin dealing with a whole mess, one way or other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/blog/the-impending-mass-firing-of-america-s-unvaccinated/

Quote

Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote that “the degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.” Something similar can be deduced by how we treat the unvaccinated. These essential workers kept at their jobs before vaccines were available. Yet they and their families are now suffering professionally and financially for their convictions. Their unions are against them, their superiors have turned on them, their cities have shunned them. They served America, but America is turning its back on them.

No coercion, no sirree. Still no federal mandate, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, it's not coercion if you have a choice and they're not standing there with a gun to your head. If they threaten your job, your ability to pay your bills, feed your family, all that other stuff, noo...that's not coercion at all. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ryan, for the last time. I'm arguing from the perspective how things are being handled in Germany. I don't care who's responsible for the hysteria in the US, I just notice that the hysteria has had demonstrably negative effects here in Germany as well, and insofar would posit that its effects must be even worse in the US.

Just because the Democrats are the devil, it's a fallacy to be automatically against anything they propose just because it's them suggesting it. I might be distrustful of their policies as well if I were living in the US, but nevertheless my impression is that even sensible suggestions are being rejected outright due to the wrong people making them. If you find yourself in disagreement with nitflegal or Adam_S about Covid matters, and you support your argument with YouTube videos of some random dude whose presentation style knows but one tool, to scream at the camera, you should seriously consider the possibility that your position isn't the rational one.

In Germany, if you're vaccinated or if you recovered from Covid, you get your immunity certificate.  With it, there are no longer significant restrictions of your daily life. If you can provide neither you may need to present a qualified test result for admission to "X", or come back until either you contract and recover from the disease, or the pandemic is over, whichever happens faster. The system has its flaws, but I have yet to learn about a more practical solution. All that doesn't strike me as particularly unhinged policies.

 

Where you deplore the influence of Big Tech over public debate, I'm fully with you. Where you point out bigotry and radicalism in the Culture War, I'm largely with you. Where you rail about how muslims are about to turn Europe into a Sharia dominated hellhole, I respectfully disagree.

When it comes to Covid, I think that at least Germany's policies are pretty reasonable (not perfect!) and that this is vindicated by an overall comparatively small excess mortality. Countries that were lauded as models like Sweden and the UK by some Americans here in this thread have demonstrably higher excess mortalities. They were complacent early on, but unlike the US they at least turned the ship around when their hospital systems were overwhelmed with occasionally more severe lockdowns than we ever had in Germany. Australias highly authoritarian response hasn't been a great success - to name an example where the freedom costs were clearly too high. But at least Down under hasn't become a permanent dictatorship either (as predicted) now that the vaccination program is in full swing.

All in all I think that Germany managed the Covid crisis relatively well (although it was very costly for the state treasure). So then, maybe the policies struck a reasonable balance between restrictions of personal liberties and freedom costs. I think we could have eased a bit on the lockdown and reduced the expense in compensation payments. But at the end of the day we've had just under 100,000 dead from the disease, and we may be just one or two months behind the UK when it comes to opening up. Germany could have done much worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DKTanker said:

The "truth" to which I was referring is the one authoritarians / Censors are always referring to and must not, under any circumstances, be questioned.  Most especially, the "truth" that obligates me to do their bidding. 

See, you obviously haven't even tried to understand what I was saying. You hear a trigger word and immediately respond with a prefabricated argument that completely misses the point.

 

Death is "the final arbiter of truth" in this case because it's the metric least susceptible to massaging figures. You look at excess mortality (something that I suggested very early on in this thread, ca. 16 months ago I'd guess). Compare how many people died in normal years with how many died during the pandemic. Compare how different countries fared, and compare their policies. Then draw your own conclusions.

Death isn't a matter of opinion. If a doctor pronounces you dead, there's a very high confidence that you are. The good doctor may only be mediocre in his ability to diagnose the cause of death, but the beauty of the metric of excess mortality is that you don't really care about the cause of death. You simply compare one seasonal aggregate with another. That's how you rate the severity of other diseases (such as the flu), that's how you can rate the severity of the Covid pandemic. And because there was a wide spectrum of responding policies between countries you can then compare the best in the field with your own, and then look at the differences in the policies of those countries.

Assuming that the avoidance of needless death is the primary goal of all policies we can at least identify which policies have the greatest effect on reducing mortality. And then we can discuss whether these successes were worth the price, or if, as societies, we'd accept a higher death toll in exchange for other goods, be it state treasure, be it fewer restrictions for people to lead their lives undisturbed. But let's create a secure footing for the comparison for heaven's sake, if this isn't supposed to be a shouting match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

Death is "the final arbiter of truth" in this case because it's the metric least susceptible to massaging figures.

Now would be the time where someone comes in to claim that all of these death rates are fake anyway. 

I think the last time we were at this point, we had about equal parts of suicides, untreated chronic illnesses and cancer as the most likely reasons for excess deaths in the US. Certainly not COVID, no sir! 😄

Edited by Der Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

Ryan, for the last time. I'm arguing from the perspective how things are being handled in Germany.

And you're also making assertions as to how things are in the US which aren't the case. So, no, you're not just arguing about how things are being handled in Germany. 

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

Just because the Democrats are the devil, it's a fallacy to be automatically against anything they propose just because it's them suggesting it.

Which is not what any of us are doing. We ague against the policy if the policy is bad. That they HAVE vaccine distribution isn't the problem. That they have guidance on masks is not the problem. That they think they can heavy handed dictate and exercise powers they don't legally have is the problem. Period. 

What ever you assert I think or do because you want it so doesn't make it so. It's just as correct as what you assert is happening here which is not what you seem to think it is. 

 

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

If you find yourself in disagreement with nitflegal or Adam_S about Covid matters, and you support your argument with YouTube videos of some random dude whose presentation style knows but one tool, to scream at the camera, you should seriously consider the possibility that your position isn't the rational one.

Nitflegal actually seems to be rational making points about the logic instead of simple appeal to authority nonsense. 

As I have pointed out before and I'll do so again. Argue the points, argue the facts, argue about the data. But if your response is to retreat to logical fallacies, I'll call you arguments out as being bad arguments and arguably in bad faith. 
 

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

In Germany, if you're vaccinated or if you recovered from Covid, you get your immunity certificate.

Right. We've established that. We've also established that the advocates for "teh science!" don't care about immunity. They specifically ignore it and deny it. They don't make ANY allowance for cleared infection in the US. 

That's part of the sensical policies that you seem to laud. 

I think it remains to be seen if government figures who have seized authority they never had before AND been able to grab more budgetary control than they have ever had will actually cede that authority back. In the US we've had a repeated exercises of "I don't have the power to do this...but I'm doing it anyhow." declarations from government officials. This is not a good recipe short or long term. Add to that how they're going to use this as more grist for their Global Warming AND Great Reset mill, well....I think folks had better pay closer attention and not be so sanguine about the power seizure. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, rmgill said:

We've also established that the advocates for "teh science!" don't care about immunity. They specifically ignore it and deny it. They don't make ANY allowance for cleared infection in the US. 

That's part of the sensical policies that you seem to laud.

From where do you get that impression?

It's idiotic and counterproductive. There, I said it.

 

Germany doesn't do it, nor does any other country of the European Union, as far as I know. So, please strike that from the list of arguments I'm making, because I never did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About that Figure 2 that @sunday and @Adam_S have been arguing about:

VE-graph-211015.jpg

 

There isn't really any mystery here. The UK report explains why you have more vaccinated people with positive tests in most age groups, on page 12. It's the same thing that has been mentioned here many times before: If the vaccination rates among the population get high enough, most people who get infected are also vaccinated. Once you reach a hypothetical 100% vaccination rate, everyone infected will be vaccinated. Doesn't mean that vaccinations don't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. It even says so in the report. Once again:

Quote

Interpretation of data
These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different sources and is described earlier in this report.
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease. Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to non-COVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of COVID-19.

It's also worth drawing attention to the fact that those two bars are not comparing like with like. It's likely that vulnerable people or people with poor health will be over represented in the vaccinated group and also that people who are still not vaccinated are also probably less likely to come forward for a covid test.

There's a table on page 7 which summarizes data from proper, controlled vaccine studies.

image.png.0b41d71c94d9d88b8a6668918708a1d0.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...