|
Which horse film is your favorite? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Black Beauty |
|
2 | 1.06% |
| A Talking Pony!?! |
|
4 | 2.13% |
| Mr. Hands 2x Apple Flavor |
|
117 | 62.23% |
| War Horse |
|
11 | 5.85% |
| Mr. Hands |
|
54 | 28.72% |
| Total: | 188 votes | ||
|
They're talking about the difference between sterilizing and non-sterilizing immunity, if you want the official googleable terms
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 16:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:21 |
|
|
Man, that reminds me when the vaccines were touted as being 90% effective at preventing transmission. Those were good times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 16:34
|
|
|
droll posted:Man, that reminds me when the vaccines were touted as being 90% effective at preventing transmission. Those were good times. well they were that effective. Against the wild type. In studies at the time. Then mutations happened and efficacy was shown to wane after x months and welp.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 16:37
|
|
|
Tiny Timbs posted:Requiring proof of vaccination to work in person, travel, etc. were all approaches that at least implied the focus was on reducing transmission in public spaces and workplaces. Nah, it was to increase vaccination rates to reduce workloads on medical systems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 16:41
|
|
|
Oracle posted:well they were that effective. Against the wild type. In studies at the time. Then mutations happened and efficacy was shown to wane after x months and welp. Wasn't that the whole point about Omicron being so worrying? We had separate VOC's come out in the meantime that we did slow transmission against. I admit I find this stuff confusing and have no idea what to think half the time, other than I'm glad I got my booster booked for tomorrow. Mr Luxury Yacht posted:Which is a roundabout way of figuring that yes it reduces transmission in that within highly vaccinated people less of them are going to get it and spread it around. There were also people who kept pushing on the "It was never tested in humans!" poo poo without realizing that while it was true at the time, we now have months of population-level studies that are way better than a lab study ever could be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 16:42
|
|
|
Thanks for the education on sterilizing and non-sterilizing immunity, that's very good to know. Definitely sounds like the testimony is not the bombshell the video claims it to be, though. Maybe some 'technically correct' aspects at most
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 17:05
|
|
|
mojo1701a posted:Wasn't that the whole point about Omicron being so worrying? We had separate VOC's come out in the meantime that we did slow transmission against. Nosre posted:Thanks for the education on sterilizing and non-sterilizing immunity, that's very good to know. As usual, antivaxxers gonna antivax.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 17:13
|
|
|
Oracle posted:omicron was worrying because mutations were making it escape the wild type vaccine even with the booster, yeah. Its why they started recommending second boosters (that and your protection waning after a few months). I already had Covid in April after my first booster in January, so I'm hoping that the updated vaccine gives us a lot more protection against infection in general, given a good chunk of people have had a prior infection. That's how I always read the original boosters, is that they gave you additional antibodies temporarily but without targeting the spike proteins themselves, they were always going to be limited for that reason. Oracle posted:As usual, antivaxxers gonna antivax. Maybe it's because I've been listening to a lot of Alex Jones lately (via Knowledge Fight, because like hell I'm listening to the man directly), but I'm so goddamned sick of "bombshell reports and testimonies" used by conspiracy theorists because they're almost always colossal duds that are misunderstood either intentionally or just flat-out made up. Like, if there really are amazing conspiracies, do you really think that the so-called proof would be so openly talked about? It's so sickening.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 17:27
|
|
|
mojo1701a posted:I already had Covid in April after my first booster in January, so I'm hoping that the updated vaccine gives us a lot more protection against infection in general, given a good chunk of people have had a prior infection. That's how I always read the original boosters, is that they gave you additional antibodies temporarily but without targeting the spike proteins themselves, they were always going to be limited for that reason. quote:Maybe it's because I've been listening to a lot of Alex Jones lately (via Knowledge Fight, because like hell I'm listening to the man directly), but I'm so goddamned sick of "bombshell reports and testimonies" used by conspiracy theorists because they're almost always colossal duds that are misunderstood either intentionally or just flat-out made up. Like, if there really are amazing conspiracies, do you really think that the so-called proof would be so openly talked about? It's so sickening. Its basically a control issue. Because if this isn't a huge grand conspiracy, then nobody really knows wtf they're doing or how to fix it and that's a hell of a lot scarier than 'they know, they just don't wanna.'
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 17:36
|
|
|
Nosre posted:Definitely sounds like the testimony is not the bombshell the video claims it to be, though. Maybe some 'technically correct' aspects at most It's like telling someone at 1 AM "man, sure is cold tonight!" and they go "actually it's morning now" before chortling into the darkness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 18:32
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Nah, it was to increase vaccination rates to reduce workloads on medical systems. That doesn’t sound right. Proof of a negative test was often accepted in lieu of vaccination status, and in the US we had people like CDC Director Walensky telling us that “vaccinated people do not carry the virus.” Businesses were absolutely implementing these policies under the impression that vaccinated people would not transmit the virus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 23:34
|
|
|
Nosre posted:Been seeing this type of stuff going around in the EU because of a (supposedly bad) hearing Pfizer just had there. Tweet is just one example, for reference: Electric Wrigglies posted:The vaccine goal was to reduce mortality and incidence of serious sickness, it does this by helping the body respond to an infection effectively, not by preventing any infection in the first place. quote:The first primary end point was the efficacy of BNT162b2 against confirmed Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose in participants who had been without serologic or virologic evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection up to 7 days after the second dose; the second primary end point was efficacy in participants with and participants without evidence of prior infection. Confirmed Covid-19 was defined according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) criteria as the presence of at least one of the following symptoms: fever, new or increased cough, new or increased shortness of breath, chills, new or increased muscle pain, new loss of taste or smell, sore throat, diarrhea, or vomiting, combined with a respiratory specimen obtained during the symptomatic period or within 4 days before or after it that was positive for SARS-CoV-2 by nucleic acid amplification–based testing, either at the central laboratory or at a local testing facility (using a protocol-defined acceptable test).
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 01:11
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Nah, it was to increase vaccination rates to reduce workloads on medical systems. This is one hell of a retcon. There was explicit messaging from the CDC that vaccinated people spread COVID less, which was used to rationalize vaccine mandates and vaccine passports. There were people ITT late last summer arguing that breakthrough cases were rare. I can’t tell you how many times I heard family, friends, coworkers (and posts) etc. imply that the unvaccinated were the reason Delta surged. Here in MI we were inundated with PSAs that emphasized vaccination was to protect your community, with testimonials from kids saying they were getting vaccinated to protect their grandparents. Unless you think the implication was, “I’m getting vaccinated so there’s a hospital bed available for grams grams.”
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 01:20
|
|
|
It seems like the vaccine will soon be more risky than beneficial. Not to say it's especially risky to receive but more and more people are saying that it offers no protection for them I think the efficacy rates obtained in a laboratory under optimal conditions just wont ever get replicated in real life (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 02:19
|
|
|
NoDamage posted:The primary endpoint of the Pfizer trial was indeed protection against infection, the secondary endpoint was protection against severe disease:
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 06:20
|
|
|
Gio posted:This is one hell of a retcon. It was literally this. Discussion in the earliest days of the pandemic was about methods and techniques to reduce the hospital loads to reduce collatoral health harm from overloaded medical systems. Lockdowns were not to get to pre-covid but to give space for medical systems and population health policy to adjust to the new norm of covid being endemic. From the earliest days of the vaccine, the language around covid from WHO etc has been that we have to get used to it, live with and unfortunately mitigate but tolerate an ongoing health strain due to Covid - best minimized if everyone has an appropriate vaccine and educating the public on hygine habits conducive to reduced spread (masks when sick, wash your hands, etc). This was because it has always been known that Covid vaccination was not sterilizing like a small pox vaccine but individually protective against the worst outcomes (to be fair, it was also discussed that by happenstance, transmission was indeed reduced to varying degrees depending on strain, vaccine, etc and certainly language leaning into that was also used to motivate by some). A lot of people that over-invested in the thought that the world would go back to pre-covid have mis-interpretated messaging to mean that pre-covid was ever at all possible after about March 2020. You see this manifested most clearly in people hand-wringing about <7 year olds not having the latest vaccines immediately rolled out for free (to prevent little disease spreading monsters at school bringing it home). The reality is that reduced spread by vaccinating <7 year olds is a complete non-consideration and there is more impactful things at a demographic level to spend money and energy on. Another way to think about it is that the early flu vaccines were never touted as a protect the community measure. It is applied to old and medically vulnerable people as a priority because they are most at risk and consume the most resources to care for if they have a bad bout of flu. For the longest time, flu vaccines were not prioritized to public facing staff such as check out staff, gym instructors, etc that you would do if the vaccine's primary purpose was to reduce spread as opposed to protect the individual.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 08:39
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:This is incorrect. The endpoint was protection against COVID-19, the disease. Not against infection itself. An infection with SARS-CoV-2 does not necessarily lead to contracting the disease and as such protection against infection was never a stated goal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 20:33
|
|
|
NoDamage posted:I suppose it's true that asymptomatic infection would not be captured under their definition. Either way, prevention of severe disease was not the goal until Omicron came along and blew a hole through vaccine efficacy. From my recollection, they said that while the original basic goals of a vaccine were to minimize risk of damage, hospitalization, and death, they found that the vaccines did quite a bit to prevent actual infection which supported the idea of vaccine passports because breakthrough infections were rare. My question is: did this ever change? I know that the goal changed with the prevalence of Omicron, but was there ever evidence of substantial slowing of transmission? Also, is there any data yet on that with bivalent boosters?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 20:39
|
|
|
I don't think it makes sense to talk about "the goal" of the COVID vaccine, because there wasn't just one goal. There were a lot of different organizations and people with a variety of hopes and goals for the COVID vaccine, many of which changed over the year it took to go from "oh poo poo, are we facing a major pandemic" to "we have a working vaccine", and then changed further over the next few months as the actual effectiveness of the vaccine became clear, as did the actual extent of vaccine refusal and the emergence of variants.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 20:54
|
|
|
For sure there were multiple goals but I'm mostly referring to the original FDA guidance on vaccine development.quote:This guidance describes FDA’s current recommendations regarding the data needed to facilitate clinical development and licensure of vaccines to prevent COVID-19. There are currently no accepted surrogate endpoints that are reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit of a COVID-19 vaccine. Thus, at this time, the goal of development programs should be to pursue traditional approval via direct evidence of vaccine safety and efficacy in protecting humans from SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or clinical disease. quote:D. Efficacy Considerations
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 21:42
|
|
|
I support vaccine mandates not because I think they are helpful in preventing transmission but because I believe anti-vaxxers are horrific assholes who peddle bullshit that kills people, and I hate them. May their nights be long and their days be sour. EDIT: To be slightly less... truculent, I think we have to remember also that all the decisions made during the pandemic were made with imperfect information under difficult circumstances. Yes, I do wish high-quality masks had taken a higher precedence over mandating vaccines, and I do believe it was absolutely ridiculous and deadly to say "if you're vaccinated you don't need to wear a mask any more." But I also understand that these were flawed people making decisions with flawed information, trying to do their best given the situation at hand. Frankly, I think we should go back to "vaccination recommended, masking mandatory in public spaces." I will never understand how a society that decided covering your funtime bits was mandatory, and wearing dress shoes and neckties was classy and good, decided masks for the purposes of public health was the hill to die on. PT6A fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Oct 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 21:49
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:It was literally this. Discussion in the earliest days of the pandemic was about methods and techniques to reduce the hospital loads to reduce collatoral health harm from overloaded medical systems. Lockdowns were not to get to pre-covid but to give space for medical systems and population health policy to adjust to the new norm of covid being endemic. I feel as though you ignored everything I said and are just continuing to invent this alternate history that matches with the present narrative. Here is the CDC in June 2021 emphasizing that vaccination reduces the likelihood of infection by 91% and that those who do get infected are less likely to spread the disease to others. quote:A new CDC study finds the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the Food and Drug Administration (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) reduce the risk of infection by 91 percent for fully vaccinated people. This adds to the growing body of real-world evidence of their effectiveness. Importantly, this study also is among the first to show that mRNA vaccination benefits people who get COVID-19 despite being fully vaccinated (14 or more days after dose 2) or partially vaccinated (14 or more days after dose 1 to 13 days after dose 2). https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0607-mrna-reduce-risks.html Here is the Kaiser Family Foundation stating that breakthrough cases are extremely rare (July 30, 2021). KFF posted:After a review of the websites of all states and D.C. and other official sources, the new analysis found that half of states (25) report some data on COVID-19 breakthrough events. Within that, 15 states report these data on a weekly basis and one state reports on a daily basis, while the other nine report more infrequently. Overall, the data found that breakthrough events are extremely rare among those who are fully vaccinated, and that the vast majority of reported COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in U.S. Funny enough, the CDC still states that those who are vaccinated are less likely to spread disease. CDC posted:COVID-19 vaccination significantly lowers your risk of severe illness, hospitalization, and death if you get infected. Compared to people who are up to date with their COVID-19 vaccinations, unvaccinated people are more likely to get COVID-19, much more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19, and much more likely to die from COVID-19. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html Main Paineframe posted:I don't think it makes sense to talk about "the goal" of the COVID vaccine, because there wasn't just one goal. There were a lot of different organizations and people with a variety of hopes and goals for the COVID vaccine, many of which changed over the year it took to go from "oh poo poo, are we facing a major pandemic" to "we have a working vaccine", and then changed further over the next few months as the actual effectiveness of the vaccine became clear, as did the actual extent of vaccine refusal and the emergence of variants. Yes, this is true. What is also true is that there was a very clear narrative shift as all those variables you listed changed over time, and the current narrative (“vaccines are meant to reduce hospital burden”) emerged after Omicron as it became clear vaccines did little to prevent against infection. You can see this shift when the CDC invented “Community Levels” and entirely deemphasized case counts and spread. That is NOT what the primary narrative was in 2021, and the links I provided are just the first I found. There are plenty more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 23:20
|
|
|
Here’s one more, from the WHO, who you said stated emphasized individual over community protection as a benefit from vaccination in the early days of the vaccine:quote:Vaccination has been shown to contribute to reducing deaths and severe illness from COVID-19, and to reduce the transmission of COVID-19. Vaccinating as many people as possible and reducing the spread of disease is important. Vaccination of a significant proportion of the population also protects vulnerable people, including those who cannot receive vaccines, or the small proportion of people who might remain at risk of infection after vaccination. Failure to vaccinate widely also enables continued circulation of the virus and the generation of variants, including some that may pose a greater risk. Widespread vaccination has contributed to fewer people getting sick and being hospitalised, ultimately alleviating the burden of COVID-19 on healthcare systems. It has also helped allow the move back to normal societal functioning and the re-opening of economies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 23:39
|
|
|
Another thing vaccine mandates do is stretch existing hospital resources further. If you can get the vast majority of the community vaccinated, then everybody as a pool is less likely to need as much hospitalization. Right now the King County vaccination stat dashboard says the risk of hospitalization is a five fold increase for vaccinated vs unvaccinated people...in the past 30 days. Before Omicron it was 30x, during the Omicron surge it was 12x. Given what the pandemic has done to medical care and staffing, that's...highly valuable on a community wide basis for anybody who needs any medical care.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 00:14
|
|
|
I don't really think it matters what motivation you give for getting people vaccinated as long as it gets uptake as high as possible. The majority of the population aren't reading government websites to work out the exact benefits.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 00:43
|
|
|
Charles 2 of Spain posted:I don't really think it matters what motivation you give for getting people vaccinated as long as it gets uptake as high as possible. The majority of the population aren't reading government websites to work out the exact benefits. The motivation we should give to people on the fence about vaccinations is "if you get it, we shan't ship you to the loving Arctic, because obviously you don't care if you live or die." "They didn't let me see my dying family member because I didn't have the vaccination!" Yeah, no poo poo! They don't want you spreading a loving plague to people dying of things that couldn't have been prevented. They don't want medical professionals getting even mildly ill! Get hosed!
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 00:50
|
|
|
Eh, when I was volunteering those type of arguments would basically never work for people on the fence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 01:00
|
|
|
"If you don't get vaccinated you will be fired" was pretty effective at my workplace, though I was briefly worried about some of the angrier right-wingers shooting up the place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 01:08
|
|
|
Charles 2 of Spain posted:Eh, when I was volunteering those type of arguments would basically never work for people on the fence. Yeah convincing people their strongly held and non-factual beliefs are wrong is rarely easy or satisfying. It involves a lot of being gentle and building rapport.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 01:09
|
|
|
Or just force them to get vaccinated. That works best. Last note on “the vaccine was never meant to reduce transmission” horseshit… Pfizer and Moderna’s efficacy from their phase III trials (95% and 90%, respectively) that was touted in the media was literally testing the ability of the vaccine to prevent symptomatic infection. In both groups, control and experimental, there were 170 confirmed cases. (Trial participants were not routinely tested; if they were symptomatic they got tested and it was reported back if they were positive.) Of the 170 cases, 162 were in the control group, or 95% of total cases. It was shown (at the time) to be 95% effective at preventing reducing symptomatic infection. Reducing transmission was a primary goal of vaccination (alongside reduction in severity), and it was touted by both the WHO and the CDC. In other words… Electric Wrigglies posted:The vaccine goal was to reduce mortality and incidence of serious sickness, it does this by helping the body respond to an infection effectively, not by preventing any infection in the first place. It was tested to that goal and the efficacy of preventing transmission was only ever going to be a happy happenstance. Wearing masks was about preventing transmission, taking a vaccine was to prevent you becoming gravely sick or dying. This dude’s posts are total revisionism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 02:45
|
|
|
The initial trials weren't designed to measure transmission at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 03:01
|
|
|
The reaction to this New York Times article of 9 May 2021 was vicious. Here was the paper of record dashing public hopes.https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/09/world/virus-herd-endemic.html posted:The world may need to learn to live with the virus. Even then they’re like “Oh well we could do it with enough vaccine uptake; the problem is antivaxxers.” quote:Still, public health experts say a relatively small number of countries, mostly island nations, have largely kept the virus under control and could continue keeping it at bay after vaccinating enough people. I don’t think that they would have published the article even a week later. It was not appropriate for the zeitgeist. This article from a week earlier gives more background on the shifting public health views. quote:Once the novel coronavirus began to spread across the globe in early 2020, it became increasingly clear that the only way out of the pandemic would be for so many people to gain immunity — whether through natural infection or vaccination — that the virus would run out of people to infect. The concept of reaching herd immunity became the implicit goal in many countries, including the United States. quote:If even more contagious variants develop, or if scientists find that immunized people can still transmit the virus, the calculation will have to be revised upward again. To be clear, the relevant scientists already knew this on 3 May 2021. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Oct 13, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 03:05
|
|
|
Charles 2 of Spain posted:The initial trials weren't designed to measure transmission at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 03:16
|
|
|
It's not a proxy because you would have to also compare any chains of transmission and that's not how the trial was designed. Transmission studies are far more complex and a lot of those were published afterwards. If I remember some of those concluded that vaccinated people were infectious for a shorter period which would actually reduce transmission, but it's not zero. Whether or not the CDC and WHO were wrong in their proclamations is debatable but the purpose of those very first trials had nothing to do with transmission.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 03:34
|
|
|
FYI folks the Deer book from my antivaxx bookshelf project is still on the docket- I pushed it back to second in line because frankly, it's very poorly written and it takes a lot of work to synthesize useful information from it. I'll get through it by the end of the year.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 03:40
|
|
|
Here is an interview that Mandivilli gave after writing her piece for the NYT. It came up because I searched for her name to find the NYT article that I had remembered her writing.quote:Lizzie: Apoorva, in the early moments and months of the pandemic, we talked about herd immunity as this concept is like the best way to beat the pandemic. How has that changed? This is itself something of a revisionist history. Here’s Dr. Birx, in testimony to Congress this June, saying that there was no reason to expect that vaccines would be much more sterilizing than infection acquired immunity, and that they were already seeing reinfections by the time of vaccine rollout. quote:We knew early on In January of 2021, in late December of 2020 that reinfection was occurring after natural infection. Once you see that and I want to make it clear to you all and to to anyone that it's listening. This is not measles mumps and rubella. Those vaccines produced long term immunity and can create herd immunity. quote:All I know is there was evidence from the global pandemic, that natural reinfection was incurring. And since the vaccine was based on natural immunity, you cannot make the conclusion that the vaccine will do better than natural infection. Although it can often do slightly better. I think that's— At this point Jim Jordan interrupts her, and it’s painful, but you can listen to the whole exchange if you want. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu1E0pc276I&t=2475s Jordan’s line of inquiry is disingenuous, and I would not say that Birx is a good person, but I think that her description of the thoughts of her and her colleagues circa turn of year 2021 is essentially accurate. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 03:52 on Oct 13, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 03:40
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:FYI folks the Deer book from my antivaxx bookshelf project is still on the docket- I pushed it back to second in line because frankly, it's very poorly written and it takes a lot of work to synthesize useful information from it. I'll get through it by the end of the year. Your earlier recommendation in this thread is a solid read. Thanks for recommending it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 03:46
|
|
|
Gio posted:They tested the efficacy of the vaccine to prevent symptomatic infection. How the hell is that not a proxy for transmission? The CDC, WHO et al. sure seemed to think it was (see: the CDC and WHO’s exact words, posted above). No, it's not a proxy, they knew the limits of the study, they just loving lied about what the shot does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 18:20
|
|
|
Gio posted:They tested the efficacy of the vaccine to prevent symptomatic infection. How the hell is that not a proxy for transmission? The CDC, WHO et al. sure seemed to think it was (see: the CDC and WHO’s exact words, posted above). Asymptomatic infections can still spread COVID too. That was a large part of why COVID spread so effectively: people who felt totally fine were spreading COVID for a week or more without ever realizing they'd caught it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 19:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:21 |
|
|
e: nvm, that whole shpeel is going to get misinterpeted as well tinytimmy said, “vaccine passports and mandates were sold on presumption of reduced transmission.” wriggles said, “no that wasnt the point it was only to reduce hospital buden.” he said the same to me when i talked about MDHHS PSAs that had testinmonials from children saying “I got vaccinated to protect gram grams.” my argument is simply that the vaccines were sold as a means to prevent transmission and it is complete revisionism to say that they werent. i provided evidence from what the CDC, WHO, and others were saying at the time. i dont know if the phase iii trials tested transmission, i guess they didnt, but its irrelevant to my point. Gio fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Oct 13, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 20:52
|
|