Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Reblogged:2019 Wants Its Pandemic Panic Back

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

If you thought the media were done trying to make you panic about covid -- or just want a trip down memory lane -- you can mosey on over to MSN. They're carrying a Boston Globe piece that sounds like it could have been written in late 2019 or early 2020, when we knew little about covid, and were still facing a virgin soil pandemic.

Yes, the author mentions Paxlovid and grudgingly admits that we're no longer using refrigerator trucks as makeshift morgues, but get a load of this:
scream.jpg
Image by Edvard Munch, via Wikimedia Commons, public domain.
But jokes aside, it's been quietly harrowing. Even a "mild" case of COVID is still COVID, a virus that has killed more than 7 million people worldwide, at least 1.1 million of them in this nation alone. (And the real numbers are probably higher.) Death has never been the only consequence of this virus. Long-haulers still struggle with debilitating post-virus symptoms that can range from fatigue and chronic cough to brain fog and gastrointestinal issues.

"It's a cause of great concern," Dr. Francis S. Collins, former director of the National Institutes of Health, told The Washington Post in 2021. "Even if it's only 10 percent of people who've been infected who end up with long COVID ... [t]hat's a big public health issue."

...

COVID still kills hundreds each week. A new booster for those 65 and older was quietly rolled out in April, but only 17 percent of those eligible have gotten it. News broadcasts no longer share the latest COVID data, once a daily staple. It's as if there was an agreement that COVID would disappear if only we stopped talking and thinking about it. That means this nation has largely resigned itself to the terrible fact that thousands will die from the virus this year and perhaps for years to come.
But for some missing, readily-available context, we'd think officials were out of their gourds for declaring the pandemic over...

Yes, death remains a possible outcome of this virus, but vaccination reduces that risk by something north of 75%, even without the bivalent booster -- and prior infection is as protective in that regard as vaccination.

And as far as long covid goes -- a sometimes serious condition that is just being understood -- I doubt the risk of it being severe is anywhere near the 10% chance of a covid case leading to that collection of post-acute difficulties:
The CDC considers long COVID to be an umbrella term for "health consequences" that are present at least 4 weeks after an acute infection. This condition can be considered "a lack of return to the usual state of health following COVID," according to the CDC.

Common symptoms include fatigue, shortness of breath, exercise intolerance, "brain fog," chest pain, cough, and loss of taste/smell. Note that it's not a requirement that that symptoms be severe enough that they interfere with activities of daily living, just that they are present.

There is no diagnostic test or criteria that confirms this diagnosis. Therefore, the symptoms and definitions above are vague and make it difficult to gauge prevalence of the disease. Hence, the varying estimates that range from 5% to 30%, depending on the study. [bold added]
So, if I get covid and still cough a month later -- like I do every time I catch a cold -- I'd count as having "long covid" whether or not I had any significant lingering debility.

Oh, and vaccination lowers the risk of long covid -- which is already lower (or nonexistent) for the now-dominant omicron-based strains of the virus.

Nevertheless, the piece basically accuses anyone who isn't holed up for the apocalypse or masking in public of evasion:
COVID still kills hundreds each week. A new booster for those 65 and older was quietly rolled out in April, but only 17 percent of those eligible have gotten it. News broadcasts no longer share the latest COVID data, once a daily staple. It's as if there was an agreement that COVID would disappear if only we stopped talking and thinking about it. That means this nation has largely resigned itself to the terrible fact that thousands will die from the virus this year and perhaps for years to come. [links omitted]
Guess what else kills hundreds each week in the US? The flu.

Call me foolhardy, but my plan for covid is the same as for the flu: I'll get a jab in the fall and avoid being around people who I know have it, unless they're in my immediate family and need my care.

It is not evasion to take into account changing conditions when assessing what to do about a virus at either the governmental level or the personal level. The virus is endemic now and we have blunted its effects through vaccination and treatments we didn't have in 2019; It should be treated like the flu or any other serious respiratory disease. Since the government is no longer facing an emergency, this means that at-risk individuals have to be more vigilant than others regarding covid. Period.

(Many things the government did do were wrong. Please see this document for a blueprint for what I think would be a proper response.)

As for me? I haven't had covid yet, to my knowledge. The thought that I could die or be a long-hauler isn't pleasant at all, but I value living a normal life enough that treating this virus like the flu is a reasonable balancing of risk and reward to me.

Nothing we do -- even hiding from an illness -- is without risks or downsides, and it is ridiculous to chide others for not making the same assessments we do, esepcially when their individual situations are not the same.

-- CAV

Link to Original

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Blog: "If you thought the media were done trying to make you panic about covid" 

I haven't thought that news reports, editorials or commentary from major outlets were trying to make me panic. What are some specific examples you have in mind? Some reporting emphasized the ghastliness of many events and situations. But the events and situations were indeed ghastly. Reporting the ghastliness was informational. And much of the media stressed that we were facing an extraordinary emergency. That also was appropriate and constructive. And there were many articles that stressed that we should be concerned and take extraordinary precautions but that we should NOT panic. And even IF some of the reporting was sensationalistic, I don't see a basis to infer that the purpose was to make people panic. On the other hand, there have been a lot of preposterous attempts to minimize the pandemic or even deny that there has been a pandemic or to suggest that its resolution might be as simple as waiting for the summer to heat it away (Trump) or injecting bleach to kill it (Trump), etc. Indeed, we even read the ludicrous illogic that since the virus is a coronavirus it is not worse than the common cold that also is a coronavirus, etc. 

Blog: "sounds like it could have been written in late 2019 or early 2020, when we knew little about covid, and were still facing a virgin soil pandemic"

That is patently false. The very subject of the article is contemporary behaviors while Covid persists. And, as even you recognize, the article acknowledges that the current situation is not as dire as in early 2020. 

The article mentions the announcement of the end of the public health emergency, long Covid, Paxlovid, current national and worldwide death counts, the falloff of news coverage, at-home testing, the widespread eschewing of masks, and the fact that mandatory masking and stay-at-home orders are of the past. The article couldn't possibly be taken as if it came from late 2019 or early 2020.

Blog: "grudgingly admits that we're no longer using refrigerator trucks as makeshift morgues"

The article says, "Clearly, these aren’t the apocalyptic days of refrigerated trucks used as makeshift morgues, mass graves for unclaimed or indigent COVID victims, and intensive care units so overwhelmed that some COVID patients were sent to other states. But neither is COVID as far in the rearview as many have convinced themselves it is."

There is nothing there that hints at grudgingness. You're reading into the article what is not there.

Blog: "missing, readily-available context" 

The article does not argue by dropping context. The context of the narrative of Covid over the years is well-known. There is no suggestion in the article that the writer is overlooking the history of the pandemic. 

Blog: "we'd think officials were out of their gourds for declaring the pandemic over"

Political officials, such as Biden, have no business declaring the end of any pandemic, especially a pandemic that is still ongoing. Whether or not a pandemic is over is determined by scientists, not politicians. And a cessation of a declaration of a public health emergency is different from a cessation of a pandemic. 

(By the way, that wasn't the first foolhardy pronouncement by Biden. When the vaccine debuted, Biden declared that it's safe for vaccinated people to shed masks and return to normal life. That was tragically premature. We found out that vaccination is nothing like a silver bullet against infection, sickness, hospitalization or even death, even though it does reduce those. Then came Delta that made all bets off again, and discovery of long Covid, then Omicron with its extraordinary transmissibility, then Omicron variants with their even more extraordinary transmissibility. Biden had no business ignorantly and carelessly popping off that vaccines made it safe for the vaccinated to eschew masks and distancing.) 

Blog "vaccination reduces [the] risk [of death] by something north of 75%, even without the bivalent booster -- and prior infection is as protective in that regard as vaccination."

To be clear, the article does not at all dispute that vaccination and prior infections reduce susceptibility. Indeed, it would be self-defeating for the writer to deny that vaccination reduces susceptibility since the article does convey a suggestion for more vaccinations.  

Blog: "Common symptoms [of long Covid] include fatigue, shortness of breath, exercise intolerance, "brain fog," chest pain, cough, and loss of taste/smell." 

Those are a few of the symptoms, but not all the consequences, which may include nerve damage (thus excruciating chronic pain) and organ damage. And it should be mentioned that severe shortness of breath may be experienced as a continual, torturous, nightmarish feeling of being suffocated. And brain damage from Covid may be so severe as to make a person effectively non-functional, not just in terms of employability (four million Americans out of work due to long Covid now) but also in terms of coping with everyday tasks, even as basic as filling out online forms or driving. And Covid fatigue may be of severity well beyond even the kind of thorough tiredness one might experience after a few days of considerable exertion.

Blog: "vaccination lowers the risk of long covid -- which is already lower (or nonexistent) for the now-dominant omicron-based strains of the virus."

I understand you to be saying that with (or even without?) vaccination the risk of long Covid from Omicron might be nonexistent. (And you don't even qualify to lower-risk people.) On what do you base that claim? This recent article mentions 5% to 10% among the vaccinated: 

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/current-risk-getting-long-covid-rcna73670

Blog: "the piece basically accuses anyone who isn't holed up for the apocalypse or masking in public of evasion"

That is patently false and a strawman.

The article does not make a claim or even imply that people are evading truth merely by choosing not to stay at home ("hole up"). And the article doesn't claim that masking is called for in all public situations. And the article doesn't claim an impending catastrophe of apocalyptic import. Indeed, the article explicitly says the situation is NOT "apocalyptic". And even IF the writer believes that anyone not staying at home is evading truth, she didn't write that in the article, so to avoid strawmanning would require first asking her.

Globe article: "It's as if there was an agreement that COVID would disappear if only we stopped talking and thinking about it."

If 'disappear' is taken as 'end', then the above sentence is clearly non justified. There is no basis to say that there is any kind of consensus in favor of the ridiculous belief that Covid will magically end if people ignore that it exists. The writer egregiously overstated in that sentence. But this is true:

Globe article: "this nation has largely resigned itself to the terrible fact that thousands will die from the virus this year and perhaps for years to come."

Blog: "Guess what else kills hundreds each week in the US? The flu".

Yes, that's a fact. What inference do you propose from that fact? Is the inference that therefore it is irrational to be more concerned about Covid? If it is, then it's a non sequitur. That there is a previous and concurrent health danger is not a basis to reduce concern with Covid or decrease precautions against it. In general, it is a non sequitur to argue that if there is a previous and concurrent problem then there should not be more response to, or urgency about, a new problem. Moreover:

(1) Even with vaccination, there are more deaths from Covid than from flu.

(2) Even with vaccination, the death/infection rate is higher for Covid than for flu.

(3) Even though flu may be deadly and dire when not deadly, there is a panoply of dire consequences from Covid that are not consequences of the flu.

(4) The combination of cases of Covid and RSV is still greatly over-stressing health-care in certain locales. And Covid is still over-stressing health care and the economy in general.

(5) Flu is a deadly bane, but its mutations have been handled for many decades now through established research protocols for regular vaccine updates. Flu has not mutated so wildly that we haven't been able to keep its infection and death rates somewhat stable. On the other hand, Covid has been remarkably volatile in its short history. We don't know what lies ahead in terms of mutations such as Delta (that was shockingly more deadly than original Covid) or Omicron (that was shockingly more transmissible (though less deadly) than original Covid or Delta) or later Omicron variants (that are remarkably even more transmissible than original Omicron). So it is still rational to be vigilant about Covid. 

(6) Precautions and research regarding Covid benefit health and disease prevention and improve health generally. When people take more precautions, even as basic as more hand washing and  more conscientiousness in public hygiene, we benefit. Fewer colds and less flu. So, again, even though Covid infections, hospitalizations and deaths are lower now, it is still rational to be vigilant about Covid. Indeed, since precautions for Covid have resulted in less flu, the rationality of concern about Covid is increased, not decreased, by the fact that flu is a public health danger too. 

Blog: "my plan for covid is the same as for the flu: I'll get a jab in the fall and avoid being around people who I know have it, unless they're in my immediate family and need my care."

(I would surmise that hand washing, refraining from touching mouth/nose/eyes, and general home and public hygiene are also included.) 

Note that the article doesn't insist on any particular set of precautions. Meanwhile, that you deem your plan sufficient for yourself and for public health does not imply that it is irrational for other people to take greater precautions for themselves or to advocate that greater precautions are needed at large too.  

Blog: "It is not evasion to take into account changing conditions when assessing what to do about a virus at either the governmental level or the personal level." 

Of course, and the article doesn't say it disagrees.

Blog "The virus is endemic now"

That depends on the definition of 'endemic' and on which among the conflicting expert opinions we accept. If 'endemic' means merely that infections have been greatly reduced, then some experts argue that we are now in an endemic phase. But if 'endemic' means (as it commonly does) also that infections are now only in certain regions, then Covid is not endemic now. Meanwhile, science organizations continue to classify Covid as pandemic. 

Blog: "we have blunted its effects through vaccination and treatments we didn't have in 2019; It should be treated like the flu or any other serious respiratory disease."

That ignores the differences between the flu and Covid. And I understand you to be claiming that at the personal level Covid should be regarded with no more concern or precautions than for the flu ca. 2019. But I would think that each person, even a non-high-risk person, would evaluate her own situation and make her own determination about both personal and public health consequences, without having to take your word for it that we should revert to pre-pandemic behaviors. Though, you do recognize that high-risk people should be more vigilant:

Blog: "Since the government is no longer facing an emergency, this means that at-risk individuals have to be more vigilant than others regarding covid. Period."

No, not "Period". There are varying complex objective circumstances and widely different personal circumstances, and gradation in degrees of risk. That is, regarding "at-risk", everyone is at risk - ranging from death to hospitalization to long Covid to severe temporary sickness to mild sickness to undetected infection that has the terribly unfortunate consequence of potentially infecting other people. It is not helpful to reduce people's decisions and advocacy for precautions to such a simplification as you urge. Why would anyone even want to make such a categorical declaration?

Indeed, it is not a given that lower-risk people should not take more precautions against transmissible diseases than they did before Covid:

(1) Even lower-risk people may get quite severely sick, or hospitalized (and even some of the more routine at home bouts have been described by people as "the worst" thing they've ever endured, even if only about a week long), or incur long Covid (which can DESTROY a person's life - medically, psychologically, economically and socially), or die.*

*Yes, with Omicron now, the chance of a person under 65 dying is small. But since 2020 approximately 24% of U.S. Covid deaths have been under age 65, That is, approximately 1/1000 of Americans under 65 died from Covid, which is hardly a trivial rate. Approximately 3.5/1000 Americans have died from Covid (shamefully, drastically above the approximately 8.9/10000 worldwide). To appreciate the graveness of the pandemic in the U.S., imagine 100,000 people in the stands of a football stadium in 2019 and that the ages of the people are distributed as in the overall population; then imagine that 350 of the people in that stadium are now dead from Covid. And that is just death, not including all the rest of the massive, horrible physical and psychological suffering. I mention this to emphasize that the pandemic should have been alarming to everyone, including people under 65, including lower risk people, and that it is wise to have our guard up, especially given the possibility of more deadly mutations.

(2) Even lower-risk people may wish to avoid an infection even without symptoms, since being infected (especially non-symptomatically, thus without staying at home) can result in infecting other people who can infect other people.

(3) Even lower-risk people may recognize that precautions greater than pre-pandemic hygiene habits result in more personal and public health. 

So it is not at all reasonable to simplistically, sweepingly, indeed categorically, assert [paraphrase] "Non-high-risk people ought to go back to pre-pandemic behavior. Period."

Blog: "treating this virus like the flu is a reasonable balancing of risk and reward to me."

Your personal balancing may be fine for you. But it doesn't imply that people in general should go back to pre-pandemic behavior or that an article is incorrect to advocate that in general people not dismiss the importance of precautions. 

Blog: "it is ridiculous to chide others for not making the same assessments we do, esepcially [sic] when their individual situations are not the same."

Yes, and the article did not chide anyone for making different assessments. Saying that the article "chided" anyone is a strawman since the article did not scold anyone for not choosing a particular set of precautions. The gravamen of the article is that it would behoove us not to let our guard down. Also the article as much as suggests that people should vaccinate, mask in certain circumstances, and that information (such as rates and studies) should not sink in prominence of media coverage. Also, though not stated explicitly, presumably the writer favors more hygiene; social distancing in certain situations; testing; conscientiousness to isolate when positive, more and better dissemination of information about the disease; research on vaccines, prophylactics and therapeutics; improvements to the health care system and the health insurance industry; and much better preparedness in case of an overwhelmingly dangerous mutation or another disease. And, personally, I would add the importance of stressing that pandemics (even by definition) are not partitioned by national boundaries; Policies in one country affect all other countries, and statistics need to be looked at not just locally or nationally (to inform local or national behaviors) but globally too.  Whether the writer would also favor governmentally mandated masking or stay-at-home orders is not known from the article. In any case, she recognizes that it is not politically feasible now anyway. 

To recapitulate:

/ Claim: The media (a broad brush itself) sought to induce panic. False.

/ Claim: The article elides the context of the history of the disease up to the present. False and strawman.

/ Claim: The article only grudgingly admits that the situation is not as horrific now as it was in the spring of 2020. False and strawman.

/ Implicit: It would be incorrect to challenge politicians for saying the pandemic is over. False.

/ Claim: The article suggests that anyone who doesn't now stay at home or mask is evading truth. False and strawman.

/ Claim: The article suggests that Covid will be apocalyptic. False and strawman.

/ Claim: It might be the case that there is no chance of long Covid with Omicron (even among high-risk people and even without vaccination?). False.

/  Unstated inference?: Like Covid, flu kills a lot of people. If the inference is that therefore Covid should be no more concerning than flu or that Covid shouldn't be more concerning than many people now take it to be, then that is a poor inference indeed.

/ Claim: It is not evasion to take into account changing circumstances. That is true, but the article does not suggest that it is evasion to take into account changing circumstances. It would  be false and a strawman to claim that the article suggests that it is evasion to take into account changing circumstances. 

/ Claim: Only "at-risk" people should take precautions beyond those one would take for flu prior to the Covid pandemic ("Period"). Such a sweeping, categorical simplification is terribly ill-founded. 

/ Claim: Covid is endemic now. That depends on the definition of 'endemic' and which expert opinions we accept. 

/ Claim: Treating Covid like the flu is satisfactory for the blogger himself. That's fine, but there are good reasons that many other people (including those with lower risk) have for not sharing the blogger's own personal decision.

/ Claim: The article chides people for making different assessments. False and a strawman. 
 

Edited by InfraBeat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let’s set aside the question of whether “panic” is the correct term, instead, let’s just summarize what “The Media” did, with an eye to what they should do (and why). The classical view of journalism is that the journalist objectively and dispassionately reports the facts. The contemporary activist view is that the journalist should promulgates a progressivist viewpoint (or on rare occasion, an anti-progressivist viewpoint). Any journal has the right to select their stance, however offensive it may be. The classical, objective-reporting view is decidedly on the decline: I have no suggestions as to how the tide might be turned.

Coverage of covid was decidedly not balanced and objective. True, you can argue that reporting the ghastly effects of covid is “information”, but information becomes disinformation when it consistently omits equally valid information. The massive destruction of value mandated by the various governments in an attempt to thwart The Apocalypse was significantly under-reported, and the magnitude of the death and destruction was vastly over-stated. Particularly conspicuous was the failure of the media to engage the public in basic education about the underlying science – what do those chart really show, and what is our standard of comparison? Insofar as there was always a respectable scientific view that covid was not the end of the world, why were the nay-sayers disregarded in the daily cycle of covid sensationalism?

A simple answer is that covid sensationalism fit nicely into the syllogism of modern progressivist propaganda. The problem is that The People are suffering, and only proper guidance by The People (via the dictatorship of the proletariat) can alleviate that suffering. Of course their cause was also advanced significantly by the fact that the only visible opposition to the progressivist trend was the moron in the White House.

I don’t know if van Horn is overstating the retro-panic nature of the unsourced article which I have not seen, my point is simply that the dominant trend in the media was to encourage fear, and to promote the progressivist agenda. The goal was not to objectively present information, the goal was to shape viewpoints. Which is their right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DavidOdden: "The classical, objective-reporting view is decidedly on the decline"

I agree. But such an approach had always been greatly compromised.

DavidOdden: "The contemporary activist view is that the journalist should promulgates a progressivist viewpoint (or on rare occasion, an anti-progressivist viewpoint)."

It is the purpose of any polemicist - progressive, reactionary or moderate - to promulgate a point of view. U.S. media on average is much more polemical and slanted than in previous decades. But most outlets are a mixture in a range from fair to somewhat fair to biased and sometimes to profoundly biased. Also, right-wing and conservative views are not rare in the media. Fox, NY Post, Washington Times, Washington Examiner, Boston Herald, Newsmax, The Federalist, American Greatness, Substack and a myriad other outlets. Also some publications such as Newsweek have commentary from both the right and left. And sometimes even liberal media hosts commentary from the right. Moreover, though most of the most powerful outlets are slanted toward a liberal point of view, I wouldn't describe them as predominately progressive. And Real Clear Politics lists its articles virtually always in a back and forth between right and left, so there are equally as many from each.

DavidOdden: "The massive destruction of value mandated by the various governments in an attempt to thwart The Apocalypse was significantly under-reported"

There was a considerable amount of media discussion about the economic, educational, social and psychological costs from the government actions. Also, the loss of liberties was hardly ignored. But as to such things as social and psychological costs, to report them very well would depend on studies that could only come later.

And I don't see that a clear discussion is enhanced by nudging a point of view with tendentious sarcastic rubrics such as 'The Apocalypse'.

DavidOdden: "the magnitude of the death and destruction was vastly over-stated."

What evidence do you offer for that generalization? Meanwhile, both the Trump administration (including Trump himself) and certain media egregiously tried to minimize the treat.

DavidOdden: "the failure of the media to engage the public in basic education about the underlying science"

There was a terrible paucity in from both media and health officials of clear, accurate explanation of the science, even granting that so much was unknown at the time. The worst was Fauci saying that masks were not needed, then saying masks were needed and that a cutup T-shirt would work. And health officials never got it right; even after the studies, they never finally properly informed that N95 or KN95 should be the standard.

DavidOdden: "Insofar as there was always a respectable scientific view that covid was not the end of the world, why were the nay-sayers disregarded"

"End of the world" is strawman exaggeration. It would be a rare media source that claimed that Covid would be the end of the world. In any case, the pandemic was a massive threat (there is still the potential for Covid to mutate so that it is both far deadlier than Delta while also far more transmissible than Omicron). Meanwhile, there were some experts who advocated different approaches to the pandemic, and some of those views were discussed in the media. But there is always this famous question: In a subject requiring expert understanding, if 99 experts say statement P and 1 expert says not-P, does fairness require that the side for not-P be given equal time as the side for P?

DavidOdden: "covid sensationalism"

What are examples you have in mind of such sensationalism?

DavidOdden: "The problem is that The People are suffering, and only proper guidance by The People (via the dictatorship of the proletariat) can alleviate that suffering."

You lose credibility, and again, cloud discussion with things like "dictatorship of the proletariat". The federal, state and local governments are not dictatorships of the proletariat.

DavidOdden: "their cause was also advanced significantly by the fact that the only visible opposition to the progressivist trend was the moron in the White House."

Trump was only vaguely at times opposed to government intervention. For the most part, he favored it, especially in certain profound ways.

DavidOdden: "the dominant trend in the media was to encourage fear, and to promote the progressivist agenda."

Again, I'd like to see examples of any supposed pattern of common media having the purpose of making people afraid as opposed to advocating that people should recognize the threat and take precautions. Indeed, if there was one general theme, it could be summarized as "Recognize the threat, learn about it, take precautions against it, but don't panic." In fact, though I couldn't dig up cites now, a number of times I had to read the cliche of quoting Roosevelt "There only thing we have to fear is fear itself".

As to a "progressivist agenda", (1) The administration itself very much pushed governmental interventions,  profoundly so, (2) Many staunchly conservative politicians both in the federal government and in state governments favored government interventions, profoundly so. (3) I don't know exactly what agenda you mean. Staunch conservatives, liberals, progressives and moderates acted for the purpose of ending Covid or at least avoiding the worst consequences or at least to get the country past the stage where the medical infrastructure and available care were overwhelmed, especially to avoid a course in which even more than 1.2 million Americans died (and nearly 8 million worldwide). Whether or not one agrees with the government interventions, I don't see evidence that the goal was more than to end or ameliorate the pandemic.

Edited by InfraBeat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...