Discussion:
OT: Christmas baubles
Add Reply
BrritSki
2020-11-19 14:31:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I have just read in the Times that we will be limited 3 baubles at
Christmas this year. This is an outrage ! I will be putting as many
baubles on my tree as I see fit, together - of course - with a fairy on
top with the shooting tip of the Nordland fir wedged firmly up her jacksie.

The fairy will - of course - be fully masked, despite the recently
published study that says that there is no evidence that they make a
scrap of difference.

But back to baubles...

Eh ? What ??? BUBBLES you say. Ooops, as you were.
DavidK
2020-11-19 15:58:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
despite the recently published study that says that there is no evidence
that they make a scrap of difference
Link please, I've always been a little dubious. I think the intention
was to prevent people passing the lurgy on and that seems very hard to test.
BrritSki
2020-11-19 16:24:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by DavidK
despite the recently published study that says that there is no
evidence that they make a scrap of difference
Link please, I've always been a little dubious. I think the intention
was to prevent people passing the lurgy on and that seems very hard to test.
That is true, and they do acknowledge it, but if you're symptomatic you
should be self-isolating anyway. If you're asymptomatic there's some
doubt as to whether you're infectious anyway.

Personally I am wearing a mask in shops, on buses/trains etc. Even
though I have my doubts about their efficacy it costs me very little.

<https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/do-masks-stop-the-spread-of-covid-19->
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2020-11-19 16:37:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Post by DavidK
despite the recently published study that says that there is no
evidence that they make a scrap of difference
Link please, I've always been a little dubious. I think the
intention was to prevent people passing the lurgy on and that seems
very hard to test.
Zigackly.
Post by BrritSki
That is true, and they do acknowledge it, but if you're symptomatic you
I think it's been shown (though probably not thoroughly enough to say
_proved_) that they make little difference when it comes to protection
for the _wearer_ - in fact if you don't wash them often enough, they
could have a negative effect. But for protecting everyone _else_, ISTM
only common sense that they have at least some effect.
Post by BrritSki
should be self-isolating anyway. If you're asymptomatic there's some
doubt as to whether you're infectious anyway.
I still feel happier around people wearing them - inside any space,
anyway, or even walking in the same direction outside.
Post by BrritSki
Personally I am wearing a mask in shops, on buses/trains etc. Even
though I have my doubts about their efficacy it costs me very little.
[]
Indeed.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Mary Poppins is a junkie" - bumper sticker on Julie Andrews' car in the '60s
Steve Hague
2020-11-19 16:44:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Post by DavidK
despite the recently published study that says that there is no
evidence that they make a scrap of difference
Link please, I've always been a little dubious. I think the intention
was to prevent people passing the lurgy on and that seems very hard to test.
That is true, and they do acknowledge it, but if you're symptomatic you
should be self-isolating anyway. If you're asymptomatic there's some
doubt as to whether you're infectious anyway.
Personally I am wearing a mask in shops, on buses/trains etc. Even
though I have my doubts about their efficacy it costs me very little.
<https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/do-masks-stop-the-spread-of-covid-19->
It makes us all look like outlaws from a 1950s western though, which is
no terrible thing, and I find I can still usually recognise people.
Mike McMillan
2020-11-19 17:15:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steve Hague
Post by BrritSki
Post by DavidK
despite the recently published study that says that there is no
evidence that they make a scrap of difference
Link please, I've always been a little dubious. I think the intention
was to prevent people passing the lurgy on and that seems very hard to test.
That is true, and they do acknowledge it, but if you're symptomatic you
should be self-isolating anyway. If you're asymptomatic there's some
doubt as to whether you're infectious anyway.
Personally I am wearing a mask in shops, on buses/trains etc. Even
though I have my doubts about their efficacy it costs me very little.
<https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/do-masks-stop-the-spread-of-covid-19->
It makes us all look like outlaws from a 1950s western though, which is
no terrible thing, and I find I can still usually recognise people.
I do wonder if it is giving any bank staff the jitters; thought about
walking in with a stripey jumper on too...
--
Toodle Pip (My other iPad is an old Pro)
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2020-11-19 17:19:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 17:15:52, Mike McMillan
[]
Post by Mike McMillan
Post by Steve Hague
It makes us all look like outlaws from a 1950s western though, which is
no terrible thing, and I find I can still usually recognise people.
I do wonder if it is giving any bank staff the jitters; thought about
walking in with a stripey jumper on too...
And a sack with SWAG on it (-:

Serious point you raise though.

I've also been wondering what the facial-recognition folk have been
doing.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

No, I haven't changed my mind - I'm perfectly happy with the one I have, thank
you.
Mike McMillan
2020-11-20 08:34:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 17:15:52, Mike McMillan
[]
Post by Mike McMillan
Post by Steve Hague
It makes us all look like outlaws from a 1950s western though, which is
no terrible thing, and I find I can still usually recognise people.
I do wonder if it is giving any bank staff the jitters; thought about
walking in with a stripey jumper on too...
Serious point you raise though.
I've also been wondering what the facial-recognition folk have been
doing.
Probably re-writing their ‘Anti-Virus’ programmes;-)))
--
Toodle Pip (My other iPad is an old Pro)
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2020-11-20 12:22:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 at 08:34:09, Mike McMillan
Post by Mike McMillan
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 17:15:52, Mike McMillan
[]
Post by Mike McMillan
Post by Steve Hague
It makes us all look like outlaws from a 1950s western though, which is
no terrible thing, and I find I can still usually recognise people.
I do wonder if it is giving any bank staff the jitters; thought about
walking in with a stripey jumper on too...
Serious point you raise though.
I've also been wondering what the facial-recognition folk have been
doing.
Probably re-writing their ‘Anti-Virus’ programmes;-)))
LOL!
--
Post by Mike McMillan
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Won't you come into the garden? I would like my roses to see you. -Richard
Steve Hague
2020-11-19 18:43:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mike McMillan
Post by Steve Hague
Post by BrritSki
Post by DavidK
despite the recently published study that says that there is no
evidence that they make a scrap of difference
Link please, I've always been a little dubious. I think the intention
was to prevent people passing the lurgy on and that seems very hard to test.
That is true, and they do acknowledge it, but if you're symptomatic you
should be self-isolating anyway. If you're asymptomatic there's some
doubt as to whether you're infectious anyway.
Personally I am wearing a mask in shops, on buses/trains etc. Even
though I have my doubts about their efficacy it costs me very little.
<https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/do-masks-stop-the-spread-of-covid-19->
It makes us all look like outlaws from a 1950s western though, which is
no terrible thing, and I find I can still usually recognise people.
I do wonder if it is giving any bank staff the jitters; thought about
walking in with a stripey jumper on too...
And a large bag marked "swag".
Anne B
2020-11-19 23:09:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by DavidK
despite the recently published study that says that there is no
evidence that they make a scrap of difference
Link please, I've always been a little dubious. I think the intention
was to prevent people passing the lurgy on and that seems very hard to test.
This is the link to the actual paper.

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817?fbclid=IwAR2RTKv7ZN4kcY3dGnnPSRYyhKsjt8KpArI2wBe2Kz2rPFb7kwVmHc2LSBU

Which I have red very carefully.

Note (a) the Objective: To assess whether recommending surgical mask use
outside the home reduces wearers' risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a
setting where masks were uncommon and not among recommended public
health measures.

I'll repeat part of that: To assess whether .... mask use .... reduces
wearers' risk ....

and again: ***wearers'*** risk.

and (b) the Limitations: Inconclusive results, missing data, variable
adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no
assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from
mask wearers to others.

I'll repeat that last bit just in case anyone didn't notice it: ****no
assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from
mask wearers to others****

So they produced an inconclusive assessment of only part of the problem,
with missing data, subjective reporting, and no blinding.

In particular they did not even attempt to find out whether wearing
masks helps to prevent people infecting others.

No wonder the most respected scientific journals did not want to publish it.

If I thought that the only reason to wear a mask was to prevent me
catching the virus, I might decide not to.

But I want to do everything I can to limit the transmission of this
nasty virus to anyone else, so in the absence of any robust evidence
that wearing a masks does not protect ***other people***, I am perfectly
willing to put up with what is, after all, no more than an annoying and
uncomfortable inconvenience.

The fact that any government has to legislate to make people do a
reasonable and responsible thing is disgusting.

Anne B
BrritSki
2020-11-20 08:19:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anne B
Post by DavidK
despite the recently published study that says that there is no
evidence that they make a scrap of difference
Link please, I've always been a little dubious. I think the intention
was to prevent people passing the lurgy on and that seems very
hard to
test.
This is the link to the actual paper.
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817?fbclid=IwAR2RTKv7ZN4kcY3dGnnPSRYyhKsjt8KpArI2wBe2Kz2rPFb7kwVmHc2LSBU
Which I have red very carefully.
Note (a) the Objective: To assess whether recommending surgical mask use
outside the home reduces wearers' risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a
setting where masks were uncommon and not among recommended public
health measures.
I'll repeat part of that: To assess whether .... mask use .... reduces
wearers' risk ....
and again:  ***wearers'*** risk.
and (b) the Limitations: Inconclusive results, missing data, variable
adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no
assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from
mask wearers to others.
I'll repeat that last bit just in case anyone didn't notice it: ****no
assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from
mask wearers to others****
So they produced an inconclusive assessment of only part of the problem,
with missing data, subjective reporting, and no blinding.
In particular they did not even attempt to find out whether wearing
masks helps to prevent people infecting others.
No wonder the most respected scientific journals did not want to publish it.
If I thought that the only reason to wear a mask was to prevent me
catching the virus, I might decide not to.
But I want to do everything I can to limit the transmission of this
nasty virus to anyone else, so in the absence of any robust evidence
that wearing a masks does not protect ***other people***, I am perfectly
willing to put up with what is, after all, no more than an annoying and
uncomfortable inconvenience.
The fact that any government has to legislate to make people do a
reasonable and responsible thing is disgusting.
Yes Anne, I acknowledged that it was one-sided in a later post in this
thread. But if you find (whatever the limitations - and it is difficult
to see how you'd blind a mask-wearing trial), that it makes no
difference for the wearer because the material is useless and it's
mostly not worn properly, why would you imagine it making a difference
if the wearer has the virus and coughs or sneezes violently ?

You are a responsible person and would self isolate if you were
symptomatic - that's the way to stop the spread. not expecting a mask to
do the job for you....
Jim Easterbrook
2020-11-20 10:04:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Post by Anne B
The fact that any government has to legislate to make people do a
reasonable and responsible thing is disgusting.
Yes Anne, I acknowledged that it was one-sided in a later post in this
thread. But if you find (whatever the limitations - and it is difficult
to see how you'd blind a mask-wearing trial), that it makes no
difference for the wearer because the material is useless and it's
mostly not worn properly, why would you imagine it making a difference
if the wearer has the virus and coughs or sneezes violently ?
Because droplets coming out are bigger than virus-bearing particles
coming in. The moisture in exhaled droplets evaporates, reducing their
size. Catching them on the inside of a mask before they evaporate is
easier than catching them afterwards.
--
Jim <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L- I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0
BrritSki
2020-11-20 11:18:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jim Easterbrook
Post by BrritSki
Post by Anne B
The fact that any government has to legislate to make people do a
reasonable and responsible thing is disgusting.
Yes Anne, I acknowledged that it was one-sided in a later post in this
thread. But if you find (whatever the limitations - and it is difficult
to see how you'd blind a mask-wearing trial), that it makes no
difference for the wearer because the material is useless and it's
mostly not worn properly, why would you imagine it making a difference
if the wearer has the virus and coughs or sneezes violently ?
Because droplets coming out are bigger than virus-bearing particles
coming in. The moisture in exhaled droplets evaporates, reducing their
size. Catching them on the inside of a mask before they evaporate is
easier than catching them afterwards.
It's a good theory, but until it's tested who knows whether it's valid
or not. We don't actually know after all this time how people are being
infected. Is it from coughs or sneezes or aerosols in normal breath ? Is
it from infected objects ? Or something else ?
Most infections are picked up in the home - are you wearing a mask there ?

I'm not saying we shouldn't wear masks when out and about, just that
there is no actual evidence that it is effective.
Anne B
2020-11-20 11:34:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Post by Jim Easterbrook
Post by BrritSki
Post by Anne B
The fact that any government has to legislate to make people do a
reasonable and responsible thing is disgusting.
Yes Anne, I acknowledged that it was one-sided in a later post in this
thread. But if you find (whatever the limitations - and it is difficult
to see how you'd blind a mask-wearing trial), that it makes no
difference for the wearer because the material is useless and it's
mostly not worn properly, why would you imagine it making a difference
if the wearer has the virus and coughs or sneezes violently ?
Because droplets coming out are bigger than virus-bearing particles
coming in. The moisture in exhaled droplets evaporates, reducing their
size. Catching them on the inside of a mask before they evaporate is
easier than catching them afterwards.
It's a good theory, but until it's tested who knows whether it's valid
or not. We don't actually know after all this time how people are being
infected. Is it from coughs or sneezes or aerosols in normal breath ? Is
it from infected objects ?  Or something else ?
Most infections are picked up in the home - are you wearing a mask there ?
I'm not saying we shouldn't wear masks when out and about, just that
there is no actual evidence that it is effective.
You are absolutely right about that point, but absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence.

Anne B
BrritSki
2020-11-20 12:38:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anne B
Post by BrritSki
I'm not saying we shouldn't wear masks when out and about, just that
there is no actual evidence that it is effective.
You are absolutely right about that point, but absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence.
Very true.
DavidK
2020-11-21 17:01:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Post by Anne B
Post by BrritSki
I'm not saying we shouldn't wear masks when out and about, just that
there is no actual evidence that it is effective.
You are absolutely right about that point, but absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence.
Very true.
More on this here (pro-masks)
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/11/21/0535251/masks-are-effective-despite-one-flawed-study-from-denmark
BrritSki
2020-11-21 19:12:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by DavidK
Post by BrritSki
Post by Anne B
Post by BrritSki
I'm not saying we shouldn't wear masks when out and about, just that
there is no actual evidence that it is effective.
You are absolutely right about that point, but absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence.
Very true.
More on this here (pro-masks)
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/11/21/0535251/masks-are-effective-despite-one-flawed-study-from-denmark
Well I've read that article and he ones that it links to, but could not
find any links to all these "other studies". It just seems to be opinion
and as we all know, science does not run on consensus.
DavidK
2020-11-21 20:56:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Post by DavidK
Post by BrritSki
Post by Anne B
Post by BrritSki
I'm not saying we shouldn't wear masks when out and about, just
that there is no actual evidence that it is effective.
You are absolutely right about that point, but absence of evidence
is not evidence of absence.
Very true.
More on this here (pro-masks)
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/11/21/0535251/masks-are-effective-despite-one-flawed-study-from-denmark
Well I've read that article and he ones that it links to, but could not
find any links to all these "other studies". It just seems to be opinion
and as we all know, science does not run on consensus.
I agree, the interesting reference was behind the pay-wall
<https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/masking-science-sars-cov2.html>
BrritSki
2020-11-21 21:06:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by DavidK
Post by BrritSki
Post by DavidK
Post by BrritSki
Post by Anne B
Post by BrritSki
I'm not saying we shouldn't wear masks when out and about, just
that there is no actual evidence that it is effective.
You are absolutely right about that point, but absence of evidence
is not evidence of absence.
Very true.
More on this here (pro-masks)
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/11/21/0535251/masks-are-effective-despite-one-flawed-study-from-denmark
Well I've read that article and he ones that it links to, but could
not find any links to all these "other studies". It just seems to be
opinion and as we all know, science does not run on consensus.
I agree, the interesting reference was behind the pay-wall
<https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/masking-science-sars-cov2.html>
Thankyou.
Min
2020-11-26 02:45:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Post by DavidK
Post by BrritSki
Post by DavidK
Post by BrritSki
Post by Anne B
Post by BrritSki
I'm not saying we shouldn't wear masks when out and about, just
that there is no actual evidence that it is effective.
You are absolutely right about that point, but absence of evidence
is not evidence of absence.
Very true.
More on this here (pro-masks)
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/11/21/0535251/masks-are-effective-despite-one-flawed-study-from-denmark
Well I've read that article and he ones that it links to, but could
not find any links to all these "other studies". It just seems to be
opinion and as we all know, science does not run on consensus.
I agree, the interesting reference was behind the pay-wall
<https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/masking-science-sars-cov2.html>
Thankyou.
<Umratic Not Really a Swerve>
With reference to exhalation - what's bugging me at the moment are joggers/runners. We AD types
are not allowed to perform at the moment (or sing) in case our projection infects people, but
(round my way at least) there are joggers/runners everywhere (often in pairs). They don't wear
masks, everybody *else* must move the requisite 6 feet or they brush right past you. And they
startle The Hounds.
--
Min
Vicky Ayech
2020-11-19 18:59:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 17:15:52 GMT, Mike McMillan
Post by Mike McMillan
Post by Steve Hague
Post by BrritSki
Post by DavidK
despite the recently published study that says that there is no
evidence that they make a scrap of difference
Link please, I've always been a little dubious. I think the intention
was to prevent people passing the lurgy on and that seems very hard to test.
That is true, and they do acknowledge it, but if you're symptomatic you
should be self-isolating anyway. If you're asymptomatic there's some
doubt as to whether you're infectious anyway.
Personally I am wearing a mask in shops, on buses/trains etc. Even
though I have my doubts about their efficacy it costs me very little.
<https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/do-masks-stop-the-spread-of-covid-19->
It makes us all look like outlaws from a 1950s western though, which is
no terrible thing, and I find I can still usually recognise people.
I do wonder if it is giving any bank staff the jitters; thought about
walking in with a stripey jumper on too...
and then
https://metro.co.uk/2020/11/17/dog-walkers-are-78-more-likely-to-catch-coronavirus-13606498/
Chris J Dixon
2020-11-19 17:44:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Personally I am wearing a mask in shops, on buses/trains etc.
Until this week I had only needed a mask for a few minutes, as
BOFE has taken over the shopping, and I haven't been on public
transport. My car is still running on the tank of diesel I put in
last March, and on present projections may well last until next
March.

However, I did go to get my hearing tested, which required my
lengthiest masking so far.

I've had a high frequency loss in my left ear for many years, but
the classic symptoms of loud TV and unheard conversations made me
realise that it was time for action.

After a thorough set of tests, a brief demo was quite a
revelation, and I guess I will have the sound equivalent of
seeing the world through a new prescription.

The challenge then will be handling aids, specs and mask without
getting into a tangle.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
***@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1
Plant amazing Acers.
John Ashby
2020-11-19 19:26:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by BrritSki
Personally I am wearing a mask in shops, on buses/trains etc.
Until this week I had only needed a mask for a few minutes, as
BOFE has taken over the shopping, and I haven't been on public
transport. My car is still running on the tank of diesel I put in
last March, and on present projections may well last until next
March.
However, I did go to get my hearing tested, which required my
lengthiest masking so far.
I've had a high frequency loss in my left ear for many years, but
the classic symptoms of loud TV and unheard conversations made me
realise that it was time for action.
After a thorough set of tests, a brief demo was quite a
revelation, and I guess I will have the sound equivalent of
seeing the world through a new prescription.
The challenge then will be handling aids, specs and mask without
getting into a tangle.
Chris
Warning: I've lost two hearing aids due to mask juggling, both at Lidl
(clockwise, though that may not be relevant to the loss). Since losing
the second I've not bothered to replace it (£75 a time makes mask
wearing an expensive hobby).

Things will very likely sound strange for about a week when you start
wearing aids as your brain will have been making all sorts of
adjustments in wetware for the hardware problems, and will have to
unlearn them.

Good luck.

john
Vicky Ayech
2020-11-19 21:32:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Ashby
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by BrritSki
Personally I am wearing a mask in shops, on buses/trains etc.
Until this week I had only needed a mask for a few minutes, as
BOFE has taken over the shopping, and I haven't been on public
transport. My car is still running on the tank of diesel I put in
last March, and on present projections may well last until next
March.
However, I did go to get my hearing tested, which required my
lengthiest masking so far.
I've had a high frequency loss in my left ear for many years, but
the classic symptoms of loud TV and unheard conversations made me
realise that it was time for action.
After a thorough set of tests, a brief demo was quite a
revelation, and I guess I will have the sound equivalent of
seeing the world through a new prescription.
The challenge then will be handling aids, specs and mask without
getting into a tangle.
Chris
Warning: I've lost two hearing aids due to mask juggling, both at Lidl
(clockwise, though that may not be relevant to the loss). Since losing
the second I've not bothered to replace it (£75 a time makes mask
wearing an expensive hobby).
Things will very likely sound strange for about a week when you start
wearing aids as your brain will have been making all sorts of
adjustments in wetware for the hardware problems, and will have to
unlearn them.
Good luck.
john
I've lost them several times. Mostly I go back and find them, one was
handed in at Asda. I've replaced two.
Chris McMillan
2020-11-19 22:10:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Ashby
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by BrritSki
Personally I am wearing a mask in shops, on buses/trains etc.
Until this week I had only needed a mask for a few minutes, as
BOFE has taken over the shopping, and I haven't been on public
transport. My car is still running on the tank of diesel I put in
last March, and on present projections may well last until next
March.
However, I did go to get my hearing tested, which required my
lengthiest masking so far.
I've had a high frequency loss in my left ear for many years, but
the classic symptoms of loud TV and unheard conversations made me
realise that it was time for action.
After a thorough set of tests, a brief demo was quite a
revelation, and I guess I will have the sound equivalent of
seeing the world through a new prescription.
The challenge then will be handling aids, specs and mask without
getting into a tangle.
Chris
Warning: I've lost two hearing aids due to mask juggling, both at Lidl
(clockwise, though that may not be relevant to the loss). Since losing
the second I've not bothered to replace it (£75 a time makes mask
wearing an expensive hobby).
Things will very likely sound strange for about a week when you start
wearing aids as your brain will have been making all sorts of
adjustments in wetware for the hardware problems, and will have to
unlearn them.
Good luck.
john
We’re all different!! I had no problems with the hearing side of things
right from day one. Perfect fit. Unfortunately my skin thinks otherwise
but all I’ve proved in a year is it’s not an allergy to the moulds as the
nhs did me a hypoallergenic pair.

Wax build up is another common problem too.

Good luck

Chris
Vicky Ayech
2020-11-19 19:28:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by BrritSki
Personally I am wearing a mask in shops, on buses/trains etc.
Until this week I had only needed a mask for a few minutes, as
BOFE has taken over the shopping, and I haven't been on public
transport. My car is still running on the tank of diesel I put in
last March, and on present projections may well last until next
March.
However, I did go to get my hearing tested, which required my
lengthiest masking so far.
I've had a high frequency loss in my left ear for many years, but
the classic symptoms of loud TV and unheard conversations made me
realise that it was time for action.
After a thorough set of tests, a brief demo was quite a
revelation, and I guess I will have the sound equivalent of
seeing the world through a new prescription.
The challenge then will be handling aids, specs and mask without
getting into a tangle.
Chris
And then add women's hair, longer, into it.
Chris McMillan
2020-11-19 22:10:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by BrritSki
Personally I am wearing a mask in shops, on buses/trains etc.
Until this week I had only needed a mask for a few minutes, as
BOFE has taken over the shopping, and I haven't been on public
transport. My car is still running on the tank of diesel I put in
last March, and on present projections may well last until next
March.
However, I did go to get my hearing tested, which required my
lengthiest masking so far.
I've had a high frequency loss in my left ear for many years, but
the classic symptoms of loud TV and unheard conversations made me
realise that it was time for action.
After a thorough set of tests, a brief demo was quite a
revelation, and I guess I will have the sound equivalent of
seeing the world through a new prescription.
The challenge then will be handling aids, specs and mask without
getting into a tangle.
Chris
There before you, Chris. Look up ear extenders. These little bits of
plastic have notches in. Some people, I saw a Moslem audiologist first,
can wear them over their head scarf and it fits snugly across the back of
the head. My masks are from a sports shop on line, material a chap would
not wear and the extenders are across my neck. I reckon, having met you,
if you’re wearing a mask with the long fixed thin strap type these will fit
across the back of your head nicely.

Lots of us with hearing aids have broken the pointy bits of our aids
getting in tangles. The other option, is no mask but a clear visor.

HTH

Chris
Peter
2020-11-19 18:53:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Post by DavidK
despite the recently published study that says that there is no
evidence that they make a scrap of difference
Link please, I've always been a little dubious. I think the intention
was to prevent people passing the lurgy on and that seems very hard to test.
That is true, and they do acknowledge it, but if you're symptomatic you
should be self-isolating anyway. If you're asymptomatic there's some
doubt as to whether you're infectious anyway.
Personally I am wearing a mask in shops, on buses/trains
The law requires it.
Post by BrritSki
etc. Even
though I have my doubts about their efficacy it costs me very little.
<https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/do-masks-stop-the-spread-of-covid-19->
--
When, once, reference was made to a statesman almost universally
recognized as one of the villains of this century, in order to
induce him to a negative judgment, he replied: "My situation is
so different from his, that it is not for me to pass judgment".
Ernst Specker on Paul Bernays
Steve Hague
2020-11-19 19:02:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter
Post by BrritSki
Post by DavidK
despite the recently published study that says that there is no
evidence that they make a scrap of difference
Link please, I've always been a little dubious. I think the intention
was to prevent people passing the lurgy on and that seems very hard to test.
That is true, and they do acknowledge it, but if you're symptomatic
you should be self-isolating anyway. If you're asymptomatic there's
some doubt as to whether you're infectious anyway.
Personally I am wearing a mask in shops, on buses/trains
The law requires it.
Whenever I've fought the law, the law's won.
Steve
Sam Plusnet
2020-11-19 21:21:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter
Post by BrritSki
Post by DavidK
despite the recently published study that says that there is no
evidence that they make a scrap of difference
Link please, I've always been a little dubious. I think the intention
was to prevent people passing the lurgy on and that seems very hard to test.
That is true, and they do acknowledge it, but if you're symptomatic
you should be self-isolating anyway. If you're asymptomatic there's
some doubt as to whether you're infectious anyway.
Personally I am wearing a mask in shops, on buses/trains
The law requires it.
Your Legal System May Vary: Lots of different laws in different places.
--
Sam Plusnet
DavidK
2020-11-20 09:56:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
If you're asymptomatic there's some doubt as to whether you're
infectious anyway.
This is the type of misleading semi-truth that causes so much damage.
It's true, to my surprise, that it's not known whether people who never
exhibit symptoms are infectious but there is no doubt that
pre-symptomatic people are very infectious
<https://doi.org/0.1056/NEJMoa2008457>

I may have over-reacted here. I've been rebutting rabid anti-vaxxers'
material and it has made me bristly.
BrritSki
2020-11-20 11:14:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by DavidK
If you're asymptomatic there's some doubt as to whether you're
infectious anyway.
This is the type of misleading semi-truth that causes so much damage.
It's true, to my surprise, that it's not known whether people who never
exhibit symptoms are infectious but there is no doubt that
pre-symptomatic people are very infectious
<https://doi.org/0.1056/NEJMoa2008457>
I may have over-reacted here. I've been rebutting rabid anti-vaxxers'
material and it has made me bristly.
I think there is a subtle difference between asymptomatic and
pre-symptomatic. AIUI not all asymptomatic people go on to have symptoms.

Even if they do go on to develop symptoms, during the asymptomatic phase
their viral load is likely to be very small.

There are lots of misleading half truths out there. One of the worst imo
is that the number of cases being detected are all real. The Dispatches
program on C4 on Monday illustrated the serious failings, including
cross-contamination of test samples, at the lab in NI. And there was
another report today about an experienced virologist with a background
in biosafety who got a job at the lab in MK and was horrified by what he
saw. His complaints were ignored by management and he had to take them
to HSE. We need a serious discussion about false positives with people
on SAGE who truly understand what that means and the impacts, esp. as
the number of excess deaths at the moment is completely normal.

At least the experts are finally coming to accept that T-cell immunity
is real and has a massive impact with up to 25% of the population having
such immunity, some of it going back years.

The crying wolf by the authorities is what is causing people to doubt
that it is real and not follow the guidelines.

I do think that COVID is serious and I am taking sensible precautions,
but anyone that thinks we can "beat the virus" or "take back control" is
deluded. Even with the vaccine it's going to take months to vaccinate
the entire population and we can't carry on like this for much longer -
it's not just "hold on for 2 months until the vaccine".

And then there are the people that won't have a vaccine at all - what do
we do about those ? Forcible vaccination ? Lock them up ? We are
going to have to live with this for years if not forever, just like we
do with flu.

We will have the vaccine as soon as it's available, but even as over
70's in the at risk category I don't expect that to be until the spring.
Penny
2020-11-20 11:17:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 16:24:44 +0000, BrritSki <***@gmail.com>
scrawled in the dust...
Post by BrritSki
Post by DavidK
despite the recently published study that says that there is no
evidence that they make a scrap of difference
Link please, I've always been a little dubious. I think the intention
was to prevent people passing the lurgy on and that seems very hard to test.
That is true, and they do acknowledge it, but if you're symptomatic you
should be self-isolating anyway. If you're asymptomatic there's some
doubt as to whether you're infectious anyway.
Personally I am wearing a mask in shops, on buses/trains etc. Even
though I have my doubts about their efficacy it costs me very little.
<https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/do-masks-stop-the-spread-of-covid-19->
Only available to subscribers
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
BrritSki
2020-11-20 11:26:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Penny
Post by BrritSki
<https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/do-masks-stop-the-spread-of-covid-19->
Only available to subscribers
Here's the text below. Anne has referenced the original research which I
haven't read myself, but I'm happy to have it summarised for my by a
Professor of EVIDENCE-BASED medicine at Oxford.


Do face masks work? Earlier this year, the UK government decided that
masks could play a significant role in stopping Covid-19 and made masks
mandatory in a number of public places. But are these policies backed by
the scientific evidence?

Yesterday marked the publication of a long-delayed trial in Denmark
which hopes to answer that very question. The ‘Danmask-19 trial’ was
conducted in the spring with over 3,000 participants, when the public
were not being told to wear masks but other public health measures were
in place. Unlike other studies looking at masks, the Danmask study was a
randomised controlled trial – making it the highest quality scientific
evidence.

Around half of those in the trial received 50 disposable surgical face
masks, which they were told to change after eight hours of use. After
one month, the trial participants were tested using both PCR, antibody
and lateral flow tests and compared with the trial participants who did
not wear a mask.

In the end, there was no statistically significant difference between
those who wore masks and those who did not when it came to being
infected by Covid-19. 1.8 per cent of those wearing masks caught Covid,
compared to 2.1 per cent of the control group. As a result, it seems
that any effect masks have on preventing the spread of the disease in
the community is small.

Some people, of course, did not wear their masks properly. Only 46 per
cent of those wearing masks in the trial said they had completely
adhered to the rules. But even if you only look at people who wore masks
‘exactly as instructed’, this did not make any difference to the
results: 2 per cent of this group were also infected.

When it comes to masks, it appears there is still little good evidence
they prevent the spread of airborne diseases. The results of the
Danmask-19 trial mirror other reviews into influenza-like illnesses.
Nine other trials looking at the efficacy of masks (two looking at
healthcare workers and seven at community transmission) have found that
masks make little or no difference to whether you get influenza or not.

But overall, there is a troubling lack of robust evidence on face masks
and Covid-19. There have only been three community trials during the
current pandemic comparing the use of masks with various alternatives –
one in Guinea-Bissau, one in India and this latest trial in Denmark. The
low number of studies into the effect different interventions have on
the spread of Covid-19 – a subject of global importance – suggests there
is a total lack of interest from governments in pursuing evidence-based
medicine. And this starkly contrasts with the huge sums they have spent
on ‘boutique relations’ consultants advising the government.

The only trials which have shown masks to be effective at stopping
airborne diseases have been ‘observational studies’ – which observe the
people who ordinarily use masks, rather than attempting to create a
randomised control group. These trials include six studies carried out
in the Far East during the SARS CoV-1 outbreak of 2003, which showed
that masks can work, especially when they are used by healthcare workers
and patients alongside hand-washing.

But observational studies are prone to recall bias: in the heat of a
pandemic, not very many people will recall if and when they used masks
and at what distance they kept from others. The lack of random
allocation of masks can also ‘confound’ the results and might not
account for seasonal effects. A recent observational study paper had to
be withdrawn because the reported fall in infection rates over the
summer was reverted when the seasonal effect took hold and rates went
back up.

This is why large, randomised trials like this most recent Danish study
are so important if we want to understand the impact of measures like
face masks. Many people have argued that it is too difficult to wait for
randomised trials – but Danmask-19 has shown that these kind of studies
are more than feasible.

And now that we have properly rigorous scientific research we can rely
on, the evidence shows that wearing masks in the community does not
significantly reduce the rates of infection.

WRITTEN BY
Prof Carl Heneghan & Tom Jefferson
Carl Heneghan is professor of evidence-based medicine at the University
of Oxford and director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Tom
Jefferson is a senior associate tutor and honorary research fellow at
the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford
Anne B
2020-11-20 11:50:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Post by Penny
Post by BrritSki
<https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/do-masks-stop-the-spread-of-covid-19->
Only available to subscribers
Here's the text below. Anne has referenced the original research which I
haven't read myself, but I'm happy to have it summarised for my by a
Professor of EVIDENCE-BASED medicine at Oxford.
Snipped
Post by BrritSki
And now that we have properly rigorous scientific research we can rely
on, the evidence shows that wearing masks in the community does not
significantly reduce the rates of infection.
WRITTEN BY
Prof Carl Heneghan & Tom Jefferson
Carl Heneghan is professor of evidence-based medicine at the University
of Oxford and director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Tom
Jefferson is a senior associate tutor and honorary research fellow at
the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford
But even that final paragraph is a misinterpretation of what the Danish
study actually says.

The Danish study found no statistically significant effect of wearing
masks on the infection rates **among participants in the study**. The
Professors seem to regard it as a robust and scientifically rigorous
study, despite the limitations specifically stated by the authors, so I
am happy to accept that ME wearing a mask has been shown in the Danish
study not to reduce significantly MY chances of catching coronavirus.

The Danish study, however, specifically states that it did not attempt
to assess whether or not masks affected ***transmission to other
people***. And that is the really important thing we need to know in
relation to masks.

Frankly, I am surprised that Professors of EVIDENCE-BASED medicine at
the University of Oxford could have omitted to point out that
distinction in their summing-up.

But maybe they did and the journalists just left that bit out of the
Professors' statement.

Anne B
BrritSki
2020-11-20 12:37:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anne B
Post by BrritSki
Post by Penny
Post by BrritSki
<https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/do-masks-stop-the-spread-of-covid-19->
Only available to subscribers
Here's the text below. Anne has referenced the original research which
I haven't read myself, but I'm happy to have it summarised for my by a
Professor of EVIDENCE-BASED medicine at Oxford.
Snipped
Post by BrritSki
And now that we have properly rigorous scientific research we can rely
on, the evidence shows that wearing masks in the community does not
significantly reduce the rates of infection.
WRITTEN BY
Prof Carl Heneghan & Tom Jefferson
Carl Heneghan is professor of evidence-based medicine at the
University of Oxford and director of the Centre for Evidence-Based
Medicine Tom Jefferson is a senior associate tutor and honorary
research fellow at the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, University
of Oxford
But even that final paragraph is a misinterpretation of what the Danish
study actually says.
On its own possibly, but earlier in the report (by the Prof. himself,
not a journo) he says "In the end, there was no statistically
significant difference between those who wore masks and those who did
not when it came to BEING INFECTED" (my emphasis).

The problem is that most people think that wearing a mask protects THEM,
so their other behaviours are more risky, such as not social distancing
or hand washing.

Infected people should not be walking round in the community, so wthere
they are wearing masks or not is moot.
Anne B
2020-11-20 14:42:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Post by Anne B
Post by BrritSki
Post by Penny
Post by BrritSki
<https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/do-masks-stop-the-spread-of-covid-19->
Only available to subscribers
Here's the text below. Anne has referenced the original research
which I haven't read myself, but I'm happy to have it summarised for
my by a Professor of EVIDENCE-BASED medicine at Oxford.
Snipped
Post by BrritSki
And now that we have properly rigorous scientific research we can
rely on, the evidence shows that wearing masks in the community does
not significantly reduce the rates of infection.
WRITTEN BY
Prof Carl Heneghan & Tom Jefferson
Carl Heneghan is professor of evidence-based medicine at the
University of Oxford and director of the Centre for Evidence-Based
Medicine Tom Jefferson is a senior associate tutor and honorary
research fellow at the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, University
of Oxford
But even that final paragraph is a misinterpretation of what the
Danish study actually says.
On its own possibly, but earlier in the report (by the Prof. himself,
not a journo) he says "In the end, there was no statistically
significant difference between those who wore masks and those who did
not when it came to BEING INFECTED"  (my emphasis).
Which is exactly what I am pointing out.

The study says absolutely nothing about INFECTING OTHER PEOPLE (my
emphasis). It is at the very least irresponsible, and at worst will
actually cost lives, to extrapolate from the Danish study to saying that
masks do not protect OTHER PEOPLE (my emphasis), but unfortunately that
is exactly what some of the media reports about this study appear to be
concluding from it.
Post by BrritSki
The problem is that most people think that wearing a mask protects THEM,
so their other behaviours are more risky, such as not social distancing
 or hand washing.
True, but misreporting like this is not likely to make them understand
the distinction and modify theie behavious accordingly.
Post by BrritSki
Infected people should not be walking round in the community, so wthere
they are wearing masks or not is moot.
Indeed not, but if they don't actually know that they are infectious
(not: infectious not infected) how can they be blamed?

The only way to deal with this is to take the responsible course of
action. We must all assume that we are infectious and wear a mask unless
and until there is a scientifically rigorous examination of the degree
to which masks protect OTHER PEOPLE (my emphasis) from becoming infected.

Anne B
BrritSki
2020-11-20 15:50:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 20/11/2020 14:42, Anne B wrote:
<snip lots I could disagree with but it's just getting repetitive.
Post by Anne B
The only way to deal with this is to take the responsible course of
action. We must all assume that we are infectious and wear a mask...
So why haven't we done this for flu ? The current "pandemic" is not
much more dangerous if at all.

<https://www.bitchute.com/video/J0JWur5LNePt/>
Serena Blanchflower
2020-11-20 16:39:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
<snip lots I could disagree with but it's just getting repetitive.
Post by Anne B
The only way to deal with this is to take the responsible course of
action. We must all assume that we are infectious and wear a mask...
So why haven't we done this for flu ?  The current "pandemic" is not
much more dangerous if at all.
<https://www.bitchute.com/video/J0JWur5LNePt/>
Merely 10x the fatality level. The last report I saw estimated flu at
0.1% fatality, while Covid was around 1% - plus the few percent who are
left with organ damage and/or Post Viral Fatige (and, quite possibly ME).

Personally, I think it would be good if we followed the Japanese
example, even when this pandemic is over, and habitually wore masks if
we were feeling under the weather. This is a courtesy to other people
and reduces the chances of sharing our colds and flu with them.
--
Best wishes, Serena
We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.
(Martin Luther King Jr.)
BrritSki
2020-11-20 19:47:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Merely 10x the fatality level.  The last report I saw estimated flu at
0.1% fatality, while Covid was around 1% - plus the few percent who are
left with organ damage and/or Post Viral Fatige (and, quite possibly ME).
Not true. In the first wave possibly, but not now.
Peter
2020-11-21 07:07:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Merely 10x the fatality level.  The last report I saw estimated flu at
0.1% fatality, while Covid was around 1% - plus the few percent who
are left with organ damage and/or Post Viral Fatige (and, quite
possibly ME).
Not true. In the first wave possibly, but not now.
Hopefully, during the first wave, things were learned that are now
applicable. For example, it is now thought that tracheal intubation can
do harm because (either it, or because of the particular method then
used) viruses can pushed further down into the lung.
--
When, once, reference was made to a statesman almost universally
recognized as one of the villains of this century, in order to
induce him to a negative judgment, he replied: "My situation is
so different from his, that it is not for me to pass judgment".
Ernst Specker on Paul Bernays
Steve Hague
2020-11-20 18:30:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
<snip lots I could disagree with but it's just getting repetitive.
Post by Anne B
The only way to deal with this is to take the responsible course of
action. We must all assume that we are infectious and wear a mask...
So why haven't we done this for flu ?  The current "pandemic" is not
much more dangerous if at all.
<https://www.bitchute.com/video/J0JWur5LNePt/>
I sort of agree with that. Out of a touchy feely church of about 250
people, we had one person who tested positive. One other woman had
serious symptoms and was in hospital for two days, but wasn't tested. A
church environment where lots of people are in close contact is surely
the ideal place for a virus to spread, but no. I think the fear
engendered by this virus is out of all proportion to the threat it poses.
Peter
2020-11-20 18:47:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steve Hague
Post by BrritSki
<snip lots I could disagree with but it's just getting repetitive.
Post by Anne B
The only way to deal with this is to take the responsible course of
action. We must all assume that we are infectious and wear a mask...
So why haven't we done this for flu ?  The current "pandemic" is not
much more dangerous if at all.
<https://www.bitchute.com/video/J0JWur5LNePt/>
I sort of agree with that. Out of a touchy feely church of about 250
people, we had one person who tested positive. One other woman had
serious symptoms and was in hospital for two days, but wasn't tested. A
church environment where lots of people are in close contact is surely
the ideal place for a virus to spread, but no. I think the fear
engendered by this virus is out of all proportion to the threat it poses.
COVID-19 seems to attract the attention of same kind of nutters who
believe that NASA never landed a man on the moon, or that the Queen is a
shape-shifting lizard.
--
When, once, reference was made to a statesman almost universally
recognized as one of the villains of this century, in order to
induce him to a negative judgment, he replied: "My situation is
so different from his, that it is not for me to pass judgment".
Ernst Specker on Paul Bernays
Mike McMillan
2020-11-21 08:28:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter
Post by Steve Hague
Post by BrritSki
<snip lots I could disagree with but it's just getting repetitive.
Post by Anne B
The only way to deal with this is to take the responsible course of
action. We must all assume that we are infectious and wear a mask...
So why haven't we done this for flu ?  The current "pandemic" is not
much more dangerous if at all.
<https://www.bitchute.com/video/J0JWur5LNePt/>
I sort of agree with that. Out of a touchy feely church of about 250
people, we had one person who tested positive. One other woman had
serious symptoms and was in hospital for two days, but wasn't tested. A
church environment where lots of people are in close contact is surely
the ideal place for a virus to spread, but no. I think the fear
engendered by this virus is out of all proportion to the threat it poses.
COVID-19 seems to attract the attention of same kind of nutters who
believe that NASA never landed a man on the moon, or that the Queen is a
shape-shifting lizard.
Oh! ... err... *isn’t* she then????
--
Toodle Pip (My other iPad is an old Pro)
krw
2020-11-21 14:08:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I think the fear engendered by this virus is out of all proportion to
the threat it poses.
I am in sympathy with that thought. The lack of solid evidence and the
huge mis-use of modelling theories has blighted understanding.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
Vicky Ayech
2020-11-21 18:05:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by krw
I think the fear engendered by this virus is out of all proportion to
the threat it poses.
I am in sympathy with that thought. The lack of solid evidence and the
huge mis-use of modelling theories has blighted understanding.
I agree with both of you there.
Jenny M Benson
2020-11-20 15:05:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
And now that we have properly rigorous scientific research we can rely
on, the evidence shows that wearing masks in the community does not
significantly reduce the rates of infection.
WRITTEN BY
Prof Carl Heneghan & Tom Jefferson
What we now need to know is whether the reported ineffectiveness of
mask-wearing is due to the masks not being able to prevent the
inhalation of the virus or due to the virus being contracted in some
other way.
--
Jenny M Benson
Wrexham, UK
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2020-11-21 03:42:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jenny M Benson
Post by BrritSki
And now that we have properly rigorous scientific research we can
rely on, the evidence shows that wearing masks in the community does
not significantly reduce the rates of infection.
To whom, the wearer or the rest of us?
Post by Jenny M Benson
Post by BrritSki
WRITTEN BY
Prof Carl Heneghan & Tom Jefferson
What we now need to know is whether the reported ineffectiveness of
mask-wearing is due to the masks not being able to prevent the
inhalation of the virus or due to the virus being contracted in some
other way.
It's the _ex_halation that seems to be being missed by all these
studies. (Probably because it's difficult to measure/assess.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Now, don't worry. We'll be right behind you. Hiding. (First series, fit the
sixth.)
Loading...