Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9072 total)
607 online now:
AZPaul3, ramoss (2 members, 605 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,121 Year: 4,233/6,534 Month: 447/900 Week: 153/150 Day: 7/16 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   COVID vaccine works - we're saved!
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 84 of 460 (886823)
06-11-2021 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Percy
06-11-2021 10:22 AM


Re: A Lab Origin for SARS-CoV-2
The choice of journal should be a bit of a red flag. It’s not the usual venue for this subject. From my own reading around it seems that the lab leak hypothesis is still unlikely even if it can’t be definitively ruled out.

Orac gives the lab leak hypothesis some Respectful Insolence

Wade’s article is not the first mentioned, but it’s there:

Basically, Wade’s argument seems to be that because a furin cleavage site of this sort hasn’t been seen in SARS-related beta coronaviruses before it must have been engineered. The problem is that such furin cleavage sites are common in a wide variety of viruses, including coronaviruses, and that scientists already had identified plausible mechanisms by which it could have ended up where it did in SARS-CoV2 last year…

More on site


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Percy, posted 06-11-2021 10:22 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Percy, posted 06-12-2021 11:21 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 87 of 460 (886841)
06-12-2021 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Percy
06-12-2021 11:21 AM


Re: A Lab Origin for SARS-CoV-2
quote:
How is it a red flag to appear in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which has branched out in recent years from its doomsday clock focus to all things of concern to humanity's future. By your criteria, isn't the appearance of the article you cite in Respectful Insolence, a widely respected doctor's blog but still just a blog, much more a red flag?

Because it’s not a journal with a great deal of expertise in this area.

quote:
By your criteria, isn't the appearance of the article you cite in Respectful Insolence, a widely respected doctor's blog but still just a blog, much more a red flag?

No. Why on earth would it be?

quote:
Nicholas Wade is a respected science writer with stints at Nature, Science and The New York Times. He did write a controversial book a few years ago.

And that makes him an expert on the genetics ? And I note that the controversial book you refer to was noted for getting the science wrong.

quote:
It wasn't the lab leak hypothesis that received the lion's share of public attention. It was the engineered and leaked hypothesis. The possibility of its being engineered received the strongest rebuttals, the core objection being that SARS-CoV-2 possessed none of the characteristic signposts of having been engineered.

Wade does claim that it was engineered.

quote:
Furin cleavage sites might be common in a wide variety of viruses, but while they do appear in coronaviruses, their frequency cannot accurately be characterized as common. The possibility that the 12-nucleotide insertion appeared naturally cannot be excluded (and Wade says this) but neither can it be considered more likely than engineering, particularly since all attempts to track down natural origins for SARS-CoV-2 have hit dead ends.

Even if it’s unusual in coronaviruses that makes it less than good evidence for engineering. I’d also like to know why you feel that engineering is at least as likely as a natural origin, given the weakness of the evidence. Orac points out that tracking down natural sources is not easy, so the failure to do so is not especially strong as an argument either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Percy, posted 06-12-2021 11:21 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Percy, posted 06-12-2021 1:18 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 88 of 460 (886842)
06-12-2021 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Percy
06-12-2021 11:21 AM


Re: A Lab Origin for SARS-CoV-2
To further add, this paper published in Nature states that
It is clear from our analysis that viruses closely related to SARS-CoV-2 have been circulating in horseshoe bats for many decades.
- although these viruses were not known,

This rather emphasises the point that tracking down a natural source is difficult - there are so many viruses in circulation and we only know of a fraction of them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Percy, posted 06-12-2021 11:21 AM Percy has seen this message

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 90 of 460 (886847)
06-12-2021 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Percy
06-12-2021 1:18 PM


Re: A Lab Origin for SARS-CoV-2
quote:
I was just puzzled by your "judge a book by its cover" criteria, which you still haven't justified or explained.

It’s not about judging a book by it’s cover it’s simply a concern that the choice of venue indicates that the article might not have had sufficient review.

quote:
It's far more nuanced than that, plus you're engaging in the poisoning the well fallacy: "He was wrong about this, so therefore we can conclude he's also wrong about that without considering it on the merits."

Wrong again. It’s that we can’t consider him a reliable authority.

quote:
The reality is that he was criticized for speculating beyond what the science would support. Wade acknowledges this himself, saying "evidence for his thesis is 'nearly nonexistent.'

Really? This is what the scientists said:

As discussed by Dobbs and many others, Wade juxtaposes an incomplete and inaccurate account of our research on human genetic differences with speculation that recent natural selection has led to worldwide differences in I.Q. test results, political institutions and economic development. We reject Wade’s implication that our findings substantiate his guesswork. They do not.

Presenting an “incomplete and inaccurate account” is more than simply speculating beyond the evidence. 139 scientists signed that letter and another 4 added their names after publication.

quote:
How do you reach that conclusion?

The only thing that makes the furin cleavage special is that it increases infectivity in humans - but we’re only looking that this virus because it is highly infectious in humans. So an unusual but known feature - with a plausible natural origin - isn’t exactly strong evidence. Surely we’d expect something of the sort.

quote:
I haven't reached any conclusions myself, but why do you think the evidence weak?

I’ve explained about the furin cleavage above, and I’ve pointed out that we don’t have a strong expectation of finding the natural source. But apparently you won’t explain why you think that the evidence makes a lab release as likely as a natural origin.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Percy, posted 06-12-2021 1:18 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Percy, posted 06-12-2021 5:55 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 94 of 460 (886857)
06-13-2021 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Percy
06-12-2021 5:55 PM


Re: A Lab Origin for SARS-CoV-2
quote:
Judging an article based on where it appears is judging the book by its cover.

It isn’t and I’m not judging it on that, simply noting that it likely hasn’t had the checks that it would receive before publication in a more appropriate peer-reviewed journal.

quote:
What should he be considered then?

A journalist - which he is - with a record of misreporting science.

quote:
This was quoted in the Wikipedia article I referenced. It's what I was responding to when I said they reacted with moral repugnance first and found things to criticize later. It's perfectly understandable that scientists would want to distance themselves as far as possible from any potential racist implications of their work

You’re asserting that he did not misrepresent their work? That the letter is untrue in that respect? That’s a pretty serious accusation to throw at the signatories to the letter.

quote:
So you're balancing a "plausible natural origin" with not "exactly strong evidence." That's fine, but I don't see how there's enough there to decide between them

There are plenty of unknown viruses out there, all mutating all the time. There are much fewer engineered viruses, and those are handled in controlled conditions. If there isn’t good evidence to support the lab release hypothesis we must prefer the natural origin. It’s inherently more probable.

quote:
I never said anything like that. If you reread my Message 83, I only said that Wade's article helped me understand why the engineering possibility is suddenly receiving increased attention

In fact you did say “something like that” in Message 86

The possibility that the 12-nucleotide insertion appeared naturally cannot be excluded (and Wade says this) but neither can it be considered more likely than engineering,

Now will you explain what evidence is strong enough to raise the inherently improbable lab release hypothesis to the same level as natural origin ?

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Percy, posted 06-12-2021 5:55 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Percy, posted 06-13-2021 10:01 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 96 of 460 (886862)
06-13-2021 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Percy
06-13-2021 10:01 AM


Re: A Lab Origin for SARS-CoV-2
quote:
It's not research and does not belong in a peer-reviewed journal.

Which means that it isn’t something to place great reliance on.

quote:
Well of course he's a journalist. I said as much when I mentioned he'd worked at Nature, Science and The New York Times. Did you misinterpret mentioning his employment at Nature and Science as a claim that he was a scientist?

So you think that being a journalist makes him an expert. That explains part of the problem.

quote:
And you're poisoning the well again. Make your objections to what he says not to the supposed wrongs you're convinced he committed.

Pointing out reasons why we shouldn’t take Wade’s word for it is not poisoning the well. Can we just agree that Wade’s opinions should not be considered persuasive in themselves? That his arguments require evaluation.

quote:
I'm asserting that there's no way to know whether he misrepresented their work because the scientists statement is very open to suspicion that it was motivated by a desire to distance their research from association with racism as far as possible

Just as that statement is open to the suspicion that you are defending Wade here because you support his racist views.

quote:
But you're still playing "poisoning the well."

Until your argument gets beyond “Wade says so” pointing out that Wade is not an especially reliable source is a valid reply. Yet I’m the one addressing Wade’s arguments, not you.

quote:
But I'm not arguing for the "lab release hypothesis." I'm pointing to an article that explains why the the engineered hypothesis is currently receiving increased attention

So you have a high profile article, but not much solid argument.

quote:
I'm interested in the engineered hypothesis, and Wade's article explains why it is not "inherently improbable."

In fact he doesn’t give any valid reasons to consider the “engineered” hypothesis as likely as a natural origin.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Percy, posted 06-13-2021 10:01 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Percy, posted 06-13-2021 2:34 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 98 of 460 (886876)
06-13-2021 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Percy
06-13-2021 2:34 PM


Re: A Lab Origin for SARS-CoV-2
quote:
You're arguing that science writers are unreliable communicators.

They often are, but that isn’t my point. The point is that he’s it an expert and his personal opinions - which is what he’s offering - shouldn’t be accepted as anything more than the personal opinions of someone who isn’t an expert.

quote:
I think Wade is a top-notch science writer.

Which still doesn’t make him an expert.

quote:
Except that your reasons are unrelated to what Wade says in the article.

And they don’t have to be. You obviously have a lot invested in
setting up Wade as an authority but he simply isn’t in this matter.

Let us also remember that I did address his arguments.

quote:
Of course. I think you misunderstand why I posted a message about Wade's article. I consider it an explanation for why the engineered hypothesis is now receiving increased attention. I don't consider it a conclusive argument for the engineered hypothesis, nor, as you'll find if you actually read the article, does Wade.

No, you go further than that. You take the article as putting the engineered hypothesis on at least a rough par with the natural origin hypothesis, but the evidence is pretty weak and it really needs to be better.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Percy, posted 06-13-2021 2:34 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Percy, posted 06-13-2021 5:41 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 100 of 460 (886886)
06-14-2021 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Percy
06-13-2021 5:41 PM


Re: A Lab Origin for SARS-CoV-2
quote:
You're mischaracterizing Wade's article. He's distilling information from the scientific community.

Is he? It doesn’t look that way to me. Which scientists claim that the furin cleavage is evidence of engineering? Is it a consensus view? What about the scientists who disagree?

quote:
Much of our information about the current state of research comes to us through science writers. It is nice when scientists themselves write for laypeople.

And I’ve always said that reading the original paper is better than trusting the science writers.

quote:
I really have nothing invested in this. I'm at a loss to understand why you've gone off the deep end about Wade. He explained why the engineered hypothesis is getting increased attention. That's it.

It is your defence of Wade that has “gone of the deep end”. That’s how I can tell that you are deeply invested.

quote:
None of this is true, either. I have said, and will now say again, I don't have an opinion about which is more likely.

This are contradictory claims. By default the natural origin is more likely by far, for reasons I’ve explained. Indeed, it seems too me that you really want support for the engineered hypothesis which is why you are so determined to defend Wade as an authority (to the point of attacking justified criticism). Certainly you have done nothing to defend his arguments.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Percy, posted 06-13-2021 5:41 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Percy, posted 06-14-2021 12:01 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 102 of 460 (886888)
06-14-2021 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Percy
06-14-2021 12:01 PM


Re: A Lab Origin for SARS-CoV-2
quote:
It's fine with me if you have a different opinion. I only find fault with the way you deal with information or opinions you disagree with, by attacking the person.

Your problem is that I refuse to accept Wade as an expert, and dare to believe 143 scientists who say that Wade misrepresented the science. It certainly isn’t that I refuse to discuss his arguments - because I did. You are the one who won’t do that.

quote:
You're either mischaracterizing or misconstruing the situation. No one is claiming the scientific community is divided into opposing camps of engineered versus natural origins. The actual situation is that more voices within the scientific community are coming forward in favor of a closer look at the engineered possibility.

No, I asked if Wade was really simply relaying the science or if it was his opinions. So I will ask again. Is it scientists who claim that the furin cleavage is adequate evidence of engineering or is that Wade’s opinion? And if it is scientists, who and where?

quote:
If one's competent in the field, sure. But most people are only competent in a limited number of scientific fields, if any. As they say, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and no one's better at misinterpreting a technical paper than someone with a little but not enough knowledge.

Which includes science writers.

quote:
Reading this again I still arrive at the same assessment: none of this is true. I don't think either hypothesis should be considered more likely at this point, but that more study should be done. The evidence for the engineered hypothesis is not "pretty weak" and is more than sufficient to justify a desire for more study and for more information from the Wuhan lab.

The contradiction is still there. Without evidence the natural hypothesis is more likely tha the engineered hypothesis.

quote:
You do say

And it’s true. You claim that it is unreasonable to believe tha 143 scientists, just because the brief letter did not detail the criticisms and because you suspect that they were just saying that to hide the racist implications of their work (which is the standard racist excuse). You didn’t even do even a minimal investigation - the criticisms aren’t secret and you could easily find at least some It’s pretty clear who is being unreasonable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Percy, posted 06-14-2021 12:01 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Percy, posted 06-15-2021 8:50 AM PaulK has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(4)
Message 106 of 460 (887575)
08-10-2021 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by riVeRraT
08-10-2021 2:41 PM


quote:
Before 2019 it was widely known that vaccines that don't kill the virus can make it mutate into stronger variants.

I think you mean vaccines which only protect against the symptoms - which is not the case of any of the COVID vaccines available.

quote:
Since vaccinated people can still carry and transmit the virus, I would say this is most likely true.

That’s pretty much true of every vaccine, so it doesn’t seem especially likely to be a problem with these,

quote:
So what does the vaccine actually solve? In the long run more people may die.

The massive reduction in hospitalisations alone saves lives. The reduced number of infections slows the spread. And fewer infected people means less risk of catching the disease - and fewer mutations in the virus. It’s the unvaccinated who are the problem.

quote:
We are being told to vaccinate to "stop the virus" ~Dr.Fauci
This seems to be a lie.

The rise of the Delta variant may have made it impossible to stop the virus right now, but vaccination is still a good thing.

quote:
Sounds like a money making machine to me.

Sounds like the lies of someone who wants people to die.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by riVeRraT, posted 08-10-2021 2:41 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by PaulK, posted 08-11-2021 10:11 AM PaulK has taken no action
 Message 131 by riVeRraT, posted 09-09-2021 9:25 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(2)
Message 110 of 460 (887584)
08-11-2021 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by PaulK
08-10-2021 3:12 PM


And Forbes takes down the nonsense.

The essential points are as I said.

The situation is different.

Most of the virus evolution - including the emergence of the Delta variant - is taking place in the unvaccinated.

And, another point:

Vaccine development doesn’t stand still. If we need new vaccines they can be produced. It even worked for the chickens - the whole claim is based on a study of chickens - so it can certainly work for us.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by PaulK, posted 08-10-2021 3:12 PM PaulK has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 124 of 460 (887928)
08-26-2021 1:18 AM


This may persuade Americans to get vaccinated
An insurance surcharge for the unvaccinated (Ars Technica). Hospitalisation for serious COVID cases is expensive and insurers are losing money. Delta Airlines is the first company to impose a surcharge on its employees - it’s not likely to be the last.

Given the infection risk of air travel I hope that vaccination is already mandatory for all aircrew - especially cabin staff.


Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by nwr, posted 08-26-2021 3:13 AM PaulK has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 126 of 460 (887931)
08-26-2021 4:21 AM


And more insanity from the US
Texas, of course.

Governor Abbott has reacted to the FDA approval of a COVID vaccine - by extending his order banning vaccination mandates so that it covers FDA approved vaccines.

The Republicans continue to be the pro-COVID party.


  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 132 of 460 (888186)
09-09-2021 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by riVeRraT
09-09-2021 9:25 AM


quote:
No that is not what I meant. The science behind what I am saying has been around for a half a century already.
Imperfect Vaccination Can Enhance the Transmission of Highly Virulent Pathogens

Then it’s odd that you cite a study based on a vaccine which only protects against the symptoms. See also Message 110

quote:
You can't really go by what you hear today about Covid, one because it is being politicized, and 2 because there hasn't been enough actual science done about what is happening.

Just because the Right has decided to support the virus doesn’t mean that the science isn’t being done.

quote:
You just completely by-passed my point. Right now it would appear that the vaccine is saving lives, but is it really? All the numbers being reported say that vaccinated people are half as likely to transmit the diseae. However, vaccinated people are 10x(?) more likely to go out into crowds and catch it. If it is possible that vaccines can make stronger pathogens appear, then our future doesn't look too bright.

No, I did not “bypass your point”. I pointed out that the vaccine is saving lives and went on to point out relevant issues. The fact that vaccinated people are less likely to catch and spread the virus is relevant - that is not the case with Marek’s disease in chickens. I’ll grant that people shouldn’t take the vaccine as a license to return to pre-COVID behaviour - but that isn’t a problem with the vaccine.

Right now the unvaccinated are the major problem.

quote:
Comments like these, the memes, and the fallacy about drinking bleach, are what led me to leave this forum for so long. I guess people are still not capable of rational discussion. Due to that fact, I can't really respect the opinions of anyone who behaves like that.

Well I’m glad you recognise that your opinions don’t deserve respect. And thank you for not inflicting them on us, even for a short while. I raised rational points against your argument and you just ignored them.

quote:
Just FYI, I am a Director of Facilities for a very large Nursing Home now. I worked through this entire pandemic and risked my life to save those of the elderly. I live in NY and had to endure Cuomo sending us Covid infected residents to a facility that is in no way set up to handle such an infectious disease. He put them all at risk, and me and my familiy. I watched people die. I also watched how the vaccine is saving them. I am not anti-vax. The vaccine is good for them, so far, but people are still getting sick and dying.

The fact that you are scaremongering about the vaccine undercuts those assertions.

quote:
So do me a favor and all of you take your stupid childish comments and stick them up your ass. The title of this thread is "we're saved".

Which was obvious hyperbole! Not to be taken seriously

quote:
I don't see that as a reality. In fact the end result may be worse....or not. 2 weeks to flatten the curve and herd immunity were both lies. We are just about at herd immunity, and Covid is worse than ever.

No, you are NOT near herd immunity. Herd immunity requires something in the range of 80-88% immune. (Wikipedia)
Only 60% of the total population of New York City is fully vaccinated (71% of adults) and rates are worse outside the city.

Spreading doubt about the vaccine will not help.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by riVeRraT, posted 09-09-2021 9:25 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by riVeRraT, posted 09-10-2021 9:08 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 144 of 460 (888775)
10-05-2021 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by riVeRraT
09-10-2021 9:08 AM


I missed this, hence de,Ahmed reply,

quote:
The virus and the vaccine do not have a political party. The right has made no such choice. I guess you forgot that Trump got all this under way.

I remember that Trump’s response was incoherent. I also note that the Right is strongly opposed to vaccine and masking mandates. DeSantis in Florida and Abbott in Texas are being problematic.

quote:
Thanks for proving my point about this being political, thanks to people like you.

That’s right, don’t blame the people who’ve made it political, just blame the people who point it out.

quote:
And you bypassed my point.....again.

And again, I didn’t bypass it, I refuted it.

quote:
No you haven't and you implied my motive, "that I want people to die". Stop lying.

Of course the fact that the vaccines effects are quite different in ways that directly relate to the issue is a rational point. The fact that the researcher who wrote the original study agrees is also a rational point. And I didn’t imply a motive either. But what motive would fit the spread of misinformation - obvious misinformation- that could lead to death ?

quote:
Facts are not scaremongering. Are you incapable of factual discussion?

You are scaremongering and you’re the one refusing to engage in factual discussion. The facts are that the two vaccines have very different effects, and claiming that they will produce similar results is scaremongering. The differences are very relevant.

quote:
Sorry, that's not what Fauci is preaching.

I read your link and there doesn’t seem to be much difference.

quote:
We will never reach herd immunity, since the vaccine doesn't make you immune.

No, if we don’t reach herd immunity it will be because of people like you opposing the effort.

quote:
Let me go over some of the lies that I lived through in real time:
There is no person to person transmission
This did not come from a lab
We did not fund gain of function research
Herd immunity will stop Covid
18 days to flatten the curve
Wearing 1 disposable mask a week is ok

Since the best evidence is that it didn’t come from a lab, calling that a lie is hardly honest. I don’t see one demonstrated lie in the lot (and that means proving that it was said, and that it was untrue to the best of our knowledge at the time it was said)

quote:
I can go on and on. Again, I remind you I am not anti-vax

You are just against the COVID vaccines. You’ve proved that with your scaremongering. And doubling down on it and lying after it was exposed.

quote:
I took the first shot of the vaccine and it almost killed me. Now it's mandated and my healthcare system won't write me an exemption (because of politcal bullshit). Everyone does not have to be vaccinated.

Everyone caring for the elderly does need to be vaccinated. Care homes are the last place you want an outbreak. Criticise Cuomo (and Boris) all you like for sending COVID patients into care homes - but don’t insist that the residents should be put at risk because you don’t want to be vaccinated.

quote:
This whole pandemic has been nothing but one bad decision after another

But here you are opposing the right decision, on spurious grounds.
Vaccine mandates in the care sector are a necessity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by riVeRraT, posted 09-10-2021 9:08 AM riVeRraT has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022