Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Relaxation of Restrictions, Part X *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

Options
1…219220222224225…329

Comments

  • Options
    #6632
    niallo27
    Registered Users Posts: 16,010 ✭✭✭✭niallo27


    ypres5 wrote: »
    So all the posts about irish people and southern reg cars being attacked were a group hallucination on the part of the people here? Considering I'm not the first person to reference them.

    Stop replying honestly, it's not good for your health. It's endless bull****.


  • Options
    #6633
    darconio
    Registered Users Posts: 932 ✭✭✭darconio


    charlie14 wrote: »
    What is so difficult for you to understand in relation to a country`s official statistics ?
    What you are attempting to demonstrate is using a document that is not official state statistics.

    The official state statistical authority for Ireland is the Central Statistics Office.
    Every country in the E.U. has one. Recognised by it`s own government and Eurostat as such. Until the CSO publish the complete records, anything else is supposition.

    You have been making much of WHO "directives" and "guidelines" inflating Covid deaths. What the WHO have to say is not going to make a blind bit of difference as to what the figure is. Excess deaths when they are officially known for Ireland will do that. Same as they already do for the rest of the E.U., showing that excess deaths coincide with the various Covid waves.

    If by chance your document is correct, (and on HIQA`s past record I would not bet too much on that if I was you), then it will just show how much more successful we have been in minimising Covid deaths compared to not just in the E.U. but in the world.
    If you have so much faith in this document then can I take it you acknowledge that ?

    I see you don't want to simply acknowledge the evidence: if the numbers that make your statistics are incorrect, the resulting statistics won't be correct.
    That's it I'm out, I won't explain this anymore.
    If official reports are considered correct/incorrect only when they support your agenda then I'm afraid it doesn't make any sense to even have a conversation.


  • Options
    #6634
    User1998
    Registered Users Posts: 6,016 ✭✭✭User1998


    charlie14 wrote: »
    I really do not understand what point you are making. Other than perhaps that we should just have ignored a transmittable virus that in a year has caused over 3 Million+ deaths on the basis that if you die you die.


    If it is then maybe we should abondon all medical interventions regardless.

    People die all the time that’s just apart of life. I don’t see the big deal about having say 10% more worldwide deaths for 1 year. Its 1 year out of thousands and thousands of years that people have been on this earth. Think of the bigger picture


  • Options
    #6635
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 14,912 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    darconio wrote: »
    I see you don't want to simply acknowledge the evidence: if the numbers that make your statistics are incorrect, the resulting statistics won't be correct.
    That's it I'm out, I won't explain this anymore.
    If official reports are considered correct/incorrect only when they support your agenda then I'm afraid it doesn't make any sense to even have a conversation.


    You really do appear to be very confused as to statistics that are regarded and acknowledged as a country`s official statistic and those that are not. Even if I have done my best to explain that to you.


    Official statistic have nothing to do with supporting an agenda or not. They simply are what they are, and the official statistics of the other 26 E.U. countries are at variance with what you are claiming.


    Who knows, perhaps your figures when the official statistics are known are correct. But you do not appear to even believe that yourself, as you keep avoiding answering the question that if they are then would that not show how extraordinarily effective Ireland has been in keeping Covid deaths so low.


  • Options
    #6636
    TomSweeney
    Registered Users Posts: 3,195 ✭✭✭TomSweeney


    So in Oregon they want to introduce an indefinte mask law ..... basically mask wearing forever ....

    In Canada they want the police to get new powers to keep people locked up in their homes, and asking people to snitch on their neighbours ..

    Canada is becoming a Fascist state.

    Evil evil people, also this at a time when vaccines are being ramped out ..


    https://youtu.be/jdMOAKpXiNc


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6637
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    normanoffside wrote: »
    I initially reported it as I heard it and in the context of the conversation I believe that is what he was saying. Then I went back and quoted his exact words which were that NPHET counted all deaths with covid. I.E. if you had covid at the time of death you were counted in the numbers.
    I believe that is saying the same thing anyway.
    Are you a professional arguer?You remind me of John Cleese in that Monty python scene

    Again that's your personal interpretation and spinning the word 'with'

    The died "with / of" covid has been dragged over the coals more time than I've had hot dinners already. It doesn't wash.

    For clarification see - the HSPC "Can you describe what death in confirmed/probable/possible case of COVID-19 means?"

    https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/surveillance/epidemiologyfrequentlyaskedquestions/

    https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/casedefinitions/covid-19interimcasedefinitionforireland/

    The above include stipulations that death due to Covid cannot be assigned where where there is a clear alternative cause of death (e.g. trauma).

    This is a discussion. So maybe drop the daft personalisation stuff. I could make similar asides - but you know what - I couldn't be arsed.

    Here are cases of people who have died with (of) covid and which were reported in the media and not by reason of being counted in the numbers...

    https://www.thejournal.ie/kilkenny-nurse-dies-covid-19-solson-saviour-5328571-Jan2021/

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53501389


  • Options
    #6638
    PintOfView
    Registered Users Posts: 857 ✭✭✭PintOfView


    Seweryn wrote: »
    Right at the start, it was obvious that the lockdowns and closures of hospital departments would kill far more people than the over-promoted virus.
    And that is exactly what has happened.
    What made that obvious?
    And what makes you think that the lockdowns did, in fact, kill far more people than covid?
    And what you do think would have happened if we didn't lockdown?

    Have you looked at the excess death rates in other countries (US, UK, etc)?
    Do you think they had a different virus to us?

    It's easy to claim anything, but a bit more difficult to back it up with reason and logic!


  • Options
    #6639
    normanoffside
    Registered Users Posts: 9,971 ✭✭✭normanoffside


    gozunda wrote: »
    Again that's your personal interpretation and spinning the word 'with'

    The died old with / of covid has been dragged over the coals more time than I've had hot dinners already. It doesn't wash.

    For clarification see - the HSPC "Can you describe what death in confirmed/probable/possible case of COVID-19 means?"

    https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/surveillance/epidemiologyfrequentlyaskedquestions/

    https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/casedefinitions/covid-19interimcasedefinitionforireland/

    The above include stipulations that death due to Covid cannot be assigned where where there is a clear alternative cause of death (e.g. trauma).

    This is a discussion. So maybe drop the daft personalisation stuff. I could make similar asides - but you know what - I couldn't be arsed.

    Here are cases of people who have died with (of) covid and which were reported in the media

    https://www.thejournal.ie/kilkenny-nurse-dies-covid-19-solson-saviour-5328571-Jan2021/

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53501389


    You refuse to understand plain English as spoken by Glynn and Varadkar in the context the statements were made.

    There is really is really no point arguing with you.

    Please don't reply with your essays to me any more as I won't be responding so you're wasting your time.


  • Options
    #6640
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 14,912 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    User1998 wrote: »
    People die all the time that’s just apart of life. I don’t see the big deal about having say 10% more worldwide deaths for 1 year. Its 1 year out of thousands and thousands of years that people have been on this earth. Think of the bigger picture


    That really has to be up there with the craziest replies I have ever recieved.



    The world population increased by 1.08% last year. Down from 1.08% for 2019, 1.1% for 2018 and 1.12% for 2016.
    If you are having deaths of 10% year on year, do you not perhaps see a flaw in your thousands of years big picture theory.

    Actually don`t bother replying. On second thought I really have no interest in having a discussion with someone who looks on over 3 Million worldwide deaths a year due to a particular virus as an irrevelance.


  • Options
    #6641
    PintOfView
    Registered Users Posts: 857 ✭✭✭PintOfView


    TomSweeney wrote: »
    So in Oregon they want to introduce an indefinte mask law ..... basically mask wearing forever ....

    In Canada they want the police to get new powers to keep people locked up in their homes, and asking people to snitch on their neighbours ..

    Canada is becoming a Fascist state.

    Evil evil people, also this at a time when vaccines are being ramped out ..


    https://youtu.be/jdMOAKpXiNc

    Your first sentence is inaccurate and misleading (and the rest of your post is fantasy).
    You should check out for yourself what the indefinite mask law was about!
    Perhaps update the record here with the reality after you check!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6642
    User1998
    Registered Users Posts: 6,016 ✭✭✭User1998


    charlie14 wrote: »
    That really has to be up there with the craziest replies I have ever recieved.



    The world population increased by 1.08% last year. Down from 1.08% for 2019, 1.1% for 2018 and 1.12% for 2016.
    If you are having deaths of 10% year on year, do you not perhaps see a flaw in your thousands of years big picture theory.

    Who said anything about year on year? This is for one year and one year only. We’ve had 3 million with/of covid deaths in a year compared to 55 million general deaths.

    You also have to consider that there are almost 8 billion people walking the earth.

    What I’m saying is that if we had of relaxed with the whole worldwide lockdowns and ended up with 10% excess deaths for one year and one year only would it had really been a massive deal? Its one year out of thousands of years that humans have walked this earth

    Death in old age is natural and it seems that some people have forgotten that. I know its awful for families to have a loved one die but these things inevitably happen unfortunately


  • Options
    #6643
    PaulJoseph22
    Registered Users Posts: 500 ✭✭✭PaulJoseph22


    Seweryn wrote: »
    The explanation is simple, but there are no official figures supporting the fact.

    Right at the start, it was obvious that the lockdowns and closures of hospital departments would kill far more people than the over-promoted virus. And that is exactly what has happened.

    Hospital departments were shut and hospital staff with not enough to do performed funny dances which were put onto the internet to entertain the patients who were being denied medical treatment. Politicians claimed that hospitals were under huge pressure, but the figures showed that wards and intensive care units were emptier than usual.

    So called cure (the lockdown policies and the refusal to treat other patients to "protect" them from infection) kills far more people than the disease. But no, you will not find it in official figures. Because who is going to admit and explain this? Corrupted politicians or lying doctors?

    This, an absolute disgrace that everything ignored apart from Covid.
    The only way I could get a hospital appointment this year was to go to a private hospital and pay for it.
    This country is a disgrace.


  • Options
    #6644
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    PintOfView wrote: »
    Your first sentence is inaccurate and misleading (and the rest of your post is fantasy).
    You should check out for yourself what the indefinite mask law was about!
    Perhaps update the record here with the reality after you check!

    This is the proposed ordinance with regard to masks in Oregon.
    PORTLAND, Ore. (AP)...

    A top health official is considering indefinitely extending rules requiring masks and social distancing in all businesses in the state.

    The proposal would keep the rules in place until they are “no longer necessary to address the effects of the pandemic in the workplace.”

    https://ktvz.com/news/2021/04/17/as-mask-mandates-end-oregon-bucks-trend-with-permanent-rule-sparking-uproar/

    Thing is that the alternative reality is getting worse. I've no doubt much of social media is leading the charge with spreading some of these whackey ideas ie that we're all going to be forced to wear masks forever is up there with all deaths being recorded "with covid" just to artificially inflate death numbers. The whole thing just gets crazier and crazier every time tbh.


  • Options
    #6645
    PTH2009
    Registered Users Posts: 37,981 ✭✭✭✭PTH2009


    Is tomorrow the big day or will it be next Tuesday in regards deciding on the restrictions ?


  • Options
    #6646
    Stormyteacup
    Registered Users Posts: 986 ✭✭✭Stormyteacup


    gozunda wrote: »
    Again that's your personal interpretation and spinning the word 'with'

    The died "with / of" covid has been dragged over the coals more time than I've had hot dinners already. It doesn't wash.

    For clarification see - the HSPC "Can you describe what death in confirmed/probable/possible case of COVID-19 means?"

    https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/surveillance/epidemiologyfrequentlyaskedquestions/

    https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/casedefinitions/covid-19interimcasedefinitionforireland/

    The above include stipulations that death due to Covid cannot be assigned where where there is a clear alternative cause of death (e.g. trauma).

    This is a discussion. So maybe drop the daft personalisation stuff. I could make similar asides - but you know what - I couldn't be arsed.

    Here are cases of people who have died with (of) covid and which were reported in the media and not by reason of being counted in the numbers...

    https://www.thejournal.ie/kilkenny-nurse-dies-covid-19-solson-saviour-5328571-Jan2021/

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53501389

    So strange - I posted the HSE links yesterday evening and this morning in another thread to completely disprove what you are trying to allege.

    Please read the reply to question on the HSE website again. The stipulations apply only to a probable or possible case - where the attending medical professional can make a call in the absence of an ante-mortem test.

    For all deaths with confirmed tests ante-mortem;

    ‘Deaths in confirmed COVID-19 case: A death in a person with laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 infection, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms (including post mortem).’

    It really couldn’t be any clearer.


  • Options
    #6647
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 14,912 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    User1998 wrote: »
    Who said anything about year on year? This is for one year and one year only. We’ve had 3 million with/of covid deaths in a year compared to 55 million general deaths.

    You also have to consider that there are almost 8 billion people walking the earth.

    What I’m saying is that if we had of relaxed with the whole worldwide lockdowns and ended up with 10% excess deaths for one year and one year only would it had really been a massive deal? Its one year out of thousands of years that humans have walked this earth

    Death in old age is natural and it seems that some people have forgotten that. I know its awful for families to have a loved one die but these things inevitably happen unfortunately


    Death will come to us all, but it seems you have an idea as to what age there should be no medical intervention to prolong life

    There are a few other flaws in your no world lockdown theory, but tbh on your natural death belief and your, to paraphrase, "shucks sure over 3 Million deaths from a virus is nothing", as I said it`s a conversation I have no wish to engage in.


  • Options
    #6648
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Stormyteacup wrote: »
    So strange - I posted the HSE links yesterday evening and this morning in another thread to completely disprove what you are trying to allege.Please read the reply to question on the HSE website again. The stipulations apply only to a probable or possible case - where the attending medical professional can make a call in the absence of an ante-mortem test.For all deaths with confirmed tests ante-mortem;

    ‘Deaths in confirmed COVID-19 case: A death in a person with laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 infection, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms (including post mortem).’

    It really couldn’t be any clearer.

    Did you? What HSE links yesterday? Yes I agree it is quite clear.

    The above is the HPSC website detailing the ECDC guidelines for reporting/ determining covid deaths.

    There are three categories for reporting / determining Covid deaths viz

    The first relates to covid cases / deaths which have unequivocally been confirmed by laboratory tests. Its not difficult to understand.

    Deaths in confirmed COVID-19 case: A death in a person with laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 infection, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms (including post mortem).

    The wording is rather brief- but what it effectively means is that where a person dies as a result of covid which has been determined by a laboratory confirmation- then other criteria do not have to be applied. It does not mean that if you get a positive test this year, recover and get hit by a bus in 10 years time - that cause of death will be put down as a covid related death. It won't.

    The next two are confirmed not by laboratory tests but with regard to a medical diagnosis etc.

    Deaths in probable COVID-19 case: A death in a person with probable COVID-19 infection

    Where a Probable case is defined as
    "Any person meeting the clinical criteria with an epidemiological link
    OR
    Any person meeting the diagnostic imaging criteria"

    Where Clinical criteria

    A patient with acute respiratory infection (sudden onset of at least one of the following; cough, fever1, shortness of breath)

    OR

    Sudden onset of anosmia2, ageusia3 or dysgeusia4

    OR

    A patient with severe acute respiratory infection (fever and at least one sign/symptom of respiratory disease (e.g. cough, fever, shortness of breath)) AND requiring hospitalisation (SARI) AND with no other aetiology that fully explains the clinical presentation.

    Clinical judgement should be applied in application of these criteria to determine who requires testing.

    Diagnostic imaging criteria
    Radiological evidence showing lesions compatible with COVID-19

    Deaths in possible/suspect COVID-19 case:

    Possible Case classification

    Any person meeting the clinical criteria (see above)


    For full definitions of each of the above see link

    https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/casedefinitions/covid-19interimcasedefinitionforireland/


  • Options
    #6649
    Dr. Bre
    Registered Users Posts: 7,576 ✭✭✭Dr. Bre


    PTH2009 wrote: »
    Is tomorrow the big day or will it be next Tuesday in regards deciding on the restrictions ?

    Next 2 weeks I hear ...


  • Options
    #6650
    Sharpyshoot
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 452 ✭✭Sharpyshoot


    Dr. Bre wrote: »
    Next 2 weeks I hear ...

    Are critical.


  • Options
    #6651
    Stormyteacup
    Registered Users Posts: 986 ✭✭✭Stormyteacup


    gozunda wrote: »
    Did you? What HSE links yesterday

    The above is the HPSC website detailing the ECDC guidelines for reporting/ determining covid deaths.

    I've no idea what you've posted btw.

    Hardly matters - it was an aside, remarking on the coincidence. It’s here; https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058179140&page=2

    Any comment on the answer to the question on HSPC -

    ‘Q. Can you describe what death in confirmed/probable/possible case of COVID-19 means?’

    I’ll post the response re confirmed cases just in case;

    ‘Deaths in confirmed COVID-19 case: A death in a person with laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 infection, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms (including post mortem).‘

    Thereafter probable and possible cases are explained - but confirmed cases are stand alone as being reported irrespective of clinical signs.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6652
    Sharpyshoot
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 452 ✭✭Sharpyshoot


    Allinall wrote: »
    You do realise the members of NPHET were on the same salary before Covid, and will be after COVID?

    There will be no after COVID, you do realise that?


  • Options
    #6653
    User1998
    Registered Users Posts: 6,016 ✭✭✭User1998


    charlie14 wrote: »
    Death will come to us all, but it seems you have an idea as to what age there should be no medical intervention to prolong life

    There are a few other flaws in your no world lockdown theory, but tbh on your natural death belief and your, to paraphrase, "shucks sure over 3 Million deaths from a virus is nothing", as I said it`s a conversation I have no wish to engage in.

    Do you class putting the whole world into lockdown and telling me I cant travel further than 5km from my home and stopping me and my family from earning a living as ‘medical intervention’?

    You’d swear I suggested that old people should be refused access to ventilators and ICU rooms

    Conversation is over now if you insist


  • Options
    #6654
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 14,912 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    User1998 wrote: »
    Do you class putting the whole world into lockdown and telling me I cant travel further than 5km from my home and stopping me and my family from earning a living as ‘medical intervention’?

    You’d swear I suggested that old people should be refused access to ventilators and ICU rooms

    Conversation is over now if you insist


    Bye bye.


  • Options
    #6655
    Stormyteacup
    Registered Users Posts: 986 ✭✭✭Stormyteacup


    gozunda wrote: »
    The wording is rather brief- but what it effectively means is that where a person dies as a result of covid which has been determined by a laboratory confirmation- then other criteria do not have to be applied. It does not mean that if you get a positive test this year, recover and get hit by a bus in 10 years time - that cause of death will be put down as a covid related death. It won't.

    Nice manoeuvring. However the above from your edited post is the most pertinent bit.

    Just again - regardless of clinical signs, if you die and you are a confirmed covid case with no recovery period before death - you are included in the statistics announced in the reported deaths with covid. Irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms.


  • Options
    #6656
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Stormyteacup wrote: »
    Nice manoeuvring. However the above from your edited post is the most pertinent bit.

    Just again - regardless of clinical signs, if you die and you are a confirmed covid case with no recovery period before death - you are included in the statistics announced in the reported deaths with covid. Irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms.

    No manoeuvring whatsoever. I think you are trying to read more into that than it warrants.

    Again the actual wording. Of the first of three defined categories - ie confirmed, possible and probable.

    "Deaths in confirmed COVID-19 case: A death in a person with laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 infection, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms (including post mortem)". From talking to someone I know well who is a doctor - the last line is taken to read as "irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms (including post mortem) of covid". And that from covid-19 hospital based training.

    If you have no "recovery period" before your death and that infection by covid is confirmed by laboratory testing - then there's not really any wriggle room for other interpretations. "Irrespective" does not mean the signs and symptoms of covid do not contribute to the patients death - rather those antecedent causes are not assessed following death once a laboratory confirmation for covid has been undertaken / person has proved positive.

    The unstated part of this process is that the certification for all deaths requires a clinical assessment of each case.

    I believe you noted earlier that - "there should be no period of complete recovery from Covid-19 between illness and death". The document that is taken from also states that a death due to Covid-19 may not be attributed to another disease (e.g. cancer) and should be counted independently of pre-existing conditions that are suspected of triggering a severe course of COVID-19.”


  • Options
    #6657
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    gozunda wrote: »
    No manoeuvring whatsoever. I think you are trying to read more into that than it warrants.

    Again the actual wording. Of the first of three defined categories - ie confirmed, possible and probable.

    "Deaths in confirmed COVID-19 case: A death in a person with laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 infection, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms (including post mortem)". From talking to someone I know well who is a doctor - the last line is taken to read as "irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms (including post mortem) of covid". And that from covid-19 hospital based training.

    If you have no "recovery period" before your death and that infection by covid is confirmed by laboratory testing - then there's not really any wriggle room for other interpretations. "Irrespective" does not mean the signs and symptoms of covid do not contribute to the patients death - rather those antecedent causes are not assessed following death once a laboratory confirmation for covid has been undertaken / person has proved positive.

    The unstated part of this process is that the certification for all deaths requires a clinical assessment of each case.

    I believe you noted earlier that - "there should be no period of complete recovery from Covid-19 between illness and death". The document that is taken from also states that a death due to Covid-19 may not be attributed to another disease (e.g. cancer) and should be counted independently of pre-existing conditions that are suspected of triggering a severe course of COVID-19.”

    Some real statisticians have look at the data and found massive excess mortality. This data does not include Ireland as our data is not finalised. No doubt we will be told the data is not relevant because <insert bs here>

    550754.JPG


    Included in the graph is a line for Norway, which shows a country that had lockdowns but had no excess deaths. Does they mean they didn't need a lockdown or that the lockdown worked? Where were all their excess deaths caused by lockdown?


  • Options
    #6658
    RayCon
    Registered Users Posts: 4,842 ✭✭✭RayCon


    PTH2009 wrote: »
    Is tomorrow the big day or will it be next Tuesday in regards deciding on the restrictions ?


    The first leaks are scheduled for this weekend ...


  • Options
    #6659
    Sobit1964
    Registered Users Posts: 550 ✭✭✭Sobit1964


    https://twitter.com/pub_politics/status/1381540513615114244

    Outdoor hospitality you say


  • Options
    #6660
    Allinall
    Registered Users Posts: 6,582 ✭✭✭Allinall


    Sharpyshoot wrote: »

    There will be no after COVID, you do realise that?

    What point are you trying to make?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6661
    DellyBelly
    Registered Users Posts: 2,901 ✭✭✭DellyBelly


    They are talking about this so called Indian variant on rte news. Sounds serious. Everytime I feel I see the light at the end of the tunnel a bit of bad news comes out to dampen my optimism..


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement