Octopus Overlords

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:07 pm**

Although you could still step in pee on the floor, smell the pee. Which is infinitely preferable to the stated alternative.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:08 pm**

Anonymous Bosch wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:03 pm
ImLawBoy wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 11:56 am I'm going to go with the medical/scientific consensus over Jeff's concerns.
"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period."
- Michael Crichton, MD.

Michael Crichton, MD, author of such garbage as Congo.

More relevant, why should I consider Jeff's non-scientific opinion on the subject over what the overwhelming majority (is that better than consensus for you?) of the scientific community seems to be saying?

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:09 pm**

It’s easier to see with better visuals.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:23 pm**

ImLawBoy wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:08 pm
Anonymous Bosch wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:03 pm
ImLawBoy wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 11:56 am I'm going to go with the medical/scientific consensus over Jeff's concerns.
"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period."
- Michael Crichton, MD.
Michael Crichton, MD, author of such garbage as Congo.

More relevant, why should I consider Jeff's non-scientific opinion on the subject over what the overwhelming majority (is that better than consensus for you?) of the scientific community seems to be saying?

Do whatever floats your goat. Your comment just reminded me of the Crichton quote.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:27 pm**

"Quotes without context don't really add much." - ImLawBoy

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:28 pm**

And he may have a point.

Yet sometimes there isn't enough data yet for studies, and people still look to scientists for answers and recommendations. At which point a consensus among scientists is reached. And those are still the best informed answers you're likely to find until hard data is available.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:52 pm**

How big are the droplets that the virus is hitching a ride on? Are masks able to stop those? If yes, sounds like a win to me.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:54 pm**

Alefroth wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:52 pm How big are the droplets that the virus is hitching a ride on? Are masks able to stop those? If yes, sounds like a win to me.

The answer is, some are too small to be stopped, others are stopped.

I think it's obvious that they would help in slowing down transmission.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:55 pm**

John Kay wrote:Consensus finds a way through conflicting opinions and interests. Consensus is achieved when the outcome of discussion leaves everyone feeling they have been given enough of what they want. The processes of proper science could hardly be more different. The accomplished politician is a negotiator, a conciliator, finding agreement where none seemed to exist. The accomplished scientist is an original, an extremist, disrupting established patterns of thought. Good science involves perpetual, open debate, in which every objection is aired and dissents are sharpened and clarified, not smoothed over.

Often the argument will continue for ever, and should, because the objective of science is not agreement on a course of action, but the pursuit of truth.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:57 pm**

ImLawBoy wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 11:56 am I'm going to go with the medical/scientific consensus over Jeff's concerns.

And that consensus is that masks are largely ineffectual for protecting one from the virus. They might be more helpful in preventing the spread of other illnesses, say, mono; and that in of itself would be a reason not to vigorously oppose the order. And what Blackhawk said, it gives false warm fuzzies and the scientists are probably getting a little weary of being harbingers of doom. At some point though the public will get weary of wearing them and lawsuits based on lack of proven scientific value will proliferate.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 1:13 pm**

Oh, great. Now we're expected to wear pants, too?

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 1:18 pm**

Face pants.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 1:18 pm**

Combustible Lemur wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:03 pm Keri sent me this yesterday

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

I saw something similar, but this comes with pictures

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 1:24 pm**

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 1:41 pm**

Jeff V wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:57 pm And that consensus is that masks are largely ineffectual for protecting one from the virus. They might be more helpful in preventing the spread of other illnesses, say, mono; and that in of itself would be a reason not to vigorously oppose the order. And what Blackhawk said, it gives false warm fuzzies and the scientists are probably getting a little weary of being harbingers of doom. At some point though the public will get weary of wearing them and lawsuits based on lack of proven scientific value will proliferate.

False warm fuzzies are still warm fuzzies. And if those warm fuzzies give people hope during a really, really dark time, then they're not really really false. Part of controlling a crisis is paying attention the psychological responses of the population and making sure that they're useful ones instead of harmful ones. Stone soup. Wartime patriotic drives. Night lights. Masks. If you can do something simple that does more good than harm and helps the population feel less helpless in the face of despair, why wouldn't you do it? Humans are more than the math.

And the idea that they have no practical value in slowing the spread also doesn't have any proven scientific basis.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 1:44 pm**

Jeff V wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:57 pm
ImLawBoy wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 11:56 am I'm going to go with the medical/scientific consensus over Jeff's concerns.
And that consensus is that masks are largely ineffectual for protecting one from the virus. They might be more helpful in preventing the spread of other illnesses, say, mono; and that in of itself would be a reason not to vigorously oppose the order. And what Blackhawk said, it gives false warm fuzzies and the scientists are probably getting a little weary of being harbingers of doom. At some point though the public will get weary of wearing them and lawsuits based on lack of proven scientific value will proliferate.

Putting to the side your dubious assertion that the consensus says that masks are ineffective for protecting one from the virus, there seems little doubt that they are effective in preventing transmission (or making transmission significantly more difficult, at least) from someone who is sick to someone who is not. Public health officials are nearly unanimous that the benefits of the masks outweigh the drawbacks. At this point, the arguments about a false sense of security are equivalent to the argument that seatbelts are dangerous because in a small percentage of cases they can cause further injury, which conveniently ignores the overall benefits of seatbelts to safety.

And I'd love to hear your theory on what lawsuits would be proliferate. Who are we suing? What are the damages? What is path to prove causation on these damages?

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 2:02 pm**

dbt1949 wrote: Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:49 pm I finally ordered some not as fancy as those masks. Whenever they letup on the lockdown everybody is going to be expected to wear them. <sigh>
At our governor's daily meeting today he says that when restaurants open up people have to wear masks. He left it like that. Finally reporter asked him how people were supposed to eat and he said after they got their food they could take their masks off.
I wonder how long he waited in anticipation for that question?
After the banks open their lobbies how many masked people are going to be robbers?

I read an article, on Eater LA, about how restaurant owners plan to handle reopening. When asked if employees will wear masks one owner replied yes but to him masks 'scream stay home...' and I thought he has a point. Even if you leave aside the practical issues, if it's still dangerous enough that everyone in the place needs to wear masks, am I really going to want go there and sit around long enough to have a meal?

Another point I've seen made elsewhere is that if the steps to reopen leave reopening schools as one of the last things to be done doesn't that imply that all the other things being reopened first are just lab experiments? If bars and restaurants are among the first to reopen, those employees and customers are the canaries in a coal mine. Enjoy your food!

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 2:07 pm**

naednek wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 1:18 pm
Combustible Lemur wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:03 pm Keri sent me this yesterday

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
I saw something similar, but this comes with pictures

I saw that too !

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 2:29 pm**

ImLawBoy wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 1:44 pm And I'd love to hear your theory on what lawsuits would be proliferate. Who are we suing? What are the damages? What is path to prove causation on these damages?

You really think workers that are compelled to return to work and subsequently contract the virus because they are exposed to others with it aren't going to try to sue under the pretense that their job did not provide adequate protection? I'm not saying that these lawsuits will all lead to massive outcomes for the plaintiffs, but as mentioned elsewhere any legislation that excuses employer liability could lead to a new era of gutted workplace safety.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 2:36 pm**

Unagi wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 2:07 pm
naednek wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 1:18 pm
Combustible Lemur wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:03 pm Keri sent me this yesterday

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
I saw something similar, but this comes with pictures

I saw that too !

Except no, that's not really accurate here. What would be more accurate is consider two sieves, one made of window screen, the other chicken wire. Drop a scoop of sand in each...the screen sieve will slow down the rate of flow and prevent larger particles from going through. Throw a scoop of sand in the chicken wire sieve and not only is nothing slowed, but nothing is stopped. A cloth mask is like the screen sieve when it comes to bacteria, it's like chicken wire when it comes to viruses. This is exactly the false sense of security I'm talking about.

Now, how long before the doofus in your cartoon realizes he's standing in a puddle of piss?

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 2:43 pm**

Jeff V wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 2:29 pm
ImLawBoy wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 1:44 pm And I'd love to hear your theory on what lawsuits would be proliferate. Who are we suing? What are the damages? What is path to prove causation on these damages?
You really think workers that are compelled to return to work and subsequently contract the virus because they are exposed to others with it aren't going to try to sue under the pretense that their job did not provide adequate protection? I'm not saying that these lawsuits will all lead to massive outcomes for the plaintiffs, but as mentioned elsewhere any legislation that excuses employer liability could lead to a new era of gutted workplace safety.

That's a different issue than the safety of wearing a facemask, which is what we were discussing. Unless you're trying to extend that say that people will sue because they got COVID despite their employers requiring them to wear facemasks? That's a pretty tall hill to climb for a number of reasons, including causation (unless there is some genetic marker or something saying that you got it from person A, there's no way to tell whether you got it at work vs. the gym vs. the grocery store, etc.) and actionable offense/tort (if employers are doing what the public health officials are recommending, good luck proving negligence).

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 2:46 pm**

Jeff V wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 2:36 pm Except no, that's not really accurate here. What would be more accurate is consider two sieves, one made of window screen, the other chicken wire. Drop a scoop of sand in each...the screen sieve will slow down the rate of flow and prevent larger particles from going through. Throw a scoop of sand in the chicken wire sieve and not only is nothing slowed, but nothing is stopped. A cloth mask is like the screen sieve when it comes to bacteria, it's like chicken wire when it comes to viruses. This is exactly the false sense of security I'm talking about.

Now, how long before the doofus in your cartoon realizes he's standing in a puddle of piss?

Indeed, pretending that viral fomites and piss moisture are somehow commensurate because of a meme equates to little more than self-delusion.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 2:48 pm**

Jeff V wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 2:36 pm
Unagi wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 2:07 pm
naednek wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 1:18 pm
Combustible Lemur wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:03 pm Keri sent me this yesterday

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
I saw something similar, but this comes with pictures

I saw that too !
Except no, that's not really accurate here. What would be more accurate is consider two sieves, one made of window screen, the other chicken wire. Drop a scoop of sand in each...the screen sieve will slow down the rate of flow and prevent larger particles from going through. Throw a scoop of sand in the chicken wire sieve and not only is nothing slowed, but nothing is stopped. A cloth mask is like the screen sieve when it comes to bacteria, it's like chicken wire when it comes to viruses. This is exactly the false sense of security I'm talking about.

Now, how long before the doofus in your cartoon realizes he's standing in a puddle of piss?

If I had Covid, would you rather I coughed in your face wearing a mask or not wearing a mask?

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 2:52 pm**

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 2:54 pm**

Sorry I interrupted the continuity.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 3:09 pm**

To those who thought there were 18 corona viruses before this one; no, the 19 refers to 2019. However, there were about 6-7 before this one, just not as deadly.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 3:20 pm**

Just caught the NC briefing and things are going well. We've hit 2 of 4 goals for entering Phase 1 re-opening, and based on current trends they're expecting we'll be able to begin Phase 1 next week.

I've been very impressed with the briefings - they come out with graphs, data, and reiterated several times how all decisions on re-opening were based on the data alone. But then continued to provide clear and concise explanations of that data.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 3:31 pm**

Four F35's from Hill Air Force Base just flew directly over our house as part of a healthcare worker/veterans "thank you". Damn, those things are loud.

I'd normally be annoyed at dropping a bunch of taxpayer $$ on something like this when there are such higher priorities, but my understanding is that these jets have to be flown semi-regularly as part of their standard maintenance.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 3:38 pm**

MA had its highest single-day death toll yesterday at 252. We're told that the rate of growth in new cases has leveled off, but it's still climbing by ~2500/day. No indication that that curve is going to point downward anytime soon.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 3:39 pm**

Skinypupy wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 3:31 pm Four F35's from Hill Air Force Base just flew directly over our house as part of a healthcare worker/veterans "thank you". Damn, those things are loud.

I'd normally be annoyed at dropping a bunch of taxpayer $$ on something like this when there are such higher priorities, but my understanding is that these jets have to be flown semi-regularly as part of their standard maintenance.

Flyovers are usually worked into training/maintenance schedules so they're not as big a waste of money as a lot of people like to say. I still think every baseball/football game is a bit excessive but for the most part if you're going to have them you have to fly them and if you have to fly them, why not do double-duty?

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 3:52 pm**

WA State COVID-19 Risk assessment dashboard (to be updated every Wednesday)
https://coronavirus.wa.gov/what-you-nee ... -dashboard
(links to some of the measurement criteria at the site)

roughly summarized, where 1 is low risk and 5 is high risk:

4/29/2020

COVID-19 Disease Activity: 2
Risk to Vulnerable Populations: 3
Testing Capacity and Availability: 4
Case and Contact Investigations: 3
Health Care System Readiness: 2

nothing will fully reopen until everything is at 1. within the past two weeks, we've seen resumption of construction activities and use of state parks/hunting/fishing.... assuming people don't screw this up, we can anticipate gradual, small and widely staggered openings into the future.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 4:42 pm**

Anonymous Bosch wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 11:00 am
noxiousdog wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 9:30 am I call your random opinion piece, and raise you a peer reviewed study.
OK... but we aren't playing poker here. Believe me, I very much hope mask-usage does help reduce transmission of this disease. But a study of disposable surgical and P2 masks that does not even address the washable/reusable cloth masks many are now relying upon -- largely due to the lack of availability of disposable surgical and P2 masks -- still does not equate to watertight evidence for the efficacy of compelling people to wear such masks in public to reduce transmission of the novel coronavirus.

It's about reducing transmission. Even a minor reduction can have a major impact.

Besides, there's some common sense stuff here. Mask wearing is prominent in Asia. Where has the best job been done reducing the spread of the disease? Asia. Coincidence? Maybe, but I'd err on the side of copying the folks that are succeeding.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 6:23 pm**

noxiousdog wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 4:42 pm
Anonymous Bosch wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 11:00 am
noxiousdog wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 9:30 am I call your random opinion piece, and raise you a peer reviewed study.
OK... but we aren't playing poker here. Believe me, I very much hope mask-usage does help reduce transmission of this disease. But a study of disposable surgical and P2 masks that does not even address the washable/reusable cloth masks many are now relying upon -- largely due to the lack of availability of disposable surgical and P2 masks -- still does not equate to watertight evidence for the efficacy of compelling people to wear such masks in public to reduce transmission of the novel coronavirus.
It's about reducing transmission. Even a minor reduction can have a major impact.

I don't disagree and share your hope for the impact on reduction.

noxiousdog wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 4:42 pmMask wearing is prominent in Asia. Where has the best job been done reducing the spread of the disease? Asia. Coincidence? Maybe, but I'd err on the side of copying the folks that are succeeding.

Indeed it is. But realistically we are not copying what was done in South Korea, where they took measures to ramp up domestic production and distribution of disposable face masks, and it's naive to assume we are. There's a world of difference between the washable/reusable cloth masks we're now encouraged to rely upon here and the adherence and usage of masks there. Suffice to say, I've lost count of how many workers and people I've seen at various stores wearing masks beneath their noses and chins. So I draw little comfort from the recommendations personally, but YMMV.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 6:47 pm**

Jeff V wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 2:36 pm A cloth mask is like the screen sieve when it comes to bacteria, it's like chicken wire when it comes to viruses.

Except a significant portion of the virus is coming in clumps (IE - droplets). If you're going to stick with the dirt metaphor, drop some dirt clods on that chicken wire. Some will get through. Some will not. Reduced, not eliminated.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 10:18 pm**

noxiousdog wrote: Wed Apr 29, 2020 1:05 pm
morlac wrote: Wed Apr 29, 2020 8:49 am
In my hood I would say 90% of the places that are allowed to open still have not. Longhorns was the only non local spot allowing inside dining. Them and my favorite hole in wall bar....er restaurant were the only ones I saw fully open. No gyms, a third of nail/hair places were open. So despite the Governors best efforts most buisness are staying closed.
We are going to be restricted to 25% capacity for a while even on things that are open.

How is nobody talking about the fact that 25% capacity = out of business for a restaurant. Seriously, you will accrue more debt being open at 25% capacity as a restaurant then you will be by just declaring bankruptcy. The only way that is sustainable for longer than a few months (really weeks for some places) is if the difference is subsidized by the govt. Think about it. A forced 25% capacity means in a perfect world with full allowed capacity even willing to show up you are netting 25% of what you used to. Is your rent/insurance/liquor license/wages/utilities/insurance/etc/etc/etc. going to be somehow automagically lowered 75% to offset your overhead? Hell no it isn't, can you imagine the buy in required from multiple industries to make that happen? It's complete and utter bullshit.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 10:21 pm**

morlac wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 10:18 pm
noxiousdog wrote: Wed Apr 29, 2020 1:05 pm
morlac wrote: Wed Apr 29, 2020 8:49 am
In my hood I would say 90% of the places that are allowed to open still have not. Longhorns was the only non local spot allowing inside dining. Them and my favorite hole in wall bar....er restaurant were the only ones I saw fully open. No gyms, a third of nail/hair places were open. So despite the Governors best efforts most buisness are staying closed.
We are going to be restricted to 25% capacity for a while even on things that are open.
How is nobody talking about the fact that 25% capacity = out of business for a restaurant. Seriously, you will accrue more debt being open at 25% capacity as a restaurant then you will be by just declaring bankruptcy. The only way that is sustainable for longer than a few months (really weeks for some places) is if the difference is subsidized by the govt. Think about it. A forced 25% capacity means in a perfect world with full allowed capacity even willing to show up you are netting 25% of what you used to. Is your rent/insurance/liquor license/wages/utilities/insurance/etc/etc/etc. going to be somehow automagically lowered 75% to offset your overhead? Hell no it isn't, can you imagine the buy in required from multiple industries to make that happen? It's complete and utter bullshit.

I'm not sure I buy that as the number of restaurants doing take-out is significant. I fully expect you're right in a number of cases, but 25% is better than 0 and we have to start somewhere.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 10:27 pm**

morlac wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 10:18 pm Is your rent/insurance/liquor license/wages/utilities/insurance/etc/etc/etc. going to be somehow automagically lowered 75% to offset your overhead?

No/no/no/yes/yes/no/maybe/maybe/maybe.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 11:14 pm**

noxiousdog wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 10:21 pm
morlac wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 10:18 pm
noxiousdog wrote: Wed Apr 29, 2020 1:05 pm
morlac wrote: Wed Apr 29, 2020 8:49 am
In my hood I would say 90% of the places that are allowed to open still have not. Longhorns was the only non local spot allowing inside dining. Them and my favorite hole in wall bar....er restaurant were the only ones I saw fully open. No gyms, a third of nail/hair places were open. So despite the Governors best efforts most buisness are staying closed.
We are going to be restricted to 25% capacity for a while even on things that are open.
How is nobody talking about the fact that 25% capacity = out of business for a restaurant. Seriously, you will accrue more debt being open at 25% capacity as a restaurant then you will be by just declaring bankruptcy. The only way that is sustainable for longer than a few months (really weeks for some places) is if the difference is subsidized by the govt. Think about it. A forced 25% capacity means in a perfect world with full allowed capacity even willing to show up you are netting 25% of what you used to. Is your rent/insurance/liquor license/wages/utilities/insurance/etc/etc/etc. going to be somehow automagically lowered 75% to offset your overhead? Hell no it isn't, can you imagine the buy in required from multiple industries to make that happen? It's complete and utter bullshit.
I'm not sure I buy that as the number of restaurants doing take-out is significant. I fully expect you're right in a number of cases, but 25% is better than 0 and we have to start somewhere.

A lot of restaurants that I know of here haven't seen a big enough bump in take-out to make it worth staying open. The costs of running the restaurant remain too high. One popular chain that we work with shut down all of their stores throughout the state almost immediately. I would be shocked if they open back up with just 25% capacity.

Unfortunately, my business is to get people to hang out at bars and restaurants for a couple of hours. Even if the restaurants open up, they won't want entertainment like us because at 25% capacity they will need those tables turning over multiple times a night.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 11:43 pm**

A lot of times on the nightly news I see videos of this place or that place is disinfecting or sanitizing their place. Gyms, YMCA, Schools...whatever. My question is why? From all we've been told the very most covid19 stays alive on a surface is 4 days. So these places that have been closed since early to mid March are spraying 2 - 4 times or more for what reason? The school teacher said they were wiping down everything with Clorox wipes. Couldn't they just let it sit there and it will basically die and clean itself in a week..

Posted: **Fri May 01, 2020 1:59 am**

Isgrimnur wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 10:27 pm
morlac wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 10:18 pm Is your rent/insurance/liquor license/wages/utilities/insurance/etc/etc/etc. going to be somehow automagically lowered 75% to offset your overhead?
No/no/no/yes/yes/no/maybe/maybe/maybe.

I really doubt your utilities will go down 75% because you're serving 75% fewer people and likely wages won't either.

Octopus Overlords

[Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

Re: [Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread