2019 NCOV a.k.a. Wuhan's Diseases

kbd512 · 2021-04-13 12:00:12

Louis,

So, you either take a vaccine and your DNA mutates, or you become infected with the virus, and if you survive, then your DNA mutates?

Is it better to deal with the effects of the mutation with or without a potentially life threatening illness in progress?

If you succumb to the virus first, then it doesn't matter if your DNA mutates, does it?

Calliban · 2021-04-13 12:38:03

Kbd512, it is all about the balance of risk. There is a societal risk from corona virus. There is a societal risk from the vaccine, but also societal benefits. If we knew straight off that the risks involved with taking this vaccine were lower than the risk of dying from coronavirus for everyone taking it, there would be no grounds for debate. The risks don't actually need to be zero for it to be worth taking the vaccine. But what if taking the vaccine involved significant risks and for some of those taking it, those risks outweighed the risk of the virus? What if, for example, the vaccine was found to cause long term damage in young people (with virtually no risk from the virus in this population set) and all of the societal benefits of herd vaccination were enjoyed by the old, close to the end of their natural lives.

I don't know whether any of this is really the case. But I think it is a plausible scenario. There is also the issues of public money being used to fund a vaccine that may not offer good value for money in terms of risk avoided per pound or dollar spent. We aren't exactly short of things to spend money on.

kbd512 · 2021-04-13 13:16:00

Calliban,

If we had a reliable method for figuring out who would have a severe adverse reaction to contracting the virus, then we'd vaccinate those people and allow everyone else to contract the virus through natural means. Between natural and artificial herd immunity, we would achieve the end goal of removing the stated reason for allowing our "Little Hitlers" to continue acting like Hitler. At that point, it would be obvious to everyone not held captive by their ideological dogma that the real reason for the rest of the nonsense was theatrics and media-induced irrational fear over a new little nasty that primarily kills old fat people, and not much of anyone else. I don't want to give our "Little Hitlers" a leg to stand on. I'm 40, so I'm taking my vaccine. The younger people can weigh the risks and benefits according to personal beliefs, but I won't be having more children and have little expectation that I'll still be around in 20 years or so with the way things are going. I'm running the experiment on myself before I run it on my children. I've had precisely zero reactions to the dozens of vaccines I've taken over the years. My arm hurts for a day or two, but that's it. Similarly, my children have had no reactions to any of the vaccines that they've taken.

I'm not telling anyone else what to do, but I want anti-logic logic to be called out for what it is. For all I know, this latest vaccine could be a "ticking time bomb" intended to kill everyone in precisely 5 years 2 days and 34 seconds, but I really REALLY doubt it.

Do scientists make mistakes? Sure. That happens frequently.

Do they often make mistakes that kill off a good portion of the world's population or render them sterile or any similarly drastically adverse outcomes? Well, just look around. There's more people every single year, with more and more of them being healthier and healthier as medical science continues to advance.

But you're right, and so is Louis, but only to a point. Everything is a risk. However, he's already made up his mind and so have I.

Calliban · 2021-04-13 14:24:26

I am 41 and haven't been offered the vaccine yet. I would have it were it offered. I had coronavirus in April last year. It wasn't pleasant. I have been more ill with flu in the past, but I can see how it might see off someone in their 80s. It was comparable really. But more infectious. From a personal viewpoint, I am prepared to take the vaccine. I do not have the full story in terms of relative risks and benefits. But without it, my options would be more limited.

kbd512 · 2021-04-13 15:23:40

I'm taking the Pfizer Vaccine as soon as I can get my hands on a dose. I'll continue to wear my mask, but if it puts everyone else at ease, it's free and I paid my tax money to develop it, so I should get my piece of what my tax dollars paid for.

SpaceNut · 2021-04-13 20:19:50

Here the reality of getting the shot https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc … vents.html

Over 189 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through April 12, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 3,005 reports of death (0.00158%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.

Infections counted to deaths
United States cases Updated Apr 13 at 9:56 PM local
Confirmed 31,538,511 Deaths 568,786

Thats 0.018138% as compared to 0.00158%

SpaceNut · 2021-04-14 20:29:56

got my second shot today this one was administered into the right arm this time and not the left for the Moderma vaccine.

This story almost seem untrue so more research will be needed to if it really did cure cancer. Cancer patient saw disease all but vanish after catching Covid

sparked an "anti-tumour immune response" in the man.
The 61-year-old patient at the Royal Cornwall Hospital in Truro had a check-up last summer after being diagnosed with Hogkin's Lymphoma, a rare blood cancer that affects 2,100 people in the UK each year.
The disease, which occurs when white blood cells get out of control and spread to the lymph nodes, is typically treated with chemotherapy and around 90 per cent of patients are still alive five years afterwards.
Days after being told his chest was riddled with tumours and before starting treatment, the man was admitted to hospital after developing severe Covid. After making a full recovery, he had another scan and discovered the cancer had almost completely disappeared.
Sudden remission with Hogkin's Lymphoma is possible but is extremely rare. Just a couple of dozen similar cases have ever been recorded worldwide.

Calliban · 2021-04-15 02:52:31

Some viruses target rapidly dividing cells. Herpes has been used as an experimental treatment for brain tumours. It doesn't cure it as such. But it halts all further growth. So this COVID story is probably real.

Many lines of research end up being ignored in medicine, because pharmaceutical companies cannot make money out of them. Changing diet, eliminating alcohol and refined carbohydrates can make a dramatic difference to a person's chances of survival following cancer diagnosis. Yet how many people are given that basic advice?

SpaceNut · 2021-04-16 19:10:09

Sorry last night I was under the weather from the reaction of the second shot of Moderma vaccine as it produced the all over aches and pains with chills even though I felt warm to the touch. Could not focus on what I was reading with the headache so went to bed early so as to get extra rest. Felt fine by morning with no lasting effects to receiving the shot.

GW Johnson · 2021-04-17 12:37:06

Spacenut:

Many of us had side effects similar to yours, myself included, after the second Moderna shot. Not the first, but the second had me feeling poor for about 36 hours. No lasting effects.

GW

louis · 2021-04-17 17:46:04

Shouldn't you add "As far as I know." ?

We vaccine sceptics keep getting told by you vaccine enthusiasts we are going to die horrible deaths as punishment for our scepticism, so I think it's only fair I point that out.

GW Johnson wrote:

Spacenut:
Many of us had side effects similar to yours, myself included, after the second Moderna shot. Not the first, but the second had me feeling poor for about 36 hours. No lasting effects.
GW

tahanson43206 · 2021-04-26 08:52:52

Little by little knowledge increases ...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/staying-6-fe … 32760.html

Staying 6 feet apart indoors does almost nothing to stop the spread of COVID-19, MIT study finds
Marianne Guenot
Mon, April 26, 2021 7:27 AM
The widely-used 6 ft rule does little to prevent COVID-9 exposure indoors, MIT researchers found.
The risk of exposure from an infected person is similar at 6 ft and 60 ft, one researcher said.
The study said that mask-wearing, ventilation, and what a space is used for are bigger variables.
<snip>
Mark Bazant and John Bush, both MIT professors in applies mathematics, developed a formula to estimate how long it would take for a person to hit dangerous levels of exposure from one infected person entering a room.
The calculation is more sophisticated version of the traffic light system previously proposed by MIT. It takes into account the number of people in the room, the space of the size, what they are doing, whether masks are being worn, and what kind of ventilation is in place.
Using this calculation, it could be that the level of exposure is high in some spaces even if people are more than 6 ft away. It could also be lower than expected.
"The distancing isn't helping you that much and it's also giving you a false sense of security because you're as safe at 6 ft as you are at 60 ft if you're indoors. Everyone in that space is at roughly the same risk, actually," Bazant told CNBC.
Scientific understanding of how the coronavirus moves in the air has challenged earlier assumptions about how best to adapt to minimize its spread.
At the beginning of the pandemic, it was widely believe that the virus travelled via droplets ejected during exhalation, sneezing, or speaking.
But newer evidence strongly suggests that the virus instead floats around on lighter aerosol droplets that can stay suspended in the air and travel much further than first thought.
In their calculation, the MIT researchers took into account the effect of having people in the room, and their behavior, on how long the virus would stay suspended in the air.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2021-04-26 18:26:48

Not everyone that is infected sheds the virus in the same particulate levels as another. That said its more than breathing that causes one to become infected....
Disinfecting cleaners, masks as well as distance are the means to slow and reduce the risk. Being outside with air flow and natural sun light are also another level of risk reducing conditions. Another for inside are the UV lights and air circulating vents are another.

louis · 2021-04-26 18:37:59

The idea that masks contribute to reduced risk of infection or transmission is totally unproven. You only have to see people fiddling with their masks all the time to know that in the real world masks encouraging people to touch their mouth and nose areas - which will be saturated with virus if they are infected, after which they touch surfaces.

Masks are also dangerous, in terms of inhaling plastic particles, reducing oxygenation and inhibiting expulsion of harmful pathogens.

And in a modern society you can't lockdown effectively. If you did people would be dying of starvation within a week. The reality in the UK is that during lockdown out of a population of 68 million, 11 million people were still travelling into places of work. Those 11 million will be mixing with another 15 million in households and the combined 26 million will have been mixing with the remainder of the population in supermarkets, petrol stations etc.

SpaceNut wrote:

Not everyone that is infected sheds the virus in the same particulate levels as another. That said its more than breathing that causes one to become infected....
Disinfecting cleaners, masks as well as distance are the means to slow and reduce the risk. Being outside with air flow and natural sun light are also another level of risk reducing conditions. Another for inside are the UV lights and air circulating vents are another.

SpaceNut · 2021-04-26 18:42:37

Then doctors do not need them right Louis....
People that will not stop fiddling with them are the problem and not the face mask....Or by the way a face shield also counts for those that have breathing issues as they block the direct sneeze or cough pathway.....

SpaceNut · 2021-05-01 12:13:47

Article posting Asian countries routinely give anti-COVID antivirals EARLY. They have 1/100th the fatalities of the West. That’s not a coincidence.

GW Johnson · 2021-05-02 10:56:16

"The idea that masks contribute to reduced risk of infection or transmission is totally unproven. You only have to see people fiddling with their masks all the time to know that in the real world masks encouraging people to touch their mouth and nose areas - which will be saturated with virus if they are infected, after which they touch surfaces."

That's a rather ridiculous statement, Louis. Masks have been proven for over 500 years now to reduce disease transmission in most cases, although no one really understood just how they really worked until very recently. And the regular flu cases are down by a factor of 10 during the Covid-19 precautions, which also proves how effective they are. Not perfect (nothing is), but very effective.

All the fidgeting proves is how uncomfortable they are. And they are. You don't get something (reduced transmission) for nothing (no discomfort).

"Masks are also dangerous, in terms of inhaling plastic particles, reducing oxygenation and inhibiting expulsion of harmful pathogens."

That's an even stupider thing to say. Paper or cloth masks are not a plastic particle risk. Unless you do something egregiously stupid to put them inside the mask. People wear dust masks all the time to prevent inhaling dangerous particles in the workplace. Because it works.

Yes, oxygenation is reduced. If doing heavy labor, you are better off without a mask in many ways. Most people do not do heavy labor. Not since the industrial revolution, except very, very occasionally. The rest of us can put up with a slight reduction in oxygenation that is not dangerous, to prevent a disease (or diseases) that is dangerous. It's a trade, not an either/or.

Inhibiting the expulsion of dangerous pathogens is EXACTLY how masks lower the transmission of disease. The mask does little or nothing to protect the wearer from those around him. It protects them from pathogens coming from the wearer! What protects the mask wearer are the masks on the faces of the people around him.

While somewhat counter-intuitive, that is simple enough for anyone to understand, even somebody with developmental difficulties. There are NO excuses for ignorance or for believing disinformation, Louis!

Louis, the return of lockdowns is precisely because too many people refuse to wear a mask. They transmit too much disease by this selfish and egregious misbehavior. So far there has been no accountability for it, either. But there should be. Same is true of avoiding vaccinations, too.

When a plague first hits, you do lockdowns until you understand whether just masking and distancing will be enough, especially if a vaccine or treatment can be devised in a timely enough fashion to do any good. With Covid-19 and most influenzas, this is true (but this was not true with smallpox and some others). If true, then if everybody wears the mask and stays a tad distanced, the lockdown is no longer needed. What is so hard to understand about that?

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2021-05-02 11:12:05)

louis · 2021-05-02 13:07:13

You seem to have drunk deep of the Kool Aid.

Here are some correctives:

1. Standard blue mask - full of synthetic fibres:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyTPuqqZt0Q

2. So masks are effective against the flu virus but not the Covid virus...how does that happen? Flu disappears but Covid carries on merrily. More fairy tales!! You do know Japan, where mask wearing has always been common and socially acceptable, suffers flu epidemics just like the rest of us...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swin … c_in_Japan

3. Yep mask mandates make no difference to Covid outcome. Take a look at this article and in particular the graphs for countries and states showing how the mask mandates had absolutely no beneficial effect. In every case the mask mandate was followed by steep rises in Covid numbers!

https://lockdownsceptics.org/2021/05/01 … /#comments

Also, the article deals with the censorship at work which means anyone offering evidence critical of the masking dogma knows their reputation will be trashed - a negative inducement to scientific honesty. Even our madly pro-mask SAGE advisory body doesn't claim more than a pathetic 6-15% reduction in transmissions...but of course in many cases that will only be a reduction in the rate, not the absolute number of transmissions (it's the equivalent of reducing the flow of water from a tap by that amount...the glass still gets filled eventually).

When I have looked at studies, they nearly all assume totally correct use of masks and, in hospital settings, when a medical team know they are part of a study, that's probably what you will get. But in the real world masks are misused. People have them under their nose (giving the front of the mask a nice covering of viral particles potentially) and the fidgeting with the mask is important because it means your fingers are more likely to deposit mucus on surfaces, having been in contact with the front of the mask.

Any study of mask efficacy that does not allow for the effects of "mask fidgeting" is invalid in my view because virtually every mask wearer fiddles with their mask.

4. Reduced oxygenation levels is most definitely not an issue confined to heavy labour as you misleadingly imply:

https://scielo.isciii.es/pdf/neuro/v19n2/3.pdf

It's also an issue for people with respiratory conditions. People are advised to consult a doctor.

5. If pathogens are not getting breathed out and away from the infected person, they must be accumulating on the interior of the mask and being breathed or sucked in. The issue is - we don't know because very little or possibly no research has been done on this. There was one Danish study which found no statistically significant protective effect from mask wearing but that was on people of working age by definition, relatively healthy and fit and was only looking at Covid infections. We don't know what effect mask wearing has on more vulnerable people. It could be much more negative. If their immune system are not very efficient, then the accumulation of pathogens in the mouth and nose area could represent a raised risk.

You have to realise the whole medical and health establishment in the UK, Europe and the US have done a complete turnaround on mask wearing. 15 months ago they were pretty unanimous it had no effect on transmission. Now they are equally unanimous it does. What changed? Were lots of scientific papers suddenly published in March 2020 to change everyone's mind? No.

Or was this a political decision, designed to create or perpetuate a sense of crisis? I believe it was.

Added: The perils of censorship:

https://twitter.com/drsimonegold/status … 4254107650

Facebook censored evidence of the effectiveness of HCQ - wrongly they now admit. It was all political, because Trump supported the use of HCQ .That's how sick these people are: preventing effective treatment of Covid in order to destroy a political enemy.

Presumably the Biden administration now want to use HCQ and Facebook are getting on board.

These people are mendacious and fully capable of lying about mask wearing.

GW Johnson wrote:

"The idea that masks contribute to reduced risk of infection or transmission is totally unproven. You only have to see people fiddling with their masks all the time to know that in the real world masks encouraging people to touch their mouth and nose areas - which will be saturated with virus if they are infected, after which they touch surfaces."
That's a rather ridiculous statement, Louis. Masks have been proven for over 500 years now to reduce disease transmission in most cases, although no one really understood just how they really worked until very recently. And the regular flu cases are down by a factor of 10 during the Covid-19 precautions, which also proves how effective they are. Not perfect (nothing is), but very effective.
All the fidgeting proves is how uncomfortable they are. And they are. You don't get something (reduced transmission) for nothing (no discomfort).
"Masks are also dangerous, in terms of inhaling plastic particles, reducing oxygenation and inhibiting expulsion of harmful pathogens."
That's an even stupider thing to say. Paper or cloth masks are not a plastic particle risk. Unless you do something egregiously stupid to put them inside the mask. People wear dust masks all the time to prevent inhaling dangerous particles in the workplace. Because it works.
Yes, oxygenation is reduced. If doing heavy labor, you are better off without a mask in many ways. Most people do not do heavy labor. Not since the industrial revolution, except very, very occasionally. The rest of us can put up with a slight reduction in oxygenation that is not dangerous, to prevent a disease (or diseases) that is dangerous. It's a trade, not an either/or.
Inhibiting the expulsion of dangerous pathogens is EXACTLY how masks lower the transmission of disease. The mask does little or nothing to protect the wearer from those around him. It protects them from pathogens coming from the wearer! What protects the mask wearer are the masks on the faces of the people around him.
While somewhat counter-intuitive, that is simple enough for anyone to understand, even somebody with developmental difficulties. There are NO excuses for ignorance or for believing disinformation, Louis!
GW

Last edited by louis (2021-05-02 13:51:45)

tahanson43206 · 2021-05-03 10:20:43

This report is related to the Wuhan's topic ....

Last year, when the pandemic was just getting going, my annual medical checkup was scheduled as a Virtual session. I thought it went well and was looking forward to this year as a repeat. Unbeknownst to me, my provider went back to onsite visits 9 months ago, so today, when I attempted to connect to the virtual Telemedicine portal there was rampant confusion. The support staff had forgotten how to do telemedicine, and even the doctor was so out of practice that when she tried to connect she could see me but I couldn't see her.

We decided to give it up and rescheduled for an onsite visit another day.

I have mixed feelings about this, and in stretching a bit to the Mars case, I would expect that for many years telemedicine would be quite normal for settlements of any size scattered around the planet, and certainly for homesteads separated from towns by considerable distances.

I liked the convenience of a telemedicine interview, and since I am able to take all the vital signs measurements, it is easy for me to participate as a full partner in the exchange.

However, I'm guessing that not everyone is able to participate fully, or at all. The local provider is part of a consortium of physicians, and they must have collectively decided to go back to personal visits as soon as they were able to do so with appropriate protections.

(th)

louis · 2021-05-03 17:25:53

Yes I think you are right about the likely importance of telemedicine on Mars. No doubt remote settlements will be given a telemedicine pack so they can use zoom cameras to take close ups, blood pressure measurement equipment etc. I expect quite early on there would be an emergency rocket hopper ambulance (would also double up for search and rescue) that will be available to quickly evacuate any emergency cases.

tahanson43206 wrote:

This report is related to the Wuhan's topic ....
Last year, when the pandemic was just getting going, my annual medical checkup was scheduled as a Virtual session. I thought it went well and was looking forward to this year as a repeat. Unbeknownst to me, my provider went back to onsite visits 9 months ago, so today, when I attempted to connect to the virtual Telemedicine portal there was rampant confusion. The support staff had forgotten how to do telemedicine, and even the doctor was so out of practice that when she tried to connect she could see me but I couldn't see her.
We decided to give it up and rescheduled for an onsite visit another day.
I have mixed feelings about this, and in stretching a bit to the Mars case, I would expect that for many years telemedicine would be quite normal for settlements of any size scattered around the planet, and certainly for homesteads separated from towns by considerable distances.
I liked the convenience of a telemedicine interview, and since I am able to take all the vital signs measurements, it is easy for me to participate as a full partner in the exchange.
However, I'm guessing that not everyone is able to participate fully, or at all. The local provider is part of a consortium of physicians, and they must have collectively decided to go back to personal visits as soon as they were able to do so with appropriate protections.
(th)

Last edited by louis (2021-05-03 17:26:57)

Terraformer · 2021-05-04 06:14:17

When it comes to vaccine risk, Britain is in a better position than everyone else. We (will soon) get a choice of three different types (Pfizer mRNA, AstraZeneca recombinant, Novavax protein subunit). Anyone who wants a more traditional vaccine can wait for the latter (plus we have the Valneva inactivated vaccine coming at some point).

We're playing all sides, so we'll always come out on top.

I am quite suspicious of the "if they had negative long term effects we'd know by now" response though. They're still discovering negative long term effects from covid, even though very large numbers of people were infected 14 months ago. I don't think we can count out damage from vaccines so quickly.

All in all, I'd say use the novel vaccines for the highest risk groups, including those over 40/50, and use the more traditional ones for people below that age. Given the low risk to young people, we can open up once the first groups are done (which they are, now).

louis · 2021-05-04 06:31:21

You're poorly informed. AZ is more traditional than Pfzier and Moderna gene therapy vaccines. It is the one which has been killing perfectly healthy younger people, mostly women, by inducing a rare blood clot syndrome.

Presumably you also favour risking children's lives for the vaccine ideology, despite there being virtually no risk to any healthy child from Covid.

Terraformer wrote:

When it comes to vaccine risk, Britain is in a better position than everyone else. We (will soon) get a choice of three different types (Pfizer mRNA, AstraZeneca recombinant, Novavax protein subunit). Anyone who wants a more traditional vaccine can wait for the latter (plus we have the Valneva inactivated vaccine coming at some point).
We're playing all sides, so we'll always come out on top.
I am quite suspicious of the "if they had negative long term effects we'd know by now" response though. They're still discovering negative long term effects from covid, even though very large numbers of people were infected 14 months ago. I don't think we can count out damage from vaccines so quickly.
All in all, I'd say use the novel vaccines for the highest risk groups, including those over 40/50, and use the more traditional ones for people below that age. Given the low risk to young people, we can open up once the first groups are done (which they are, now).

louis · 2021-05-04 06:38:19

Two Year Old Baby Died Within Six Days Of Taking Second Shot Of Pfizer Vaccine In Clinical Trials On Children

As reported in the government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the two-year-old girl received her second dose of Pfizer’s DNA-modifying mRNA injection on February 25. On March 1, she suffered some kind of serious adverse reaction. On March 3, she died. No further details were provided.

The VAERS report does indicate that the child had been hospitalized since February 14, which suggests she may have gotten sick from the first shot. Despite this, someone administered a second shot to the already sick and suffering child, which caused her to die.

https://greatgameindia.com/pfizer-clini … -children/

2021-04-30-baby-dies-pfizer-covid19-children-vaccine-trials.html

Terraformer · 2021-05-04 06:45:06

What are you talking about, louis? You didn't even read my post!

I have no idea why you're talking about Moderna when I mentioned Novavax. As a protein subunit vaccine (it consists of the spike protein plus an immune booster), it is the closest we'll have to a traditional inactivated vaccine - nothing enters the bodies cells, unlike the AZ and mRNA ones.

I also have no idea why you're talking about children. I never mentioned them. As far as we can tell, kids shrug off the disease just fine unless they have serious pre-existing conditions.

GW Johnson · 2021-05-04 12:29:15

Terraformer:

Louis does that, because he "swallowed the (real) Kool Aid" long ago. He is a devout "anti-vaxxer" as well as a mask skeptic. I checked on the identity of the references he cited in post 818 above to "refute" what I said about masks in post 817 above, but they really were not credible as references. One of them came from Twitter. Twitter? Really?

As far as his example in post 823 of a 2 year old dying from a Covid shot, maybe it was the shot, maybe not. No data on that. But even if it was the vaccine that killed the infant, that is 1 bad result out of millions of vaccinations given. Pretty good odds against there being any significant problem. Most folks think 1 in 1000 is "good enough".

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2021-05-04 12:33:23)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#801 2021-04-13 12:00:12

Re: 2019 NCOV a.k.a. Wuhan's Diseases

#802 2021-04-13 12:38:03

Re: 2019 NCOV a.k.a. Wuhan's Diseases

#803 2021-04-13 13:16:00

Re: 2019 NCOV a.k.a. Wuhan's Diseases

#804 2021-04-13 14:24:26

Re: 2019 NCOV a.k.a. Wuhan's Diseases

#805 2021-04-13 15:23:40

Re: 2019 NCOV a.k.a. Wuhan's Diseases

#806 2021-04-13 20:19:50

Re: 2019 NCOV a.k.a. Wuhan's Diseases

#807 2021-04-14 20:29:56

Re: 2019 NCOV a.k.a. Wuhan's Diseases

#808 2021-04-15 02:52:31

Re: 2019 NCOV a.k.a. Wuhan's Diseases

#809 2021-04-16 19:10:09

Re: 2019 NCOV a.k.a. Wuhan's Diseases

#810 2021-04-17 12:37:06

Re: 2019 NCOV a.k.a. Wuhan's Diseases

#811 2021-04-17 17:46:04

Re: 2019 NCOV a.k.a. Wuhan's Diseases

#812 2021-04-26 08:52:52

Re: 2019 NCOV a.k.a. Wuhan's Diseases

#813 2021-04-26 18:26:48

Re: 2019 NCOV a.k.a. Wuhan's Diseases

#814 2021-04-26 18:37:59

Re: 2019 NCOV a.k.a. Wuhan's Diseases

#815 2021-04-26 18:42:37

Re: 2019 NCOV a.k.a. Wuhan's Diseases

#816 2021-05-01 12:13:47

Re: 2019 NCOV a.k.a. Wuhan's Diseases

#817 2021-05-02 10:56:16

Re: 2019 NCOV a.k.a. Wuhan's Diseases

#818 2021-05-02 13:07:13

Re: 2019 NCOV a.k.a. Wuhan's Diseases

#819 2021-05-03 10:20:43

Re: 2019 NCOV a.k.a. Wuhan's Diseases

#820 2021-05-03 17:25:53

Re: 2019 NCOV a.k.a. Wuhan's Diseases

#821 2021-05-04 06:14:17

Re: 2019 NCOV a.k.a. Wuhan's Diseases

#822 2021-05-04 06:31:21

Re: 2019 NCOV a.k.a. Wuhan's Diseases

#823 2021-05-04 06:38:19

Re: 2019 NCOV a.k.a. Wuhan's Diseases

#824 2021-05-04 06:45:06

Re: 2019 NCOV a.k.a. Wuhan's Diseases

#825 2021-05-04 12:29:15

Re: 2019 NCOV a.k.a. Wuhan's Diseases

Board footer