Coronavirus: How dangerous a threat?

Page 210 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Chris Gadsden

BANNED
Oct 28, 2019
131
287
1,230
There is a reason that Fauci will take up a prominent role while Birx, Atlas, and Redfield are out on the street. One of the few orgs that have increased their credibility in all this is Niaid. You can't give credit to vaccine development without crediting Fauci and his team.
That may be true but what else is true is a lot, a lot of people won’t listen to Fauci because he has screwed his own credibility.

If Biden is following this thread... maybe he should have somebody on his team take a look at this guy;

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/marc-lipsitch/

Atas was way out over his skis, Redfield is a lunatic and Birx rightfully is being crucified- as was Newsom - for violating her own rules. Do as I say, not as I do... does not go over well with the general population.

Fauci should be bounced as well. My opinion.
 
Who will listen? I mean, is this the time he’s being straight... or will it be next time? Is it 15 days to stop the spread or 15 months? Masks aren’t necessary, ummm ok, everyone wear a mask. Don’t close down travel from China... uh, ermmm, ya, stop travel. 70% herd immunity.... would you believe 80%. Okay, 85% but I’m not going to 90%. Oh, and I bet my house covid is not as contagious as measles. But 90% would be good so let’s shoot for that.
We've discussed the reasons for the change in mask advice. Mostly, it was because it was not immediately appreciated that most of the spread is through the air, rather than through contact with surfaces.

If by travel from China, you're referring to very early in the pandemic, before cases reached the U.S., yes, Fauci was wrong. As were a very large number of other people.

Regarding herd immunity, no one knows what the needed level is, because it depends on R0, which is strongly affected by social behavior. It also depends on whether or how much vaccination reduces the ability of the vaccinated to spread the virus, which is unknown. If Fauci is to be faulted at all, it's for even raising the issue, since it was IMO completely unnecessary. All he had to do was encourage as many people as possible to get vaccinated, and say that the more people do so, the sooner the pandemic were brought under control.

On the mask mandate study, we have discussed this ad nauseum. You can't get a firm conclusion from comparing spread with and without mandates, because mandates are not put in place randomly, which is what a proper scientific study would require. They're proposed when cases begin to surge, which means that they tend to be associated with higher case levels than is the case when there is no mandate.

In response to that point, Hart says surges continued to go up even when mandates were in place. Was this the case everywhere, and did cases go up indefinitely? No. A study in Canada, e.g., showed a 25-30% decline in cases associated with mask mandates. There are many other studies like these. Why doesn't Hart cite them? In fact, the current surge in the U.S. began to level off about two weeks ago. We also know that earlier waves peaked and declined even sooner than that. If that wasn't the result of social behavior, what did cause it?

Hart also thinks he has an answer to the point that people don't wear masks. He points to an interactive tool, based on a NYT poll of people wearing masks. But the poll was taken in the late summer, when people were outdoors more (and when cases did in fact decline). Since the cold weather arrived (the period of time when Hart's data on continuing surges appears to have been focussed on), people spend more time at home. We know that much of the spread of the virus occurs in these settings--the UF link that Chris posted is a very good example of a study demonstrating this--and that most people do not wear masks in these circumstances.

These people never, ever, ever, ever, ever address the OVERWHELMING SLAMDUNK EVIDENCE that masks block exhalation of viral particles into the air. Why? If they are so GDF *** sure that masks don't work, why don't they have an answer to that? EVERY STUDY where a clear answer can be obtained from rigorously controlling conditions has shown this. ALL OF THE STUDIES cited by people like Hart involve the social behavior of large numbers of people, which has long been known to be highly complex and subject to numerous uncontrollable factors. Some studies of this kind do show an effect of masks, and some don't. If Hart were honest, and were really interested in getting at facts, he would point this out.

The real question is, why are there so many GD little babies who can't wear a mask? Why is that so GDF difficult? They can wear a seat belt, they can adhere to a dress code, but they can't wear a mask. Why?

If someone wants to do a study, how about counting the number of posts on an anti-mask twitter thread that claim election fraud? Could there be a connection? Could it be that people who work tirelessly to prove masks don't work have a political agenda? If I used Hart's criterion for evidence, I would say definitely so. To paraphrase Hart, let's get rid of this election fraud crap.
 
Last edited:
Gyms are open here, so I don't get the critique. Exercise classes are restricted for good reason. We know that they have caused superspreader events. But we are not following the science. If we were, restaurants would be closed. Fewer bad faith 'follow the science' arguments from you guys would be appreciated. Maybe a new years resolution?
Curious with the gyms in Maryland; are there capacity restrictions? Here in Colorado, we were about to lose the gyms back in November when the governor implemented "Level Red" status - which is the full blown "stay-at-home" lockdown orders utilized last spring. However, the Colorado Gym Coalition argued against gym closures with one key aspect being the gyms provide an outlet for stress reduction & can help with depression, as well, of course, the physiological benefits of exercising. So, the gyms are allowed to stay open with a 10% capacity limit (about 35 for the gym I attend). This seems reasonable as there has not been one reported Covid case from any of the Denver-Metro area gyms since the beginning of the pandemic.
 
The real question is, why are there so many GD little babies who can't wear a mask? Why is that so GDF difficult? They can wear a seat belt, they can adhere to a dress code, but they can't wear a mask. Why?
Are you talking about states & cities that don't have enforceable mask mandates? Here in Colorado, where we've had a statewide mask mandate since last summer, mask compliance in the metro is near 100%. For one, you can't enter any business or place of worship without a mask (refusing to wear one will be deemed a trespassing offense and the business owner can have the person arrested & charged). So, the only way to have high compliance is through state & local mandates, and businesses refusing to serve customers who won't wear a mask. That's why people wear a seatbelt because it's a chargeable offense under the traffic code. Cops here in the metro will stop & ticket drivers and/or passengers for not wearing a seatbelt.

The mask requirement isn't a big deal anymore - I've gotten used to it. Besides, I think masks will be with us forever. The Democratic states and cities will certainly have mask mandates in place indefinitely. And I was surprised to find that almost every major city in Republican states have in place enforceable mask mandates (why would the governors & mayors lift mandates only to see cases of Covid increase and then have to go back to mandates all over again).

Masks will become a cultural norm here in America, IMO. The medical hierarchy will convince people that masks & vaccines are the only way to ensure near 100% protection against Covid and the flu or any other respiratory viruses that may develop in the future. People are very terrified of viruses right now and many want 100% guaranteed protection from the government. And it seems to have become fashionable now to wear masks. Many of the females at the gym have matching masks to the color of their particular attire for that day. Guys are wearing masks with their favorite team's sports logo and so forth.

I have a niece in HS who has several masks with different facial expressions on them; smiley face, sad face, angry face, etc. She says she wears whichever one expresses her feelings for that particular day. I think we'll enter into a whole new world of trying to communicate with one another wearing masks. Because facial expressions are so important in social interactions, we humans will to have develope new ways of communicating through masks (I find myself having a hard time understanding some people as many mumble and don't speak clearly, making it difficult to extrapolate anything they're saying. Lol). Maybe the school age children won't be affected that much as all they do is text each other anyway. Verbal communication skills has been declining with this demographics with the popularity of smart phones.

"Will we be wearing masks forever? Here's what experts think."

 
Last edited:
Masks will become a cultural norm here in America, IMO.
I don't buy it. I think when most people have been vaccinated--regardless of what % of them get effective immunity--mask wearing will decline. Not because they might not have some benefit, but because large numbers of people will be thoroughly tired of them. Since masks are more about protecting others than oneself, they don't help much unless most people are wearing them. Some people probably will continue wearing them, particularly during flu season, but if most people aren't, there won't be much benefit. If you know you're sick, then I would hope you would wear a mask in public, but if you aren't, even if you might be asymptomatic, I don't think people are going to find it worthwhile.

Because facial expressions are so important in social interactions, we humans will to have develop new ways of communicating through masks (I find myself having a hard time understanding some people as many mumble and don't speak clearly, making it difficult to extrapolate anything they're saying. Lol).
This is one reason why I think people won't stop wearing masks. You're right: facial expressions are critically important to social interactions, and as you also note, even speech is impacted. Of course, it's possible to have transparent masks, which reveal expressions, and it's possible to speak while wearing one, but even a partial impact on normal communication is a negative consequence that I don't think can be ignored.

I can see masks regarded as a temporary measure. During an especially bad flu season, people may be urged to wear them in public. If you are some place with a high concentration of strangers, like a mall, and communication isn't very important, the benefit/inconvenience ratio may make it worthwhile for many. But if you are home, or indoors in a public setting with people you are interacting with, like a restaurant, people are going to resist. People are not going to be susceptible to the argument, people may get sick, as opposed to people are going to die. Some people do die from the seasonal flu, but not in the numbers we're seeing with C19.

For people who think mask mandates are used by the government to increase control over its citizens, I point out that government also has an interest in being able to engage in facial recognition. That's why criminals of course frequently wear masks, and in an age where cameras are virtually everywhere, widespread use of masks could actually increase crime. We've already seen conflicts arise when Muslim women in the West insist on their right to cover their faces in public. If everyone is wearing a mask in public, it's going to be increasingly more difficult for the government to identify people. Just think, e.g., of a protest, where a few people begin looting stores, burning buildings, maybe engaging in violence against others. Or something relatively minor but illegal, like shop-lifting. If the government really wants to extend its power over its citizens, compelling them to cover their faces is one of the last things it would seek to do.
 
Last edited:
Considering major metro areas would have a mandate and the greatest amount of dipsh*t Kirk Cameron maskless Christmas carolers reside in areas where they've had a mandate....or in Florida, Texas where mandates exist to very minor extents but have zero support from Trumpthumpers; the numbers would definitely be higher. How many people actually wore masks, practiced distancing or, instead; made a political statement like the Whitehouse staff and got Covid? What's the ratio of WH staff, Secret Service, etc. based on the percentage of support workers that got Covid? Much, much higher. Chris...it's over and the disease won over stupid people that refused to be careful.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
We are going around in circles in the discussion about masks, even when presented with statistics which may have dubious value - I live in Hong Kong which is the world leader in the use of MASKS but mask use is often for show and therefore they are misused - People walk around in public to show themselves proudly wearing masks, even though mask use in outside areas where you can socially distance is not necessary, BUT where mask use may have an effect indoors such as in private gatherings, in some workplaces they are often not used BECAUSE you are not seen in public, but yet have the possibility to spread the virus in that environment - I will ask a question - How many who were able to celebrate XMAS with friends/family in an indoor environment wore masks ? I think I know the answer. I rest my case !
 

Chris Gadsden

BANNED
Oct 28, 2019
131
287
1,230
What's the ratio of WH staff, Secret Service, etc. based on the percentage of support workers that got Covid? Much, much higher. Chris...it's over and the disease won over stupid people that refused to be careful.
ahhhh, from the Redfield wing of the ‘masks are more effective than the vaccine’ serious thinkers. What exactly did the disease win?
 
We are going around in circles in the discussion about masks, even when presented with statistics which may have dubious value - I live in Hong Kong which is the world leader in the use of MASKS but mask use is often for show and therefore they are misused - People walk around in public to show themselves proudly wearing masks, even though mask use in outside areas where you can socially distance is not necessary, BUT where mask use may have an effect indoors such as in private gatherings, in some workplaces they are often not used BECAUSE you are not seen in public, but yet have the possibility to spread the virus in that environment - I will ask a question - How many who were able to celebrate XMAS with friends/family in an indoor environment wore masks ? I think I know the answer. I rest my case !
I didn't celebrate the holidays with my loved ones! :mad::cry:
 
On the mask mandate study, we have discussed this ad nauseum. You can't get a firm conclusion from comparing spread with and without mandates, because mandates are not put in place randomly, which is what a proper scientific study would require. They're proposed when cases begin to surge, which means that they tend to be associated with higher case levels than is the case when there is no mandate.

In response to that point, Hart says surges continued to go up even when mandates were in place. Was this the case everywhere, and did cases go up indefinitely? No. A study in Canada, e.g., showed a 25-30% decline in cases associated with mask mandates. There are many other studies like these. Why doesn't Hart cite them? In fact, the current surge in the U.S. began to level off about two weeks ago. We also know that earlier waves peaked and declined even sooner than that. If that wasn't the result of social behavior, what did cause it?

Hart also thinks he has an answer to the point that people don't wear masks. He points to an interactive tool, based on a NYT poll of people wearing masks. But the poll was taken in the late summer, when people were outdoors more (and when cases did in fact decline). Since the cold weather arrived (the period of time when Hart's data on continuing surges appears to have been focussed on), people spend more time at home. We know that much of the spread of the virus occurs in these settings--the UF link that Chris posted is a very good example of a study demonstrating this--and that most people do not wear masks in these circumstances.

These people never, ever, ever, ever, ever address the OVERWHELMING SLAMDUNK EVIDENCE that masks block exhalation of viral particles into the air. Why? If they are so GDF *** sure that masks don't work, why don't they have an answer to that? EVERY STUDY where a clear answer can be obtained from rigorously controlling conditions has shown this. ALL OF THE STUDIES cited by people like Hart involve the social behavior of large numbers of people, which has long been known to be highly complex and subject to numerous uncontrollable factors. Some studies of this kind do show an effect of masks, and some don't. If Hart were honest, and were really interested in getting at facts, he would point this out.

The real question is, why are there so many GD little babies who can't wear a mask? Why is that so GDF difficult? They can wear a seat belt, they can adhere to a dress code, but they can't wear a mask. Why?

If someone wants to do a study, how about counting the number of posts on an anti-mask twitter thread that claim election fraud? Could there be a connection? Could it be that people who work tirelessly to prove masks don't work have a political agenda? If I used Hart's criterion for evidence, I would say definitely so. To paraphrase Hart, let's get rid of this election fraud crap.
I wanted to respond to that post & tweet, but then I deleted it because it reminded me too much of people who cherry pick their way to "anthropogenic climate change isn't real" messages. There's just too many people with a specific goal in mind that then handle the data in a way to achieve the goal. The 'funny' thing is that they pretend to be the critical thinkers while they themselves fail to adhere to minimal scientific standards. And apperently, the public cannot distinguish between proper science and junk science. There's a role for education there. What's the problem with Americans and face masks, by the way? The whole world has more or less accepted that they are part of getting through this. Why is this 'debate' still going on in the US? Your extreme partisanship over and politicization of any freaking thing is incredibly annoying.

Some news on infection spreading: since late October, "contact professions" (such as hairdressers and beauty parlors) have been closed, of course to some protest. However, infection data show that people with such professions were far more likely than others to be infected. Masks are and were mandated for those places, so they are not magical tools (also because not everyone uses them the right way). Spend long enough inside, with many people, and you are more at risk. Avoiding indoor contacts is still the best way to avoid infections, and the most important way for governments to avoid covid spread. By the way, in Belgium, we were allowed to see one (!) 'close contact' (outside of the household) for Christmas indoors, two if you're single.
 
since late October, "contact professions" (such as hairdressers and beauty parlors) have been closed, of course to some protest. However, infection data show that people with such professions were far more likely than others to be infected. Masks are and were mandated for those places, so they are not magical tools (also because not everyone uses them the right way). Spend long enough inside, with many people, and you are more at risk.
An important study supporting masks found that two hair dressers working in a salon, known to have C19 symptoms but wearing masks, served a total of about 140 clients. . No cases were reported among any of the clients, nor among other co-workers of the stylists, and almost half of the clients tested negative.

The stylists served their clients for 5-7 days after developing symptoms, when they should have been infectious. In fact, the stylist who developed symptoms first probably infected the second one, as the two interacted without masks when not serving clients. Moreover, four close contacts of the first stylist, including her husband who she lived with, and two relatives and a third person who lived together in another household, all developed symptoms and tested positive later.

This study doesn't prove that masks prevented transmission, but it's certainly strong evidence. It also provides another answer to people who ask why, if masks are effective, their use isn't always associated with a reduction of cases. Both stylists continued to work with clients after developing symptoms. They only stopped work after testing positive. They really should have stopped working as soon as they developed symptoms. The fact that they didn't might have been at least partly because they thought masks were protecting their clients. In this case, it appears that the masks did, but certainly no one is claiming that masks are 100% effective. It may be that when mask mandates are in place, people engage in riskier behavior than they would otherwise. They may feel that if they have to undergo the inconvenience of wearing a mask, they can at least relax the social distancing a little.

In fact, Hart's claim that there were more cases with mask mandates than without should clue anyone to the fact that there are other powerful factors at work. Obviously, masks aren't going to increase transmission, so there must be other factors that do that may be associated with mask use.

 
Last edited:
Reactions: jmdirt
The national Belgian health institute publishes quite detailed daily reports with covid data. At the end, there is always a European 'ranking' based on the infections reported per capita. Luxembourg has been consistently in the top-3 (1st = worst) for more than a month now, but they hardly have measures (e.g. restaurants are still open). A surprising country near the top is now Denmark, who have done very well for a long time. They probably reacted a bit too late this time round, and then it's very hard to quickly turn things around. Spain is in the lower end now, but infections seem to be on the rise again, and I've heard they opened restaurants and pubs again. Way too early, I think, so I expect they will start climbing in the ranking.

The consistent good performers have been Iceland, Norway, Finland and Ireland.
Sweden, which is "close" to herd immunity since ... when? May? ... climbed into the top 5.
There was a study (link) in Belgium about surviving rates for patients on intensive care. Roughly two thirds survive. The probability of dying increases by 6 percentage points respectively 29% if the hospital is overcrowded (probably due to unqualified personel).
 
Reactions: jmdirt
Curious with the gyms in Maryland; are there capacity restrictions? Here in Colorado, we were about to lose the gyms back in November when the governor implemented "Level Red" status - which is the full blown "stay-at-home" lockdown orders utilized last spring. However, the Colorado Gym Coalition argued against gym closures with one key aspect being the gyms provide an outlet for stress reduction & can help with depression, as well, of course, the physiological benefits of exercising. So, the gyms are allowed to stay open with a 10% capacity limit (about 35 for the gym I attend). This seems reasonable as there has not been one reported Covid case from any of the Denver-Metro area gyms since the beginning of the pandemic.
There is decreased capacity dictated by the county. I think it has been the same % as the restaurants. My boss still goes and has said it is pretty sparse compared to before times. I think more people are forgoing gyms than dining out, so the percentages are probably not limiting.

Lack of fomite spread makes gyms relatively safe for individual use imo.
 

Chris Gadsden

BANNED
Oct 28, 2019
131
287
1,230
The real question is, why are there so many GD little babies who can't wear a mask? Why is that so GDF difficult?
I was actually interested in yours and djp’s take on this. Hart went so far as to intimate - in the real world - mask wearing was actually a detriment. I was hoping you two could chime in on why his ‘group’ full of it. My purpose was not to offend you (If I did by posting the twitter post).

Three counties in Florida allowed mask mandates to expire by 10/23. So I looked at all 67 counties in FL with and without mandates to see what had happened since Well this is a huge surprise! The counties without mask mandates have lower case rates and lower case growth”
 
Hart calls people who disagree with him 'team apocalypse'. People like him and Berenson are effective because they can use complex data to obsfucate. I've posted the cdc evidence on masking. People can read and decide for themselves. Yaco is right. The mask discourse is just going in circles.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
Hart calls people who disagree with him 'team apocalypse'. People like him and Berenson are effective because they can use complex data to obsfucate. I've posted the cdc evidence on masking. People can read and decide for themselves. Yaco is right. The mask discourse is just going in circles.
there is no circle on masks. No circle,no ambiguity on social distancing, nothing confusing about isolation..nothing..zero, nada, nunca,zilch cures Covid19..100%.
All measures are meant to slow the spread.
period
And why slow the spread? Because we don't have the medical capacity to treat mass numbers of seriously ill..the same as it was nothing has changed.
Meanwhile most Americans will not begin to be vaccinated May-June timeframe at best.
there is no controversy..just a lack of empathy and common sense.
The numbers are consistent in the US,killing Blacks,Latinos and Native Americans and the elderly and disproportionately high rates..population at large disregards their lives..maybe a new t-shirt or bumper sticker slogan..
Old people should just die already.
Black Lives Matter but not as much as nail tips or donuts.
Native Americans are important as long as they allow old white guys to hold motorcycle rallies on their land
 
Reactions: jmdirt
I was actually interested in yours and djp’s take on this. Hart went so far as to intimate - in the real world - mask wearing was actually a detriment. I was hoping you two could chime in on why his ‘group’ full of it. My purpose was not to offend you (If I did by posting the twitter post).
I took offense at Hart, but not at you. As I posted above, the fact that Hart found data showing more cases with mandates than without shows that other factors are involved. The simple act of wearing a mask cannot possibly increase transmission. At worst, it may have no effect, but it can't increase transmission.

Anyone who wants to make that claim has to propose a reason why that could possibly be the case, and I've never heard anyone do this. The fact that people may constantly touch their masks, move them around, etc., is not going to increase transmission. The claim that mask wearing has adverse effects on health is very poorly supported by evidence, and even if that were the case, that still would not result in increased transmission. There's no evidence I'm aware of that poor health predisposes someone to contracting the virus--to having. a worse case, yes, of course, but not getting infected. And even in that case, of course we're talking about serious health issues, not the relatively minor effects that maybe would result in a few people from wearing masks.

So when a comparison shows an increase correlated with mask mandates, there have to be other circumstances going on in that particular data set. One circumstance, as I and many others have noted, is that mandates tend to be ordered during surges--with other factors driving the surge. One important factor now is that people spend more time indoors (and that was also the case, last summer, in much of the hellishly hot south, where the surge was most prevalent. I remember Baltimore called this well before it actually happened). The UF study that you linked demonstrates, as many other studies have (beginning with one in Gangelt, Germany, last. summer, which I discussed upthread) that household transmission is far more common than transmission outside of households--by a factor of at last several times. Some of this is because people spend more time in close contact and verbal communication, and in a relatively small enclosed space, where viral concentrations in the air can build up. Transmission is also increased because most people don't wear masks at home. Even people who will say in a poll that they wear a mask all or most of the time, mean by that outside the home. Very few people wear masks at home. So when a mask mandate is put into place, even if mask wearing outside and in public increases (and it may not increase that much, because if you believe the polls, most people have been wearing masks since last summer, mandate or no mandate), transmission will be mostly unaffected at home. The mandate may mean that fewer people get infected outside the home, but this is offset by the fact that those who do are more likely to spread it among people they live with, and any other close contacts they have within a home.

Another factor, as I mentioned in connection with the hair stylists, is that when people wear masks, they may engage in riskier behavior than they would without masks. As you yourself pointed out, leftists gathered for massive, potentially risky, protests following several incidents this past summer. Most of the protestors wore masks, and I'd bet some of them wouldn't have even attended if that hadn't been the case. Same with those long lines we saw at some polling stations. Not everyone would show up and stand there close to others for hours if people weren't wearing masks. And as with the hair stylists, people with symptoms, people who know they have C19 even if they haven't been tested, may be emboldened to appear in public, thinking that a mask will protect others from them.

Of course, you could conclude from all this that mask mandates frequently will have relatively little effect. Not because masks don't reduce transmission, but because a) the mandates aren't followed (and certainly can't be enforced) in the situations where transmission is most likely; b) the very act of encouraging wearing masks may in effect reduce the degree to which people take other steps to reduce risk; and c) the baseline of wearing masks in public may be so high that mandates don't have much additional effect. It may be a relatively small marginal gain.

I'd like to see more polling data on these factors. In particular, I'd like to know what % of people wear masks in public, with or without a mandate, and how many people who won't wear a mask if there is no mandate, will wear one (even in situations where they believe they can get away with breaking the law) if there is a mandate. Polls do show that a majority of Americans support a mandate, but for those who don't, how much will be gained by mandating them?
 
Reactions: yaco and jmdirt
Chris is typing a post about Nancy..or economic doomsday..the problems lay at the feet of the President..he did not keep his promises..not on PPE, not on federal response..not on testing..
And God help us if Donald has assembled a Covid Task Force or " the very,very best, the best and the brightest "
If he is doing " heavy vetting "..maybe human resources is the weak link in the White House..
 
Reactions: jmdirt
I really don't understand people and their relationships with doctors and statisticians.
The doctors that fix hearts, do brain surgery,delivery our children give us treatment for cancer and thousands of other things are now all idiots,because Trump says so? Huh?
And when a person who is seriously ill,in a hospital for care gets asked a series of serious questions, questions that may save their life,of the lives of others..when they truthfully answer those questions as part of a contact tracing survey..we are not going to listen?
Right before 5 people go on ventilators..they gasp out the name of a bar..or say the name of a friend where they enjoyed,drinks or dinner..we are not believing them why?
when a cluster of infected blurt out the name of a nail salon or gym..and the path of germs traces back..that's bad why?
I get people getting angry about being lumped in..not all bars are bad..not all gyms are vessels of disease..not seeing the options..
 
Reactions: jmdirt

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts