Jump to content
CJGJ

Coronavirus pandemic

Recommended Posts

jonesy
34 minutes ago, Nucky Thompson said:

I don't think they are. The SG calculate the percentage of people just newly tested instead of the total number of tests carried out that reports a result.

Somebody might test negative 2 weeks ago but positive today. That positive test is still added to the figure, but the person is not counted as a newly tested person.

 

Hmm, sounds messy. Cheers Nucky. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamesM48
2 minutes ago, jonesy said:

No, we're in mid-October. It's 50,000. Laurel and Hardy told us it would be.

Yes very true . Why arent those charlatans being held to account?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jonesy
1 minute ago, JamesM48 said:

Yes very true . Why arent those charlatans being held to account?

BoJo needs a fall guy(s).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CavySlaveJambo
3 minutes ago, jonesy said:

Hmm, sounds messy. Cheers Nucky. 

I thought it only counted the first time someone tested positive. And repeat tests that are also positive are not counted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamesM48
Just now, jonesy said:

BoJo needs a fall guy(s).

True 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamesM48
Just now, jonesy said:

BoJo needs a fall guy(s).

There were a few on here who predicated it would be similar to their " predictions" too.   The problem is if stats go down in the next 10 days Sturgeon may say this evidences the most recent restrictions ( which in some ways it may) and argue to maintain them for " another few weeks" to suppress it further? We really cant win. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian

Pretty sure many millions of people have come under a set of extra restrictions since the 50,000 figure was offered.   50,000 was a figure based on introducing no further measures.  

 

As people no doubt know already.  ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coconut doug
1 minute ago, jonesy said:

No need to argue, though. Discuss, adapt, understand.

 

It's not a binary decision. If folk stopped wearing masks tomorrow, not everyone 'weak and vulnerable' would keel over and die. Sensible, self-made decisions would ensure that people are both protected and, just as importantly, protect themselves. 

 

The morality of decisions made around public health, and the - sometimes unintended/unforeseen consequences - are nuanced and virtually impossible to judge from a short term perspective. Which is why I would advocate as gentle a touch as possible from all those in decision making capacities. Whether that makes me right wing or not, I truly don't care. I did vote SSP a couple of elections ago, so my own spectrum probably requires recalibration.

 

I'm not saying that its a binary decision. How can it be when there is so much change and so much we don't know? That's why I totally agree with your notion of a gentle touch. What I can't understand is the reluctance and in some cases flat out refusal to follow the measures designed to restrict the spread. I would imagine that it is this adherence to gentle touch that Scotland has been pursuing well. There has been less threat of fines and police involvement in Scotland and the daily briefings have been designed to support this strategy. They are information giving sessions with those responsible for the policies allowing themselves to be scrutinised by the press. If people are informed and reasoning explained the they are much more likely to play along.

   I would imagine  that this is at least part of the reason the death rate in England, according to TT is 40% higher. I can't see why people would resist containment measures when they know that they work and will allow greater normality more quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamesM48
2 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

I can't see why people would resist containment measures when they know that they work and will allow greater normality more quickly.

Because we never know when they will end. The goal posts get changed every other day. So people are naturally suspicious of the SG and the British G.  I dont know about you but most of the people i know are adhering to the restrictions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coconut doug
Just now, JamesM48 said:

Because we never know when they will end. The goal posts get changed every other day. So people are naturally suspicious of the SG and the British G.  I dont know about you but most of the people i know are adhering to the restrictions. 

 

The quicker you get the numbers under control, the quicker the restrictions will end. There are many,many reasons to distrust SG and hmg and this imo is way down the list.

The actions they are taking are similar to those taken elsewhere and are generally logical to the point of being obvious. The rules change according to circumstances, that's obvious too. 

If you are worried about civil liberty or the lack of it you should have a look at what's happening to Julian Assange or Craig Murray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamesM48
8 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

The quicker you get the numbers under control, the quicker the restrictions will end. There are many,many reasons to distrust SG and hmg and this imo is way down the list.

The actions they are taking are similar to those taken elsewhere and are generally logical to the point of being obvious. The rules change according to circumstances, that's obvious too. 

If you are worried about civil liberty or the lack of it you should have a look at what's happening to Julian Assange or Craig Murray.

" logical" ? Closing down  regulated, safe  pubs so people cant congregate so then people well,  congregate in houses which are less safe and unregulated.  Seems very illogical to me. There are various other illogical restrictions too. Not against mask wearing,  social distancing etc but some of the  restrictions are comical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redjambo
1 hour ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said:

 

you’ve become the numbers man unfortunately/unintentionally

 

im guessing the breakdowns of where folk catch the virus is not easily available (even if believable) ?

 

also was wondering if a breakdown of fully-face masked versus filthy non-mask wearer present in the catching locations available 

 

my own experience is that too many people wearing face masks now believe themselves and the people they are 2cm from to be bomb-proof presumably due to the flimsy cloth shields

 

if we had to choose only one do we know if distancing is more or less effective than face masks

 

seems using both (arguably the ideal) is too much for a lot of people to take on board 

 

one of the key skills of managers etc (particularly in football) is judging how simple/clear introductions need to be for a player/employee/follower to carry out what is required

 

the face mask thing needs a re-think or distancing properly ‘policed’ - just my experience maybe it’s working well elsewhere

 

It just takes me 5 minutes each day, MMM. Glad to contribute the data.

 

The daily infection and death stats are broken down to local council area - see the Local Data tab on https://www.travellingtabby.com/scotland-coronavirus-tracker/ for more info. Historical death data is also available for subdistricts within council areas (see the Additional Death Data tab on the site) - you can find the data for Marchmont West for example, if you so desire. It takes a while for the latter to filter through though.

 

I agree with you that distancing + adequate face mask seems the most sensible approach, but you'll find others who disagree.

 

I know this may seem a bit "out there", but in my opinion eventually a great number of those who don't follow the safety guidelines will catch the virus and thus, assuming that reinfection remains a minimal risk, this will become less of a problem over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauricio Pinilla

It's amazing that we still have completely unreliable numbers reported at weekends after 7 months. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frankblack
31 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

The quicker you get the numbers under control, the quicker the restrictions will end. There are many,many reasons to distrust SG and hmg and this imo is way down the list.

The actions they are taking are similar to those taken elsewhere and are generally logical to the point of being obvious. The rules change according to circumstances, that's obvious too. 

If you are worried about civil liberty or the lack of it you should have a look at what's happening to Julian Assange or Craig Murray.

 

I think the public is starting to feel fatigue and distrust of information from both SG and WM.

 

People need to have confidence that decisions are transparent and backed up by the data.  We have seen evidence that misleading data on hospitality infections have been given based on U.S. studies of 25% when data on Birmingham UK was actually 2%.  That is dishonest and reminiscent of the dodgy dossier for the Iraq war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
N Lincs Jambo
10 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

I think the public is starting to feel fatigue and distrust of information from both SG and WM.

 

People need to have confidence that decisions are transparent and backed up by the data.  We have seen evidence that misleading data on hospitality infections have been given based on U.S. studies of 25% when data on Birmingham UK was actually 2%.  That is dishonest and reminiscent of the dodgy dossier for the Iraq war.

 

Spot on Frank. I saw that the challenge the Liverpool Gym owners put against their being locked down again was 78 "cases" (I don't trust the term case tbh) against 22 Million gym visits since Covid guidance was in place allowing gyms to reopen. That's without going into all the false positives that Dr Mike Yeadon talked about last month. He estimates the number of false positives to be between 86% and 94% and called for PCR tests to be withdrawn immediately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brian Dundas
6 minutes ago, N Lincs Jambo said:

 

Spot on Frank. I saw that the challenge the Liverpool Gym owners put against their being locked down again was 78 "cases" (I don't trust the term case tbh) against 22 Million gym visits since Covid guidance was in place allowing gyms to reopen. That's without going into all the false positives that Dr Mike Yeadon talked about last month. He estimates the number of false positives to be between 86% and 94% and called for PCR tests to be withdrawn immediately.

One thing I've always thought about this false positive thing is that surely there would be massive amounts of re-infection 'cases' if that was happening on the scale you have mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
manaliveits105

Labour Party hibsing it with Starmer criticising the government for not locking down but refusing to criticise Andy Stalin Byrnam and his labour council for arguing against further restrictions - labour always hamstrung by far left activists and unions - can never be trusted 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert

It seems to me current policies could as well be aimed to conserve the virus. Maintain its environment by keeping as many healthy potential victims protected as we can and reducing the risk of widespread immunity which would kill.the virus.. The uttrely minuscule number of second infections suggest immunity is common and real. 

 

Edited by Francis Albert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
manaliveits105

I wonder if journalists and tv news and daytime tv personalities were told not to work if a more positive spin would suddenly appear - they seem to be drifting through the crisis making more dosh than usual whilst telling us how bad things are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
38 minutes ago, Mauricio Pinilla said:

It's amazing that we still have completely unreliable numbers reported at weekends after 7 months. 

Agreed. The ecomomy trashed, tens of thousands dead, yet we can't count numbers because it is the weekend.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauricio Pinilla

Will probably still be low numbers tomorrow then on Tuesday it'll catch up and we'll be hit with like 3k cases and 50 deaths just to depress the **** out of everyone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
N Lincs Jambo
29 minutes ago, Brian Dundas said:

One thing I've always thought about this false positive thing is that surely there would be massive amounts of re-infection 'cases' if that was happening on the scale you have mentioned.


Why would you think that Brian? Also although I mentioned it, (ie the false positives), it came from Dr Mike Yeadon formerly Chief Scientific Officer and VP at Pfizer, so I can’t lay claim to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
16 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

It seems to me current policies could as well be aimed to conserve the virus. Maintain its environment by keeping as many healthy potential victims protected as we can and reducing the risk of widespread immunity which would kill.the virus.. The uttrely minuscule number of second infections suggest immunity is common and real. 

 

 

Aside from some of the hilarious content,  you raise an interesting point regarding reinfection.   They say that the ONS antibody survey shows about 10% or so having the antibody.  This survey carries very high confidence amongst the scientists.   So from that we could theorise that 10% of the population have been infected within a time period whereby their antibody presence still exists.   They also said that immunity would not be long lived.  Sometimes estimated at 3-4 months.  I'm not sure if the antibody can still register a positive result while no longer providing any immunity.   At the moment,  because of the virtually zero rate of reinfections in the UK,  I'm tending to think that immunity is longer lived than had been suggested.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mac_fae_Gillie
59 minutes ago, Mauricio Pinilla said:

It's amazing that we still have completely unreliable numbers reported at weekends after 7 months. 

Its not just about numbers its about, autopsy been done and results been passed on to health authority. Fair dos the hospital know if a patient died had the virus but the exact cuss of death has to be properly logged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
9 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Aside from some of the hilarious content,  you raise an interesting point regarding reinfection.   They say that the ONS antibody survey shows about 10% or so having the antibody.  This survey carries very high confidence amongst the scientists.   So from that we could theorise that 10% of the population have been infected within a time period whereby their antibody presence still exists.   They also said that immunity would not be long lived.  Sometimes estimated at 3-4 months.  I'm not sure if the antibody can still register a positive result while no longer providing any immunity.   At the moment,  because of the virtually zero rate of reinfections in the UK,  I'm tending to think that immunity is longer lived than had been suggested.   

When the first alleged case of reinfection in America is headline news around the world I think it is safe to assume it is so rare as to be insignificant. 

As yet of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vegas-voss
4 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

When the first alleged case of reinfection in America is headline news around the world I think it is safe to assume it is so rare as to be insignificant. 

As yet of course.

What been reported worldwide 10 or so certainly no more than that that has made the news

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
Just now, Francis Albert said:

When the first alleged case of reinfection in America is headline news around the world I think it is safe to assume it is so rare as to be insignificant. 

As yet of course.

 

Yes it's very rare.  Nobody is arguing differently.   

 

You said immunity is common.  It does not appear to be common at all.   The ONS survey is picking up a consistent result of about 10%.   Another thing is the growing numbers of infections.   If immunity was common then people would not be getting infected at the increasing rate that they are,  because people would not be coming into contact with infectious people transmitting virus.  CV is not particularly infectious and as a result,  a percentage of immunity of about 60% would see it quickly reduced to near zero.

 

No reinfections is not a result of common immunity.   It might be because immunity is lasting about 6 months or more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
4 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Yes it's very rare.  Nobody is arguing differently.   

 

You said immunity is common.  It does not appear to be common at all.   The ONS survey is picking up a consistent result of about 10%.   Another thing is the growing numbers of infections.   If immunity was common then people would not be getting infected at the increasing rate that they are,  because people would not be coming into contact with infectious people transmitting virus.  CV is not particularly infectious and as a result,  a percentage of immunity of about 60% would see it quickly reduced to near zero.

 

No reinfections is not a result of common immunity.   It might be because immunity is lasting about 6 months or more.

Well six months is a start. If after over six months of widespread infection there have been virtually zero re-infections doesn't that suggest a fair degree of immunity for those infected?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
8 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Well six months is a start. If after over six months of widespread infection there have been virtually zero re-infections doesn't that suggest a fair degree of immunity for those infected?

 

That's what I just said.  Eyes not doing the job for you again FA?

 

Yes,  could suggest decent news perhaps.  The longer the immunity,  the less prevalent it will become,  eventually.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brian Dundas
43 minutes ago, N Lincs Jambo said:


Why would you think that Brian? Also although I mentioned it, (ie the false positives), it came from Dr Mike Yeadon formerly Chief Scientific Officer and VP at Pfizer, so I can’t lay claim to it.

As a false positive means the person did not have Covid when tested, therefore you would expect a large amount off them would contract Covid later and test positive again, correctly this time. 
 

This guy might have been talking about testing positive for non virulent infections, which is not a false positive 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seymour M Hersh
10 minutes ago, Brian Dundas said:

As a false positive means the person did not have Covid when tested, therefore you would expect a large amount off them would contract Covid later and test positive again, correctly this time. 
 

This guy might have been talking about testing positive for non virulent infections, which is not a false positive 

 

New research has discovered that coronavirus tests may be finding dead traces from weeks-old infections, resulting in false positives that inflate the scale of the pandemic.
The study was carried out by experts from the University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine and the University of the West of England. It found there was a risk of “false positives” because of how Covid-19 testing is being conducted.

The scientists discovered that, despite people with Covid-19 being infectious for only around a week, one test used to detect the disease can still give a positive reading weeks after the patient has recovered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brian Dundas
14 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

New research has discovered that coronavirus tests may be finding dead traces from weeks-old infections, resulting in false positives that inflate the scale of the pandemic.
The study was carried out by experts from the University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine and the University of the West of England. It found there was a risk of “false positives” because of how Covid-19 testing is being conducted.

The scientists discovered that, despite people with Covid-19 being infectious for only around a week, one test used to detect the disease can still give a positive reading weeks after the patient has recovered.

That is not a false positive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coconut doug
2 hours ago, frankblack said:

 

I think the public is starting to feel fatigue and distrust of information from both SG and WM.

 

People need to have confidence that decisions are transparent and backed up by the data.  We have seen evidence that misleading data on hospitality infections have been given based on U.S. studies of 25% when data on Birmingham UK was actually 2%.  That is dishonest and reminiscent of the dodgy dossier for the Iraq war.

 

I'm not defending anybody using dishonest data and i'm not sure why anybody would want to. This is why i have a reasonable amount of confidence in the Scottish government when the say that hospitality accounts for a significant amount of human interactions and that the reason they are closing is because reducing human interactions reduces the potential for the spread of the virus.

 

  Presumably all the other countries and regions now imposing restrictions are doing so for valid reasons as well. I couldn't accept that the data you attribute to Birmingham (2%) is robust. Answers to the question of how much infection comes from hospitality have not been defiitive in any way. Leitch told us he doesn't know and you can't know who was infected where, merely that you are more likely to become infected the more interactions you have. The Scottish government have conducted research and published findings to show where social interactions take place and have concluded that hospitality plays a significant part. It is for that reason pubs and restaurants are closed.

 

    The decision making in scotland has been transparent (see daily briefing) and backed up by data. They are not able though to tell exactly where each individual contracted the disease and as far as i can see neither is anybody else. You will also be aware that the Scottish government played no part in the compilation of the dodgy dossier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauricio Pinilla
39 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

Covid denying 'influencer' dies of... well I'm sure you can guess. 

 

https://news.sky.com/story/influencer-dmitriy-stuzhuk-dies-from-covid-19-after-denying-its-existence-12107174

 

The best satirical minds couldn't come up with a better metaphor for the current state of the poisonous social-media-riddled world than this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coconut doug
3 hours ago, JamesM48 said:

" logical" ? Closing down  regulated, safe  pubs so people cant congregate so then people well,  congregate in houses which are less safe and unregulated.  Seems very illogical to me. There are various other illogical restrictions too. Not against mask wearing,  social distancing etc but some of the  restrictions are comical. 

 

These pubs are regulated are they and declared safe? Who does that? I've been in pubs and seen what it was like and many were a disgrace.

 

People are not supposed to congregate in each others houses. If they observed the rules the infection rates would drop and the pubs would reopen. If some people are not responsible in their behaviour they are the last people you want to be in a pub with. Is that logical?

 

As for the comical restrictions well i dont know of any but i am aware that drawing lines has created anomalies i.e the cafe/restaurant argument or using the toilet in someone else's house. What is comical is listening to people trying to circumvent the rules and either pretending not to or being incapable of understanding the reason these rule exist in the first place. It's like listening to a twelve year old shouting and stamping their feet demanding their mum buys them expensive trainers. Maybe the mother can't afford it and maybe we can't afford to open the boozers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CavySlaveJambo
2 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

It seems to me current policies could as well be aimed to conserve the virus. Maintain its environment by keeping as many healthy potential victims protected as we can and reducing the risk of widespread immunity which would kill.the virus.. The uttrely minuscule number of second infections suggest immunity is common and real. 

 

It depends how long inmunity lasts. For the common cold viruses (some of which are coronaviruses) it doesn’t last long at all.  However we are still less than a year since the virus started circulating in humans so the data is only there on short term immunity not long term.  

 

1 hour ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 one test used to detect the disease can still give a positive reading weeks after the patient has recovered.


If you are looking for viral RNA it is evidence of the virus being or having been present.   They may no longer be infectious but they are still carrying the viral RNA and therefore either have or have had Covid.   That is not a false positive. That is at worst delayed testing.
 

  
 


 

 

Edited by CavySlaveJambo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jonesy
4 hours ago, coconut doug said:

 

I'm not saying that its a binary decision. How can it be when there is so much change and so much we don't know? That's why I totally agree with your notion of a gentle touch. What I can't understand is the reluctance and in some cases flat out refusal to follow the measures designed to restrict the spread. I would imagine that it is this adherence to gentle touch that Scotland has been pursuing well. There has been less threat of fines and police involvement in Scotland and the daily briefings have been designed to support this strategy. They are information giving sessions with those responsible for the policies allowing themselves to be scrutinised by the press. If people are informed and reasoning explained the they are much more likely to play along.

   I would imagine  that this is at least part of the reason the death rate in England, according to TT is 40% higher. I can't see why people would resist containment measures when they know that they work and will allow greater normality more quickly.

I suppose it comes down to what you consider 'a gentle touch' to be.

 

And, although I haven't seen a single one, aren't all  the daily 'briefings' led by NS? That would, to many, appear to be a political move. The fact she's still churning them out now, in October, would suggest that, not only have the policies adopted by all relevant parties in the UK failed, but that she has lost any grasp of how people get fatigued with this kind of stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seymour M Hersh
1 hour ago, Brian Dundas said:

That is not a false positive. 

 

If you say so but I'm tending to lean toward the boffins expertise here and not a JKB person. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord BJ

Can you still get a hot shave in these COVID times? ( From a barber as opposed to myself)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brian Dundas
1 minute ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

If you say so but I'm tending to lean toward the boffins expertise here and not a JKB person. 

I did look it up because I thought I might be wrong. I’m not disputing there are issues with true positive results being for non infectious virus, but the term false positive is for a mistaken positive result. 
 

There is a difference and is important. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Enzo Chiefo

Good on Andy Burnham for calling out the PM for exaggerating the "gravity" of Covid in Manchester. About time someone called them out for the scaremongering. Cases in Manchester have gone down in the last week and, dodgy US dossiers aside, the evidence points to less than 4% of infections occurring in hospitality settings.  

 

Edited by Enzo Chiefo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord BJ

Immunity is a lot more complicated than just presence or not of antibodies. Antibodies have been shown to disappear quite quickly, that does not mean immunity does. 

 

The lack of antibodies doesn’t prove immunity does not last long, it just proves the antibody don’t stay present in the body too long. The immune response can still occur without antibodies, t cell is the quick reason for that. The fact that reinfection is so rare and we are past 3-4 month period suggest the immune response is much longer than the presence of antibodies 

 

That’s good news, how long it last is not known and that’s bad news, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seymour M Hersh
13 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

Good on Andy Burnham for calling out the PM for exaggerating the "gravity" of Covid in Manchester. About time someone called them out for the scaremongering. Cases in Manchester have gone down in the last week and, dodgy US dossiers aside, the evidence points to less than 4% of infections occurring in hospitality settings.  

 

 

Oxymoron alert. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
2 hours ago, Victorian said:

 

That's what I just said.  Eyes not doing the job for you again FA?

 

Yes,  could suggest decent news perhaps.  The longer the immunity,  the less prevalent it will become,  eventually.   

You said immunity was not common at all. I suggested that might not be so. And on  the evidence from the virtually zero  re infections seems not to.be so.

Edited by Francis Albert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert

Contrast Agela Merkel with a bog standard  blue mask with Nicolala's tartan mask with  her NS mameplate signature . 

Edited by Francis Albert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Governor Tarkin
4 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Agreed. The ecomomy trashed, tens of thousands dead, yet we can't count numbers because it is the weekend.

 

 

They can't even use the excuse of a heavy weekend at the pub. :(

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...