Jump to content
Axiom of Choice

Coronavirus - discussion of what ifs and hypotheticals

Recommended Posts

The coronavirus will likely kill less than 10 people below the age of 25 in the US.  This is based on the deaths by percentage within age groups of Italy and South Korea and assuming 25% of the population will contract the virus, and an overall mortality rate of 1% (death/actually infected, not CFR or death/confirmed cases).  To give some comparison, about 3,100 people below the age of 25 died in the US from the H1N1 epidemic in 2009 (Link 1, Link 2).  Using the same measures, the coronavirus will kill about 5,000 between the age of 30-50 in the US.  About 4,000 people between the age of 25-50 died in the US from the H1N1 epidemic in 2009.  Overall, less people under the age of 50 will die from coronavirus than the H1N1 2009 pandemic.  Also, these total death numbers are assuming more people will contract the coronavirus than the number of people who contracted H1N1.  Among those who have contracted the diseases, for people below 50 the H1N1 is much more deadly than the coronavirus.  The numbers start to look a lot worse for the coronavirus when the age groups increase.  But in summary, this pandemic is mostly killing off the elderly.  Early reports on the average age of coronavirus deaths in Italy is 81 years old.

It seems crazy to me that we are cancelling schools, canceling weddings and all other social events, essentially putting young people’s lives on hold (for how long exactly?  6, 12, 18 months?) for something that is not a serious threat to them.  For young people, this thing is much less deadly than other flu strains in recent decades.  We are also crippling the economy and putting much of this burden and stress on young working people.  I’m not trying to belittle the pandemic overall or discount the impact on the elderly.  It is obviously a serious matter and we need to take many precautions.  But I think a better approach would be to take extreme caution with the elderly and at risk groups and let others go on with their lives.  
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

The coronavirus will likely kill less than 10 people below the age of 25 in the US.  This is based on the deaths by percentage within age groups of Italy and South Korea and assuming 25% of the population will contract the virus, and an overall mortality rate of 1% (death/actually infected, not CFR or death/confirmed cases).  To give some comparison, about 3,100 people below the age of 25 died in the US from the H1N1 epidemic in 2009 (Link 1, Link 2).  Using the same measures, the coronavirus will kill about 5,000 between the age of 30-50 in the US.  About 4,000 people between the age of 25-50 died in the US from the H1N1 epidemic in 2009.  Overall, less people under the age of 50 will die from coronavirus than the H1N1 2009 pandemic.  Also, these total death numbers are assuming more people will contract the coronavirus than the number of people who contracted H1N1.  Among those who have contracted the diseases, for people below 50 the H1N1 is much more deadly than the coronavirus.  The numbers start to look a lot worse for the coronavirus when the age groups increase.  But in summary, this pandemic is mostly killing off the elderly.  Early reports on the average age of coronavirus deaths in Italy is 81 years old.

It seems crazy to me that we are cancelling schools, canceling weddings and all other social events, essentially putting young people’s lives on hold (for how long exactly?  6, 12, 18 months?) for something that is not a serious threat to them.  For young people, this thing is much less deadly than other flu strains in recent decades.  We are also crippling the economy and putting much of this burden and stress on young working people.  I’m not trying to belittle the pandemic overall or discount the impact on the elderly.  It is obviously a serious matter and we need to take many precautions.  But I think a better approach would be to take extreme caution with the elderly and at risk groups and let others go on with their lives.  
 

I assume you never had parents or grandparents. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Vito Andolini said:

There’s a 365 page thread and counting on the subject. 

yeah, but we don't need this crap there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree.  We'll just tell "young people" to be really, really, really, super duper careful not to spread it those at greater risk as they go about their lives as normal.  So simple!  How come no one has thought of this??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Young people should still take every possible precaution. It's not for their good, it's for everyone else's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That 20 and 30 yo in Dallas that are on ventilators are glad for this report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have very young children.  I have a 74 year old mother with respiratory issues who has had cancer twice.  Heck, three of my wife's four grandparents are still alive.  

I'm taking this seriously for all of them.  I am the one that still goes out into the world for work, to buy food/supplies, etc.  It is up to me to be vigilant and not be an agent of spread.

That said, if I hear another grown adult tell me that they hope their "Paw-Paw" or "Mee-Maw" doesn't get Covid-19, and use those names for their parents/grandparents and no small children are around, I am going to spit into their mouths and punch them in the cornea.  If you still talk like that at age 50, you need to be eradicated from this Earth.  And while we're at it, you're over 40...stop using the word "like" incorrectly four times per sentence.  I miss when adults spoke like adults.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some charts of deaths by age groups of some of the compared pandemics.  Unlike other pandemics, coronavirus deaths are almost exclusively the elderly:

ykmbmiwoutm41.png

 

 

Image result for cdc death by age group h1n1

 

GraphC.gif

 

1918 Spanish flu:

 

Image result for spanish flu death by age group

 

 

For what it is worth, I'm following all recommended protocols and am only leaving the house for necessities.  I'm just thinking how I would view it if I were 80 years old.  Would I want young people at low risk to put their lives on hold, in many cases being out of work and worrying about how they are going to pay rent and get by for the next year, just for me and my peers to move our risk of death down a few percentage points?  Personally,  I would not want that.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People associate surviving with no symptoms for some reason, as if the folks who get put on a ventilator and survive don't count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was gonna say... this thing kills via cytokine storm; get sick as a youngster and survive, and guess what? When it comes back, you are much, much, much more likely to die. This thing reprograms your immune system's firmware, basically, and not in a friendly way.

This "young people are gonna be okay because it doesn't kill them" stuff is just plain wrong and dangerous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Some charts of deaths by age groups of some of the compared pandemics.  Unlike other pandemics, coronavirus deaths are almost exclusively the elderly:

ykmbmiwoutm41.png

 

 

Image result for cdc death by age group h1n1

 

GraphC.gif

 

1918 Spanish flu:

 

Image result for spanish flu death by age group

 

 

For what it is worth, I'm following all recommended protocols and am only leaving the house for necessities.  I'm just thinking how I would view it if I were 80 years old.  Would I want young people at low risk to put their lives on hold, in many cases being out of work and worrying about how they are going to pay rent and get by for the next year, just for me and my peers to move our risk of death down a few percentage points?  Personally,  I would not want that.    

IMO, the 1918 flu pandemic affected young people so severely largely due to the massive number of people exposed to it while getting shipped to and from the Western Front on the tail end of WWI. At least, that's what intuitively makes the most sense considering how nicely the spike lines up with average age of soldiers in that period

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My mom is 85.  You are advocating a course that would make it more likely she die.  Ergo, fuck you.  I hope the next pandemic only kills assholes with no empathy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers ....to starting a thread to address the risks involved with specific age groups/risky that won't get buried in the  main thread.

Jeers ...to starting a thread and seeding it with bullshit.

 

Seriously, I think we do need a thread that chronicles and investigates specific cases for patients 60 and younger.  That information is all over the place and from the cases of the youngsters thus far there seems to be a fair amount of "other factors" leading to serious complications and hospitalization.

Cases in point:

Louisiana 45 YO -overweight, stressful job, treatment with NSAID.

30 something lawyer guy who said he was perfectly healthy, except for wait for it...asthma.

Just looking to get as much info as possible so we get a real bead on actual issues with cases among <60.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Walden Ponderer said:

I was gonna say... this thing kills via cytokine storm; get sick as a youngster and survive, and guess what? When it comes back, you are much, much, much more likely to die. This thing reprograms your immune system's firmware, basically, and not in a friendly way.

This "young people are gonna be okay because it doesn't kill them" stuff is just plain wrong and dangerous. 

I never thought I'd type this, but can you shed some more light on this?  I haven't heard much along these lines.  Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Axiom of Choice said:

The coronavirus will likely kill less than 10 people below the age of 25 in the US.  This is based on the deaths by percentage within age groups of Italy and South Korea and assuming 25% of the population will contract the virus, and an overall mortality rate of 1% (death/actually infected, not CFR or death/confirmed cases).  To give some comparison, about 3,100 people below the age of 25 died in the US from the H1N1 epidemic in 2009 (Link 1, Link 2).  Using the same measures, the coronavirus will kill about 5,000 between the age of 30-50 in the US.  About 4,000 people between the age of 25-50 died in the US from the H1N1 epidemic in 2009.  Overall, less people under the age of 50 will die from coronavirus than the H1N1 2009 pandemic.  Also, these total death numbers are assuming more people will contract the coronavirus than the number of people who contracted H1N1.  Among those who have contracted the diseases, for people below 50 the H1N1 is much more deadly than the coronavirus.  The numbers start to look a lot worse for the coronavirus when the age groups increase.  But in summary, this pandemic is mostly killing off the elderly.  Early reports on the average age of coronavirus deaths in Italy is 81 years old.

It seems crazy to me that we are cancelling schools, canceling weddings and all other social events, essentially putting young people’s lives on hold (for how long exactly?  6, 12, 18 months?) for something that is not a serious threat to them.  For young people, this thing is much less deadly than other flu strains in recent decades.  We are also crippling the economy and putting much of this burden and stress on young working people.  I’m not trying to belittle the pandemic overall or discount the impact on the elderly.  It is obviously a serious matter and we need to take many precautions.  But I think a better approach would be to take extreme caution with the elderly and at risk groups and let others go on with their lives.  
 

I've already said, ideally, we could quarantine all the olds but it's not really feasible.  I really think this is going to trash the economy so badly, that next time they will attempt something different.  If we had any discipline as a society what you're proposing is actually not crazy.  I feel bad because people will barely try to digest what you're saying and just bitch and moan.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lobo said:

I never thought I'd type this, but can you shed some more light on this?  I haven't heard much along these lines.  Thanks.

Lots of med resources out there that may as well be in Greek for all I can decipher, but the gist is that the heavy duty pneumonia stage at the end of this sickness, the part that kills people, comes from an immune reaction attacking lung tissue, not from the virus itself doing so. And immune responses are the result of an accumulation of inputs, so that what happens in one illness can significantly impact (for better or worse) subsequent illnesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Walden Ponderer said:

I was gonna say... this thing kills via cytokine storm; get sick as a youngster and survive, and guess what? When it comes back, you are much, much, much more likely to die. This thing reprograms your immune system's firmware, basically, and not in a friendly way.

This "young people are gonna be okay because it doesn't kill them" stuff is just plain wrong and dangerous. 

Do you have any links or studies you can share to support this?  Would be interested in learning more about it.  The Spanish flu was suspected of killing via cytokine storm, but this had the opposite effect of what you are claiming.  When the H1N1 virus of 2009 spread, the elderly had some immunity to it due to exposure of related strains in their youth. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-flu-immunity/study-explains-immunity-to-h1n1-in-older-people-idUSTRE59D5QF20091014

 

14 minutes ago, Goredho said:

My mom is 85.  You are advocating a course that would make it more likely she die.  Ergo, fuck you.  I hope the next pandemic only kills assholes with no empathy.

This is taking one element of a broad topic which effects many people in many different ways, exaggerating it, and ignoring everything else.  Merely leaving the house under normal circumstances is taking a course in which someone is more likely to die.  

 

9 minutes ago, Jiggy-Z said:

Cheers ....to starting a thread to address the risks involved with specific age groups/risky that won't get buried in the  main thread.

Jeers ...to starting a thread and seeding it with bullshit.

 

Seriously, I think we do need a thread that chronicles and investigates specific cases for patients 60 and younger.  That information is all over the place and from the cases of the youngsters thus far there seems to be a fair amount of "other factors" leading to serious complications and hospitalization.

Cases in point:

Louisiana 45 YO -overweight, stressful job, treatment with NSAID.

30 something lawyer guy who said he was perfectly healthy, except for wait for it...asthma.

Just looking to get as much info as possible so we get a real bead on actual issues with cases among <60.

Thanks.  I  attempted to add enough objective data to not make it solely about my views on it.   

 

Edited by Axiom of Choice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jiggy-Z said:

Cheers ....to starting a thread to address the risks involved with specific age groups/risky that won't get buried in the  main thread.

Jeers ...to starting a thread and seeding it with bullshit.

 

Seriously, I think we do need a thread that chronicles and investigates specific cases for patients 60 and younger.  That information is all over the place and from the cases of the youngsters thus far there seems to be a fair amount of "other factors" leading to serious complications and hospitalization.

Cases in point:

Louisiana 45 YO -overweight, stressful job, treatment with NSAID.

30 something lawyer guy who said he was perfectly healthy, except for wait for it...asthma.

Just looking to get as much info as possible so we get a real bead on actual issues with cases among <60.

To your point I should have noted, ideally we quarantine the old and the immunocompromised.  This is a utopian world we're discussing.  The 45 yo overweight smoker/drinker didn't get to be immunocompromised by making smart decisions.  As in it's going to be impossible to quarantine those people from the rest of us.  This is why the rest of us can't have nice things. Cool idea though, my 401K wishes we could have gone about it that way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

people will barely try to digest what you're saying and just bitch and moan.   

Not sure if the timing is right for a new motto, but when it comes, this would get my vote.

Share this post


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

To your point I should have noted, ideally we quarantine the old and the immunocompromised.  This is a utopian world we're discussing.  The 45 yo overweight smoker/drinker didn't get to be immunocompromised by making smart decisions.  As in it's going to be impossible to quarantine those people from the rest of us.  This is why the rest of us can't have nice things. Cool idea though, my 401K wishes we could have gone about it that way. 

Exactly. Because people can't be trusted to be vigilant and make socially responsible, unselfish decisions on their own, the only real choice that we have is to send everyone home and hope that's enough to counteract all the stupid, selfish actions that people are still going to make.

Share this post


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

To your point I should have noted, ideally we quarantine the old and the immunocompromised.  This is a utopian world we're discussing.  The 45 yo overweight smoker/drinker didn't get to be immunocompromised by making smart decisions.  As in it's going to be impossible to quarantine those people from the rest of us.  This is why the rest of us can't have nice things. Cool idea though, my 401K wishes we could have gone about it that way. 

Really for my own interest as a 53 yo male with no co morbidity factors, or asthma, or weight issues, or high stress job, or alcohol problem.  In good shape etc.  Just trying to whistle through the graveyard with some knowledge. 

Share this post


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

yeah, but we don't need this crap there. 

We don't need this crap anywhere.

How is this post only minus 3 in rep?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Axiom of Choice said:

The coronavirus will likely kill less than 10 people below the age of 25 in the US.  This is based on the deaths by percentage within age groups of Italy and South Korea and assuming 25% of the population will contract the virus, and an overall mortality rate of 1% (death/actually infected, not CFR or death/confirmed cases).  To give some comparison, about 3,100 people below the age of 25 died in the US from the H1N1 epidemic in 2009 (Link 1, Link 2).  Using the same measures, the coronavirus will kill about 5,000 between the age of 30-50 in the US.  About 4,000 people between the age of 25-50 died in the US from the H1N1 epidemic in 2009.  Overall, less people under the age of 50 will die from coronavirus than the H1N1 2009 pandemic.  Also, these total death numbers are assuming more people will contract the coronavirus than the number of people who contracted H1N1.  Among those who have contracted the diseases, for people below 50 the H1N1 is much more deadly than the coronavirus.  The numbers start to look a lot worse for the coronavirus when the age groups increase.  But in summary, this pandemic is mostly killing off the elderly.  Early reports on the average age of coronavirus deaths in Italy is 81 years old.

It seems crazy to me that we are cancelling schools, canceling weddings and all other social events, essentially putting young people’s lives on hold (for how long exactly?  6, 12, 18 months?) for something that is not a serious threat to them.  For young people, this thing is much less deadly than other flu strains in recent decades.  We are also crippling the economy and putting much of this burden and stress on young working people.  I’m not trying to belittle the pandemic overall or discount the impact on the elderly.  It is obviously a serious matter and we need to take many precautions.  But I think a better approach would be to take extreme caution with the elderly and at risk groups and let others go on with their lives.  
 

I actually think you are generally right as to the best approach. But, mortality isn't the whole picture. While deaths among those less than twenty five appear to be rare, hospitalizations aren't overly so. The hospitalization for those between 20- 29 appears to be ~ 1.2 percent. The hospitalization rate for those 19 and under is close to .1 percent. Let's just for a second assume that the overall hospitalization rate for everyone twenty-five and under is only .1 percent. The total population for that group is ~100 million people. If twenty-five percent get infected, that is twenty-five million people * .3 percent = seventy-five thousand hospitalizations. If fifty percent get infected (a much more widely expected estimate), you're now talking 150,000 hospitalizations for just that age group alone. 

And, you completely ignore the much higher hospitalization for those between 30 and 50 (3-5 percent).  That will add another 100 million folks, and, under your estimates 750,000 more hospitalization or  1.5 million under the more conservative infection rate estimate. That is still going to cause a huge strain on our healthcare system leaving it completely unable to cope with other injuries, not to mention it assumes nobody over the age of 50 gets infected. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Exactly. Because people can't be trusted to be vigilant and make socially responsible, unselfish decisions on their own, the only real choice that we have is to send everyone home and hope that's enough to counteract all the stupid, selfish actions that people are still going to make.

Why do you say it is the only real choice?  Is it merely that some additional people will die via coronavirus if we don't send everyone home?  There are factors to consider in massive economic down turns and quarantines & social distancing other than the loss of 401K for the upper middle class and boredom.  Suicides are likely to spike, stress and mental health issues of many young people on the margins will likely rise, other health problems such as cancer could rise dramatically.  If we look at loss of time in ones life and not merely deaths, it seems that the path we have chosen will result in far more lost time.  What weight did you give to these considerations when you reached your conclusion that there is no real choice?  

Share this post


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

This just in:  Drunks with face AIDS aren't worried about the ChiCom Flu:

 

When did Spring Break become so ugly?  Seriously that was hard to watch.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think about how many ugly children are gonna be made just from that video, with compromised immune systems to boot.  

We've finally admitted that we need to have a conversation in this country about how ignorant and stupid a huge chunk of our citizenry is.  Can we add that we have way more ugly people than we previously thought as well?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Some charts of deaths by age groups of some of the compared pandemics.  Unlike other pandemics, coronavirus deaths are almost exclusively the elderly:

ykmbmiwoutm41.png

 

 

Image result for cdc death by age group h1n1

 

GraphC.gif

 

1918 Spanish flu:

 

Image result for spanish flu death by age group

 

 

For what it is worth, I'm following all recommended protocols and am only leaving the house for necessities.  I'm just thinking how I would view it if I were 80 years old.  Would I want young people at low risk to put their lives on hold, in many cases being out of work and worrying about how they are going to pay rent and get by for the next year, just for me and my peers to move our risk of death down a few percentage points?  Personally,  I would not want that.    

Comparing this to the Spanish flu is retarded.  Different hygiene.  Different levels of medicine and medical knowledge and they were crammed into fucking ships coming back from the war and many were already in poor health because of the nature of that war. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

1/5 of INFECTED people or 1/5 of folks who have presented with serious enough symptoms and been able to get a confirmation through testing.

It’s a distinction but perhaps an important one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I believe that this young gentleman's odds of COVID-related death are higher than his odds of getting laid in Miami during spring break.

 

springbreak.jpg

 

 

 

 

Edited by smuggs

Share this post


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

I believe that this young gentleman's odds of COVID-related death are higher than getting laid in Miami during spring break.

 

springbreak.jpg

 

 

 

I don't know, I'm guessing that the chick that just turned 21 in the video would take absolutely anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess my larger point is this: even if we did this plan, there would still be economic turmoil. And, not guarantee of better outcome than general isolation. I don't think we have an option of dealing with a massive pandemic like this in ways that aren't severely damaging to the economy. We can look for the best of a bunch of bad answers, but let's not pretend we ever had the option of avoiding severe economic distress. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, its wrong to ask that those under 25 to help out as it ruins spring break for them.  Forget about the fact that they can be carriers. Lets just let the number of active cases spike, and get it over with.  Who cares if that means there wont be enough doctors, nurses, hospital facilities and people might die who would otherwise be saved.

These children can't be asked to sacrifice for the greater good. They need drunken beach revelry. Who cares how many may die needlessly. Not their problem.  They haven't even been offered a trophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

My son is in the OC on a project for me. They went on lockdown yesterday. He spoke with our client, called me and said “business as usual”

I asked him if he’d gone to the dispensary as they might be non-essential and closed. 
 

I hear a very loud “fuck me”!

he has his priorities.  Lol.  He’s 26. 

Edited by VABuckeye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Axiom of Choice said:

...

It seems crazy to me that we are cancelling ...

Counterpoint:

Quote

Italy will rush 10,000 student doctors into service, scrapping their final exams, in an effort to help the struggling health service cope with the coronavirus which claimed another 345 lives.

The death toll rose to 2,503 over the past 24 hours, the Civil Protection Agency said, while the total number of confirmed cases increased to 31,506 from a previous 27,980 - the largest number outside China.

The crisis has pushed hospitals to breaking point at the epicenter of the contagion in northern Italy and left other regions scrambling to strengthen their own health systems as the number of infected rises nationwide.

“Lombardy is on the point of collapse. All the intensive care beds and respirators are being used,” said Matteo Salvini, head of the League party which governs the wealthy region. ...

More:  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-italy-idUSKBN214245

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, smuggs said:

I believe that this young gentleman's odds of COVID-related death are higher than his odds of getting laid in Miami during spring break.

 

springbreak.jpg

 

 

 

 

Why is young Joan Cusack having trouble getting laid? 

Edited by Js1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what I love on a message board?  The double down.  But a triple and quadruple down?  Delicious!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, VABuckeye said:

My son is in the OC on a project for me. They went on lockdown yesterday. He spoke with our client, called me and said “business as usual”

I asked him if he’d gone to the dispensary as they might be non-essential and closed. 
 

I hear a very loud “fuck me”!

he has his priorities.  Lol.  He’s 26. 

Son is locking down with his GF and best friend. Asked if they were supplied. He said yep, but was honest when telling me sad he never learned to roll a good Pinner and put away the communal bond. I told him it was time to learn. we discussed ways to sanitize the bong and pipes. Good boy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ballrific said:

in before atomic neg bomb(s)...

Surly surprised me, I figured this thread would have been nuked by lunch time...

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.


mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...