november 2020 (Covid1984)

2020:
January  February  March  April  May  June  July  August  September  October  November  December

This is a chronology not invariably based on the date the information was published but sometimes based on the date  I received it.

It should be clear that I am not  in accord with the ideological aspects of the content of many of the articles I link to.

27/11/20:

Masks unmasked..?

This is from a French friend:

“This Danish study (article in French) shows that masks do
not protect against Covid and the Nature study shows that asymptomatic
people do not transmit the virus. This means that the mask is of no
interest to people who are not sick or do not have symptoms of the
disease. It may possibly only be helpful for people who have the
symptoms of the disease and to ensure that they do not pass it on to
those who do not.

“To give just two examples, the famous Danish long-suspended study has
finally been published with the conclusions one might expect: wearing a
mask in the general population does not prevent contamination by Covid.
The authors have accepted some contorsions politiques” [not sure what
this means – “contortion policies/politics” are literal translations] in
their conclusion, the fact remains: this measure, which no pandemic plan
had ever considered, being so absurd, has no justification in terms of
the cost / benefit balance and should therefore never have had to be
imposed.

Another study has just been published in Nature which concludes (on the
basis of research conducted in Wuhan) that asymptomatic people do not
infect.

“Compared to symptomatic patients, asymptomatic infected individuals
generally have a low amount of viral loads and a short duration of viral
shedding, which decreases the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 5. In
the present study, the culture virus was performed on specimens from
asymptomatic positive cases, and found no viable SARS-CoV-2 virus. All
close contacts of asymptomatic positive cases tested negative,
indicating that asymptomatic positive cases detected in this study were
unlikely to be infectious. “

“There were no positive tests among 1,174 close contacts of
asymptomatic cases.”

Shouldn’t we remember that the only possible use of the mask in pandemic
plans was indeed for symptomatic people only whilst they are symptomatic?!

Do you see the conclusion coming? It is at this stage highly probable
(since we are working with scientific hypotheses it is advisable to
always remain cautious) that everything that has been imposed on us for
months – with force of propaganda – has had no real use, with monstrous costs
for individuals and the community. “

An English friend wrote in response to this:

“To deal with the Danish mask study, or perhaps more accurately with social media and right wing rags like the Spectator that have been swirling its conclusions around, the problem is that no one has bothered to read it. Either that or they have read what they want into it.
If they had read it objectively they would find that it’s inconclusive, with a possibility of benefit and a definite but either marginal or significant reduction or increase in transmission depending on what was taken into account.
This is what the study says:
The findings were inconclusive and cannot definitively exclude a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection of mask wearers in such a setting.
It goes on:
It is important to emphasize that this trial did not address the effects of masks as source control or as protection in settings where social distancing and other public health measures are not in effect.
And…
Reduction in release of virus from infected persons into the environment may be the mechanism for mitigation of transmission in communities where mask use is common or mandated, as noted in observational studies. Thus, these findings do not provide data on the effectiveness of widespread mask wearing in the community in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections.
This from a pool of participants of which half admitted they didn’t stick to the definition of “wearing a mask”. Covid was also transmitted through households, happened in a context of social distancing, and all the other caveats and aspects of life that this study couldn’t possibly mitigate. It also couldn’t control who else wore a mask – whether had the infection or not etc.

This in itself is useful because for example, like diets, it shows mask wearing isn’t effective if people don’t like it and therefore “cheat”.

However, because it’s inconclusive, everyone takes what they want from it. It couldn’t conclude there was a benefit of 50% reduction, so apparently masks don’t work.

There is the whole debate around who is infectious, whether they have symptoms or not, or whether they have yet to have symptoms etc. X just yesterday had a covid antibody test back to show she’s had the disease. So did the rest of her household. That have concluded that they had it way back in February where they had an “odd week”. That’s their symptoms. And someone infected everyone else or they all infected each other. It’s not what I could describe as definitive enough to declare anything one way or another. After that “odd week” (Newcastle was one of the very early hotspots in the U.K – before tests and before symptoms like taste and smell were recognised) they look back and say “yeah – did we lose our sense of smell? It was so weird!”. So we know what we know at given any time and what we do or don’t know directly impacts on our interpretation, understanding and actions. Hindsight…

The danish report also couldn’t conclude how covid is transmitted and even at this stage there is a lot of uncertainty, so in line with that “we know what we know, and know some of what we don’t know” a lot of the measures people have taken whether through compulsion or choice have been informed by guesswork, older studies (masks mainly relating to SARS studies which concluded a benefit), experience, deduction, incomplete understandings etc. [Just to point out that infection may well be spread more by touch, of people and of things, than by anything coming out of the nose or mouth. Anyway, that’s what some doctors are saying. – SF]

As I have said before, I oppose coercion. That in itself is a position against compulsion. I am all for enquiry, and people having good quality information so they can make their own choices. An argument against being forced to wear seatbelts is not an argument against seatbelts themselves or whether wearing them is a good idea. The same goes for masks, social distancing, hand washing, etc. The overwhelming tendency has been for centralising power, decision making and authoritarianism. I can’t be happy with any of that. As for whether I wear a mask… I REALLY HATE wearing them for all the reasons you do – I have never felt so severed from that broader sense of a social connectedness I took for granted – it was like breathing or sunlight and truly resent the compulsion, and I will follow the debate about their effectiveness as it unfolds.”

The French friend responded to this with :

If there were only this study, indeed, your friend would be right.

However, what this study tends to show (I have read the parts he didn’t understand due to too many mathematical calculations) is indeed that the masks are useless outside. The fact that people have “cheated” at one time or another by removing sometimes the mask and not respecting the protocol is not a problem since this is always how the mask is used when it is generalized. Also I was in Germany this summer: over there hardly anyone wore the mask unlike France and there were no more contaminations. The same goes for Sweden, as compared for example with Spain where the wearing of the mask was very quickly generalized …
If the Danish study does not prove things definitively, it at least tends to show that there is no significant difference between wearing a mask and not wearing a mask. State decisions, on the other hand, are not based on any studies and they are often the most authoritarian in terms of confinement, then imposing the wearing of a mask at a time when the virus was hardly killing any more.The (false) argument which wants that a simple contact (to cross someone inthe street) between two human beings is sufficient for contamination is a political argument and not a health one. As for the fact that the study
does not demonstrate the uselessness of the mask when it comes to a sick person who is in prolonged contact with others in a confined environment, this is obvious and that’s what I told you. What we know is that alone a certain type of mask (FFP) used according to a strict protocol, never touched nor removed then thrown away after three hours, all in a closed environment, can have a certain effectiveness. This is obviously not the case with masks as they have been used today and no study will ever be able to demonstrate their effectiveness: after all it is up to those who make it a requirement to prove its effectiveness and not the other way around!
The imposition of the mask on people who are healthy or unlikely to develop the disease is a worrying turning point. So far what’s been advocated is non-compulsory protective measures for sick or fragile people: the flu vaccine for elderly people, for example, is a recommendation and in no way an obligation. Tomorrow we will impose the vaccine on the whole population and especially for children, as has been for the mask …”

X writes: “Re: your citation of the study published in Nature, on the basis of research from Wuhan in which it was concluded that asymptomatic patients do not transmit.“The patient had no symptoms, so I got careless.” – Li Wenliang, the doctor who first brought to existence of the novel coronavirus to the attention of the world and was silenced by the same regime that oversees the publication of news about it, from his deathbed, in an interview with New York Times reporters Chris Buckley and Stephen Lee Meyers, Jan. 31/Feb. 1.

I know who I’m going to believe.”

A French friend writes about the above:

“This refers to this interview: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/world/asia/Li-Wenliang-china-coronavirus.html

If Dr. Li Wenliang’s patient didn’t have symptoms, was he therefore asymptomatic? No, as shown by this article:
“Dr. Li returned to work at the hospital after having been admonished for claiming the outbreak. There, he treated a patient for glaucoma, not knowing that the patient was asymptomatic for coronavirus. A day later, the patient began to show symptoms, and two days later, so did Dr. Li. The New York Times interviewed Dr. Li while he was hospitalized and asked when he realized how contagious the virus was. Dr. Li responded, “I knew it when the patient I came in contact with infected her family, and I was infected right afterward. Thus I discovered it was highly contagious. The patient had no symptoms, so I got careless.” Sadly, Dr. Li succumbed to the virus on February 7, 2020 at 33 years of age.”

The doctor was infected in the phase immediately preceding the onset of symptoms of the disease: he was therefore not one of those “asymptomatic infected persons [who] usually have a low amount of viral loads and a short duration of viral shedding. “, according to the “Nature” study, but one of the “symptomatic patients ” or, more precisely, pre-symptomatic patients. What the interview shows, moreover, is that contamination takes place mainly in a closed environment, in other words in a “confined” environment, in particular in the family circle and that carers are among the most exposed people. If there are lessons to be learned, they relate to the use of masks in hospitals and not to the use of the mask outside and for the general public.

I don’t know how long is the phase when people are pre-symptomatic today, that is, when they have a high viral load but no symptoms. What I do know, however, is that this disease is not very contagious compared to others. What I also know is that people who test positive form a minority of the population and symptomatic people form a minority of that minority, and that the presymptomatic phase of the latter is probably quite short. A small portion of these symptomatic people will develop severe forms, some of which will be fatal.

Is it necessary on this basis to mask the whole population, starting with children, who almost only develop asymptomatic forms of the disease? In this case we find ourselves in a scenario like “Minority Report”: just as the power described by P.K.Dick claims to punish criminals even before they have acted, so here we are going to impose measures on people who are susceptible, to present a non-symptomatic form of a disease which will be symptomatic only in a very small number of cases and fatal in only a very few of the latter cases! In fact it is even worse than in Minority Report since here it is the entire population which is the target and not simply a minority of potential patients.

If we absolutely want to treat people who are virtually (to a very small extent) sick and to apply a principle of absolute precaution, if we absolutely want to treat the problem upstream and cut off at the source any possibility of disease among human beings , the best is still to avoid being born because to be born is to take the risk of being sick and it is, inevitably, to end up dying: you might as well not live at all! As the Silenus of Greek mythology said: “It is best for man not to be born and if this misfortune happens to him the best is to die as soon as possible.”

Coming back to the Chinese doctor, he was infected during a period when the virus was still relatively unknown. As you indicate the study in “Nature” relates to another period and to a disease no longer having the same characteristics (contagiousness, infectivity, etc.) as at the time. Another thing that is surprising is the age of death of Dr. Li: 33 years for a person who apparently did not present (this remains to be verified) any comorbidities. I can’t help but think (probably my conspiratorial mood) that this doctor died as much from the lack of care (they wantedhim to die) as from the disease itself. The situation of people in their youth and without comorbidities who die of the disease hardly exists today. Apparently, according to this study (I haven’t fully read it) even the possibility of a pre-symptomatic transmission of the virus given the stage we’ve reached today would be highly improbable.

What we are witnessing today it is the equivalent of Bush’s “Preventive war”, but applied to the sanitary field. There are the same special effects here, same lies, the same fake figures (for example Macron’s “400,000 deaths if confinement hadn’t beeen imposed”), the same game of shock and awe
of a potential threat. If we hadn’t done the confinement we would have had many more deaths; without war we would eventually have had weapons of mass destruction that would have been unleashed against us and killed tens of millions

In fact I have the impression that the utopia of pure health and zero disease complements the doctrine of zero tolerance and zero crime at the police level; in short of this perfect society without crime that P.K. Dick describes to us, because we knew how to act preventively before the crime happens or the disease starts. Welcome to a a safe world, without crime and freedom, without disease and without harm, where rulers claim to detect everything in advance, all for our benefit. Don’t move! – Big Brother is protecting you!

An American science student writes:

“I read the Danish study (Bundgaard et al., 2020) and Nature study (Cao et al., 2020) to understand the context. Of course, the knowledge surrounding COVID-19 is very nebulous, so there are many conflicting studies flying around. This is why I endeavored to read as much studies regarding HCQ (and azithromycin) to understand the wholest possible context of the research, as well as the results they give (it’s obvious that you can’t read literally all studies, but it’s possible to read high-impact and high-quality studies to, again, understand the context).

First, Bundgaard et al., 2020 is a randomized clinical trial (yay!) that tests whether surgical masks are effective, which they return with an odds ratio of 0.82 (with a very high p-value). What I would like to note is that the participants in the masked group didn’t have the best adherence to the protocols, so that could be a confounding factor. Plus, this trial was done with surgical masks, which are already known to be less effective than cotton masks, to my knowledge (this may have been updated somewhere). So what this study says is that wearing surgical masks with social distancing doesn’t change COVID-19 positivity rates. Which does suggest surgical masks are not as effective as we would like it to be, but it does not and cannot say about other types of facial coverings.

Second, Cao et al., 2020 is a cross-sectional observational study that basically tests a lot of people in Wuhan 5 weeks after a lockdown, and found out that not a lot of people were infected (…duh). Sure, when this was tested, people in close contact with asymptomatic people (anybody who contacted asymptomatic people within 2 days) didn’t test positive. But these people could have tested before this screening. And where did the asymptomatic people get their infection from? Of course, this is all speculation. Including the “conclusion” that asymptomatic people don’t transmit the disease.

Of course, what you are claiming may be true to a certain extent, but these studies don’t fully prove that “masks don’t work” or “asymptomatic transmissions don’t happen”. It’s much more nuanced, which I understand is frustrating, but that’s how research works. You just have to figure out one by one. And many of these studies can be pretty bad (though Bundgaard et al., 2020 is not a bad study, so points for that).”

X then wrote:

“A wonderful piece of doublethink, Sam. A patient not showing symptoms – in the observation of the reviewing physician – is not asymptomatic. You do have a way with individual ‘captive words,’ just as your fellow French tinfoil hat has a way with the legalistic use of medical terminology. Unfortunately you lack such a facility with reading, inasmuch as what you have asserted in your e-mail is contradicted by the very article you cite (20/20, Eyes/Optics, August 2020, second paragraph, second sentence).

When you get excited about these things, you rather readily lose the thread. Stick to politics, where you are quite gifted, not science and medicine, where you are 20,000 leagues out of your depth.”

My (SamFanto’s) answer to the above:

It’s not my words. Nor are they even the words of the guy he describes as my “fellow French tinfoil hat”, an insult devoid of the slightest explanation, let alone a valid one, an arrogant dismissal that just sounds like classic dominant ideology. The words are those of the report. Moreover, it’s not at all clear what he means when he says “ A patient not showing symptoms – in the observation of the reviewing physician – is not asymptomatic.”, since the article my French friend quoted never says the patient was asymptomatic. Is X confused or is he just confusing? Does he think asymptomatic is the same as having no symptoms or does he think I or my French friend think that? Whilst for some it may be hard to understand, asymptomatic is not the same as pre-symptomatic, though they’re not mutually exclusive. As almost everybody knows some people never have symptoms, but all the others who start to have Covid only develop symptoms later, just as there are lots, possibly the majority, of illnesses that don’t show symptoms in the first hours. The second paragraph, second sentence of the article mentioned in the above put-down from the American reads “he treated a patient for glaucoma, not knowing that the patient was asymptomatic for coronavirus.”, but the 3rd sentence reads ” A day later, the patient began to show symptoms, and two days later, so did Dr. Li. “. Of course, without testing all the time, say every hour, one cannot know whether one (or someone) is going to get Covid or not and even then whether there’ll be symptoms or not is not predictable at the moment, and is unlikely ever to be predictable. However, if you were to be tested every hour, you could obviously see if you had Covid, and then take precautions, even if such precautions turn out to be possibly unnecessary because one is asymptomatic (experts differ over whether you can infect others if you’re asymptomatic, but it’s very possible you can’t) . But who wants to test themselves every hour other than someone with time on their hands and for whom the cost of a test is not a problem (in the UK people have to pay up to £200 per test)?

The following was written by me early on 27/11/20:

The Nature study dates from October 2020 (and it’s pretty inconclusive) , so all this implies – in a very general sense – is that we should take the publicly released data with a pinch of salt , which is anyway what the Nature study says. Possibly the data the study comes from has been falsified. But that goes for all data around this crisis, whether the data comes from the red fascist state of China or other forms of state capitalism or semi-social democratic economies , or all the vast array of neoliberal regimes throughout the world. This crisis has thrown us even further into an ever increasingly insecure world of minefields of fog-filled labyrinths. And people are more and more trying to find a shortcut through this maze by simplifying and reducing everything to a flat 2-dimensional picture which fragments as soon as you step in a different direction and try to look at it from a different angle. For the moment all we can do is try to judge from results, from our lives and that of others, what is happening, but even more so what is not happening. Progress towards a true 3-dimensional perspective can only be discovered by complex practical and theoretical research, tentative and patient undogmatic critique. The worst kinds of dogmatism seem to come from the medical milieu, but then they’re objectively an authority on everything and, as Macron said on 10th October: “I think that in the country of the Enlightenment and of Pasteur, we need to stop having kinds of permanent debates on facts or scientific truth. “

A couple of references:

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

Global report on hydroxychloroquine use

Song in French

23/11/20:

Oxford vaccine trials announce 90% efficacy as they trust repression of past evidence and the spectators’ goldfish memory will allow them to rake in billions

Back in mid-September I wrote about this story that hit the headlines for 5 minutes before being buried under endless pictures of people not maintaining social distancing. It reported “The Oxford coronavirus vaccine trial is facing a “challenge”, the health secretary has admitted, after it was put on hold due to a suspected serious adverse reaction in one of its volunteers…The nature of the adverse reaction and when it happened are not currently known.” However, after 4 days the trials were resumed without any official indication of what had gone wrong. But the New York Times reported that the just mentioned volunteer in the UK trial had been diagnosed with transverse myelitis: “Symptoms include weakness and numbness of the limbs, deficits in sensation and motor skills, dysfunctional urethral and anal sphincter activities, and dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system that can lead to episodes of high blood pressure….sensation to pain or light touch is impaired. Motor weakness…mainly affects the muscles that flex the legs and extend the arms…Back pain can occur at the level of any inflamed segment of the spinal cord…all four limbs may be affected and there is risk of respiratory failure Lesions of the lower cervical region (C5–T1) will cause a combination of upper and lower motor neuron signs in the upper limbs, and exclusively upper motor neuron signs in the lower limbs. Cervical lesions account for about 20% of cases…A lesion of the lumbar segment, the lower part of the spinal cord (L1S5) often produces a combination of upper and lower motor neuron signs in the lower limbs. Lumbar lesions account for about 10% of cases.”

And a bit later a second coronavirus vaccine volunteer suffered the very same rare neurological condition“A 37-year-old woman suffered a rare neurological condition that left her struggling to walk…”
Marvelous the way they say “the two cases were unlikely to be associated with the vaccine…” A rare disease amongst 2 people volunteering for the trial of the vaccine. Pure coincidence! Like the melting of the icecaps being just something that happens naturally every few thousand years – nothing to do with commodity-induced rich-man-made climate change, nothing to do with the car economy and capitalist industry in general.
This article also says that only one third make a full or near full recovery from this ‘transverse myelitis’ “with most of their symptoms gone” after 2 years. Nothing to worry about then.

This, from a Green EU politician, states that the European Union, on 10th July 2020, gave the go-ahead for the production of Genetically Modified vaccines without verifying, through experiments, any environmental or health safeguard!!! This means the whole world – or at least EU countries – have been explicitly transformed into involuntary guinea pigs. Not hard to recognise what might happen if GM vaccines are permitted without even standard trials which are not even a guarantee of much safety anyway (eg the hundred thousand or so people each year who die in the US from totally “safe” – ho ho – drugs, drugs that have passed these standard tests). And these scum complain Dr.Raoult’s specific mix of hydroxychloraquine and the antibiotic azithromycine has not been subjected to any “scientific” health experiments . Certainly further proof that this crisis is an opportunity for the maniacs who rule us to do things that they think they could not do before. Whilst anti-vaxxers can often be simplistic and dogmatic and selectively ignore some of the positive effects of vaccines (just as pro-vaxxers ignore the negative effects), there’s a fundamental basis for such fears. The problem of this Covid1984 epoch is that people fall into the most horrnedous manichean splits between pro-XYZ and anti-XYZ that represses all struggle for recognising what is true and what is false in such dogmatic positions, a divid e and rule that appears to be purely upo to individual choie when it shows above all how such choices are thoroughly colonised by the various manipulations of external authorities.

And now there’s this: Scientists are working on vaccines that spread like a disease. What could possibly go wrong?

“Self-spreading vaccines could indeed entail serious risks, and the prospect of using them raises challenging questions. Who decides, for instance, where and when a vaccine should be released? Once released, scientists will no longer be in control of the virus. It could mutate, as viruses naturally do. It may jump species. It will cross borders. There will be unexpected outcomes and unintended consequences. There always are. While it may turn out to be technically feasible to fight emerging infectious diseases like COVID-19, AIDS, Ebola, and Zika with self-spreading viruses, and while the benefits may be significant, how does one weigh those benefits against what may be even greater risks?”

Cons like snake oil at least had the advantage of not usually having an adverse effect on those seeking a quick cure; whilst some died the majority were just swallowing a largely harmless mix of innocuous substances. As for genuine snake oil – it can have genuinely beneficial results: “Snake oil really is a cure for what ails you, if that happens to be arthritis, heart disease or maybe even depression”

On the 19th of September in London there were clashes with cops on an anti-mask anti-vaccination demo. The demo was a mix of right-wingers, left-wingers, anarchists and unalligned, symptomatic of this crazy confused epoch. Pertinent critiques mixed with excessively simplistic stuff by terribly muddle-headed weirdos. Some of these people believe in the absurdity of vaccines being the state’s or private interests’ method of injecting microchips into people’s bodies. Which distracts and distorts the very good reasons to be against vaccinations (though not dogmatically – there are some situations where they may have some uses). Even if some of these ideologies fall into fantasy conspiracy theories , there’s still a great deal of validity to a critique of vaccinations being developed by the powers-that-be, as the horrific implications of what’s above show.

(Much of the above appeared here in September 2020, below)

14/11/20:

Belgium, Ixelles: cop unions call for a strike against imposing fines as “retaliation” for prosecutor temporarily releasing youths who resisted being beaten by them during a Covid1984 control; these cops were lightly hurt, for which they had a week’s paid leave off work

English version here

10/11/20:

France, St.Nazaire: High school students clash again with cops over lack of health conditions in schools (see 6/11/ & 5/11 below)

8/11/20:

UK, Manchester large anti-lockdown demo in defiance of Covid1984 rules

6/11/20:

France, St.Nazaire: high school students clash with cops over lack of logical sanitary conditons for 2nd day in a row

5/11/20:

France: blockades or attempted blockades and clashes with the state at high schools in 7 towns and cities over Covid1984 restrictions &/or illogical health regulations

Sample quote: Classes were canceled following riots Thursday, November 5 at the Malraux high school in Montataire. They started around 10 a.m. inside the facility and continued outside. Projectiles were thrown at the police. …Today, the abolition of breaks (“recess”)… has apparently served as the trigger for a real riot. …Thick smoke invades the establishment. They come from the toilets. The alarm is ringing. Start of panic. The students are evacuated to the schoolyard and brought to safety. They stay there for about 3 hours surrounded by their teachers trying to reassure them…Beginning inside the high school, the hostile movement spread around the establishment. While the students are still parked in the inner courtyard, individuals outside attack the newly deployed law enforcement agencies. Projectiles, including stones, are thrown at the police. While the police initiate a maneuver to evacuate the school forecourt, a young girl is trampled in the crowd….The events mobilized 27 firefighters and around 30 law enforcement officials. Three young people were referred to the Creil hospital center for mild intoxication, an asthma attack and a spasmophilia attack. A staff member’s car was partially set on fire. Classes have been canceled. Three young people were arrested by the Creil police. The high school students we met could not identify the perpetrators: “With masks, hooded, it was difficult to know who it was,” say several of them waiting for their bus to return home after the battle….a message on Snapchat clearly announced the blockade intentions for this Thursday, November 5. It was released early in the week. The high school students were there, urged to arm themselves, encouraged to confront and “bring back anything that burns, anything that explodes, anything that launches out to show that we are the most pissed off in the Oise”.”

“We just feel like prisoners at the moment. Recently we had this boy who committed suicide and this is their response, to lock us in.”

Manchester students: offence against rulers’ defence

London: protesters put the ill-health of cops at risk; filth hand out £10,000 fine Videos and other reports here

Slovenia, Ljubljana: riots against Covid1984 More here

3/11/20:

France, Paris: high school students clash with cops in protests against unhealthy Covid conditions in schools

UK: Pertinent criticism of various attitudes towards free school meals in holidays

2/11/20:

France, Nantes: small group attack cops in front of school in protest against Covid restrictions

1/11/20:

Corona state measures: Let us not leave the field to the far-right and conspiracy theorists again!

Spain: more clashes in 2 cities over Covid1984

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.