Jump to content

CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk

Mrs Whiggins

By Mrs Whiggins
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 52.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Anastasis

    2588

  • jimmyjazz

    1665

  • 4th&Five

    1305

  • Mrs Whiggins

    1226

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

safe sex
safe sex

I'd just like to point out that neither myself nor any of my fellow nurses, fellow advanced nurse practitioners, and other healthcare providers ever swore an oath that we would lay down our lives for

Bama Chick
Bama Chick

Welp, it finally happened. I snapped in public today. I went into work for a bit this morning because I’m trying to figure out the safest way to host physicians we are recruiting given our CV-19 sit

safe sex
safe sex

I don't really know what to say anymore tbh. What happened last night is hard to put into words for anyone who hasn't worked in a hospital healthcare setting. Just unreal. Everyone is getting fucked.

Posted Images

workswithseed

workswithseed 2,201

Posted
Posted

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/thousands-call-snp-government-unvaccinated-25939087

Quote

An online petition has racked up over 2,000 signatures from Scots across the country to allow unvaccinated women access to IVF treatment.

The news follows a furious backlash towards the SNP-run government after it was announced fertility treatment was suddenly suspended for unvaccinated women in Scotland at the start of January.

 

This meant that both NHS funded and privately funded fertility treatment only became available to those who are fully vaccinated.

This was announced on Christmas Eve.

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
workswithseed

workswithseed 2,201

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

We all know workswithseed isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but it's like he isn't even trying anymore.  What a drama queen.

I know you're the ape who reads, but doesn't understand. The government just told families who can have children, even though they pay taxes on this. It really isn't about the change.org petition I'm showing, it's the fact that this seems actually evil. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck You 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PenelopeWitherspoon

PenelopeWitherspoon 19,279

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I know you're the ape who reads, but doesn't understand. The government just told families who can have children, even though they pay taxes on this. It really isn't about the change.org petition I'm showing, it's the fact that this seems actually evil. 

You are such a fucking moron.  It isn't evil.  It is the government allocating government provided resources to those who won't likely have an issue later because they got vaccinated.  I know it is hard for you to put two and two together, but unvaccinated pregnant women are much more likely to have a bad outcome, so why waste the resources to get them up the duff to begin with?   This is common fucking sense.  Holy shit, I hope you never have children.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13,707

Posted
Posted

It's not unheard of for potential health concerns to prevent someone from under-going a medical procedure. It's not punishing the person but rather hoping to give the highest chance of success for a limited resource. I assume IVF is an expensive treatment for the NHS to provide, in terms of cost to the NHS.

Does it mean that they're going too far with this rule? Maybe. I don't know but that is for the people in the UK or specifically Scotland to decide.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106,621

Posted
Posted
You are such a fucking moron.  It isn't evil.  It is the government allocating government provided resources to those who won't likely have an issue later because they got vaccinated.  I know it is hard for you to put two and two together, but unvaccinated pregnant women are much more likely to have a bad outcome, so why waste the resources to get them up the duff to begin with?   This is common fucking sense.  Holy shit, I hope you never have children.  

Yeah….this.

Imagine the government has the resources to put new radar and other collision avoidance equipment on a limited number of ships. So the gov’t makes a rule that says “only ships with no holes in their hull are eligible for these upgrades.”

That’s just plain good sense. You get a higher percentage bang for your buck by not putting expensive gear on a ship that has a higher chance of ending up on the sea floor.

Really, workswithseed should read the whole John Stuart Mill catalog. I recommended “On Liberty” before, but it seems he should add “Utilitarianism” to the list.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Eastwood

Eastwood 4,394

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

That and... It's in fucking Scotland. Why should we give a shit how Scotland allocates its IVF treatments? Why does a 20 year old in Oregon care about how Scotland allocates its IVF treatments?

But if we really want to open that door, lets open it. Imagine living in a country where one of the most expensive fertility treatments costs you zero out of pocket, outside of the taxes you pay overall towards NHS. All you have to do is vaccinate against COVID. I wonder how many infertile women in the US would take that deal today.

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dutchrudder

Dutchrudder 11,228

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, workswithseed said:

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/thousands-call-snp-government-unvaccinated-25939087

This was announced on Christmas Eve.

Interesting. Did you know that Weird Al is going to perform at the Super Bowl Half Time Show???

https://www.change.org/p/the-national-football-league-nerds-everywhere-weird-al-yankovic-performs-the-super-bowl-xlvii-half-time-show

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Royal We

The Royal We 3,090

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

That and... It's in fucking Scotland. Why should we give a shit how Scotland allocates its IVF treatments? Why does a 20 year old in Oregon care about how Scotland allocates its IVF treatments?

Fucking this. 

What, exactly, are we supposed to take away from you sharing this?  How, exactly, will this policy impact you?  Somewhere in the world something is happening that I don't like so I'm going to share that news on the internet?

It might be time for you to take a look at where you are getting your "news" from because they are fucking with you and trying to rile you up over some BS that has no bearing at all on your world.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11,401

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, The Royal We said:

Fucking this. 

What, exactly, are we supposed to take away from you sharing this?  How, exactly, will this policy impact you?  Somewhere in the world something is happening that I don't like so I'm going to share that news on the internet?

It might be time for you to take a look at where you are getting your "news" from because they are fucking with you and trying to rile you up over some BS that has no bearing at all on your world.

it's the fucking express

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 28,081

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, workswithseed said:

I know you're the ape who reads, but doesn't understand. The government just told families who can have children, even though they pay taxes on this. It really isn't about the change.org petition I'm showing, it's the fact that this seems actually evil. 

You’re for the government paying for assisted reproduction?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
workswithseed

workswithseed 2,201

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

You’re for the government paying for assisted reproduction?

No, but these are people who pay for a service, and when they try to use it, the government gets involved and tell them no. 

I already stated that I don't want government telling people to not get abortions, but to change hearts and minds, but this is government telling people that they can't get pregnant. 

  • Fuck You 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PenelopeWitherspoon

PenelopeWitherspoon 19,279

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

No, but these are people who pay for a service, and when they try to use it, the government gets involved and tell them no. 

I already stated that I don't want government telling people to not get abortions, but to change hearts and minds, but this is government telling people that they can't get pregnant. 

Actually, this isn’t what this is as has been explained to you before.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

No, but these are people who pay for a service, and when they try to use it, the government gets involved and tell them no. 

I already stated that I don't want government telling people to not get abortions, but to change hearts and minds, but this is government telling people that they can't get pregnant. 

You might have mentioned it before, but I would highly recommend you read some more Murray Rothbard.  I think much of your belief system is rooted in his influential stylings but he would paint with a more pragmatic brush upon the canvas of how systemic harms can be curbed before fruition.  But you'd have much more in common with his ideological cornerstones so'd be a good "jumping-off" point.  My two cents, but I need 'em both back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
HenryJames

HenryJames 67,116

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
27 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

No, but these are people who pay for a service, and when they try to use it, the government gets involved and tell them no. 

We certainly don’t want to get the government involved in the National Health Service.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eastwood

Eastwood 4,394

Posted
Posted
No, but these are people who pay for a service, and when they try to use it, the government gets involved and tell them no. 
I already stated that I don't want government telling people to not get abortions, but to change hearts and minds, but this is government telling people that they can't get pregnant. 
Seed, NHS is literally the government. The service that it provides is a government service. Those who do not qualify for the government service can go pay for IVF on their own dime.

Again, who sent you this article/where did you find this article, to what end was this article presented to you, and why do you think think this article is relevant to the US political system's response to COVID? You brought this to us to make some kind of point or to echo the point of whoever presented this article to you. Let's just get to that part of the exercise and save some time.
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 46,061

Posted
Posted

I'm posting this here because I figure it will get more traction than the travel forum and I'm kinda freaking out.

I have an international flight next Friday (the 28th) and I need to get a negative PCR test result on the 27th.  From what I can tell, Walgreens only schedules tests 3 days in advance and takes 1-2 days turnaround for results.  So am I really going to have to pray to get into walgreens for the test on the 25th and then pray again that it actually turns around by the 27th?  Otherwise I miss my flight and am fucked out of a once in a lifetime trip that i've had on the books for 2 years. 

Does this seem insane to anyone else?  Am I misunderstanding something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
workswithseed

workswithseed 2,201

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

Seed, NHS is literally the government. The service that it provides is a government service. Those who do not qualify for the government service can go pay for IVF on their own dime.

Again, who sent you this article/where did you find this article, to what end was this article presented to you, and why do you think think this article is relevant to the US political system's response to COVID? You brought this to us to make some kind of point or to echo the point of whoever presented this article to you. Let's just get to that part of the exercise and save some time.

"This meant that both NHS funded and privately funded fertility treatment only became available to those who are fully vaccinated."

Unless they are saying that some private fertility treatment centers are choosing to, and some aren't. The sentence seems to state that the government mandated that they are only able to serve vaccinated families.

 

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eastwood

Eastwood 4,394

Posted
Posted
"This meant that both NHS funded and privately funded fertility treatment only became available to those who are fully vaccinated."
Unless they are saying that some private fertility treatment centers are choosing to, and some aren't. The sentence seems to state that the government mandated that they are only able to serve vaccinated families.
 
Okay, great, now answer the rest of my question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
4th&Five

4th&Five 41,904

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I'm posting this here because I figure it will get more traction than the travel forum and I'm kinda freaking out.

I have an international flight next Friday (the 28th) and I need to get a negative PCR test result on the 27th.  From what I can tell, Walgreens only schedules tests 3 days in advance and takes 1-2 days turnaround for results.  So am I really going to have to pray to get into walgreens for the test on the 25th and then pray again that it actually turns around by the 27th?  Otherwise I miss my flight and am fucked out of a once in a lifetime trip that i've had on the books for 2 years. 

Does this seem insane to anyone else?  Am I misunderstanding something?

we had to get our daughter tested to go to hawaii and walgreens sent the results in under 2 hours.  pre-omicron though so that's probably not helpful.  you're welcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 46,061

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, 4th&Five said:

we had to get our daughter tested to go to hawaii and walgreens sent the results in under 2 hours.  pre-omicron though so that's probably not helpful.  you're welcome.

So I re-read the requirements for the Maldives and it actually says I just need to have taken the test not more than 96 hours prior to departure.  So I guess that gives me a bit of a bigger window than I thought.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
workswithseed

workswithseed 2,201

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Eastwood said:
5 minutes ago, workswithseed said:
"This meant that both NHS funded and privately funded fertility treatment only became available to those who are fully vaccinated."
Unless they are saying that some private fertility treatment centers are choosing to, and some aren't. The sentence seems to state that the government mandated that they are only able to serve vaccinated families.
 

Okay, great, now answer the rest of my question.

I found out about it. this is the politics thread, we don't just talk about US COVID response on this thread. I think this is terrible, and why I'm posting here, and not in the DT thread.

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13,707

Posted
Posted

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/01/17/texas-hospital-omicron-staff-nurses/

Quote

The 67-year-old originally showed up here, at Houston Methodist The Woodlands Hospital, when an existing stomach issue flared up so badly he couldn’t stand. He tested positive for COVID and was admitted. “These other problems I already had, but I didn’t know it was that bad. [My surgeon] believes COVID brought them on, like that,” he said, snapping his fingers.

...

“I don't do vaccines too much really,” he said. “Years ago, they gave me the vaccine for flu or whatever it was. It gave me the flu bad, real bad

...

Sprunger says there haven’t been enough studies about the coronavirus vaccines and he’s worried about the side effects. His brother, who got vaccinated and boosted, is hospitalized in Michigan right now, he says, and Sprunger believes the vaccine made him worse, not better.

If unvaccinated people do get sick from this new, highly contagious COVID variant, Sprunger says they can just do what he did.

“If you get it, go to the hospital,” he said. “They'll get you through it.”

 

glad this guy uses the hospital as the solution when he was wrong about the vaccine. Not sure why he trusts the hospital systems. Aren't they just as much behind the vaccine conspiracy?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lemonlime

lemonlime 5,503

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

So I re-read the requirements for the Maldives and it actually says I just need to have taken the test not more than 96 hours prior to departure.  So I guess that gives me a bit of a bigger window than I thought.  

I think the test only needs to be done the day before to get back in to the US (obv. depending on what country you're traveling to).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11,401

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

If the last thing is "how did I find out about this," then you're just trying your hardest to hand wave the article/me. You said it was a conspiracy theory. Do you not believe it?

the express is a tabloid muckraking outfit. why not do a little fact checking right to the source: 

https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-fertility-treatment-for-unvaccinated-patients/

Quote

Deferral of fertility treatment for patients who are not fully vaccinated  against COVID-19
Letter issued 7 January 2022.

Following clinical concerns raised by the lead Clinicians in the NHS Assisted Conception Units (ACUs) in Scotland, consideration of the evidence of increased levels of morbidity and risk of severe illness amongst unvaccinated pregnant women, which I discuss further below, and taking account of ongoing uncertainty around the impact of the Omicron variant on pregnant women, I recommend a temporary deferral of fertility treatment for patients who are not fully vaccinated against COVID-19 as set out later in this letter.

Read the whole letter. then ask yourself how that compares to the shit article you linked from a right wing tabloid rag. is any of that source information from the instigator of the deferral anywhere at all in that shitass article you linked? 

oh,  it isn't. maybe you should wonder why.

but everyone knows you won't. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 30,231

Posted
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

If the last thing is "how did I find out about this," then you're just trying your hardest to hand wave the article/me. You said it was a conspiracy theory. Do you not believe it?

If anything is conspiratorial, it's that gawdawful "news article" you quoted from. Just look at the last few lines:

This now means that if women in Scotland are currently unvaccinated and have frozen embryos in storage, they will no longer be able to access them without paying a hefty fee to have them transferred to a clinic in a different country.

Furthermore, the IVF treatment would then also have to be carried out in that country too - meaning more ludicrous costs - a move from the SNP government that Scottish Labour's health spokeswoman Jackie Baillie previously blasted as "inhumane".

Is the above factual? Is the accusation that it applies to non-NHS providers factual? It sounds like an opinion piece to me. You know, something that is trying to sway your thinking with specious claims.

 

How about we go to the actual statement from Scotland's Chief Medical Officer (I really hope you take the time to read it):

Quote

 

Deferral of fertility treatment for patients who are not fully vaccinated  against COVID-19
Letter issued 7 January 2022.

Following clinical concerns raised by the lead Clinicians in the NHS Assisted Conception Units (ACUs) in Scotland, consideration of the evidence of increased levels of morbidity and risk of severe illness amongst unvaccinated pregnant women, which I discuss further below, and taking account of ongoing uncertainty around the impact of the Omicron variant on pregnant women, I recommend a temporary deferral of fertility treatment for patients who are not fully vaccinated against COVID-19 as set out later in this letter.

As you will be aware my letter to Chief Executives of 16 December (SGHD/CMO(2021) 39) (attached), highlighted recent updates to JCVI advice on vaccinating pregnant women, namely that pregnant women should now be considered as a clinical risk group and part of priority group 6 within the vaccination programme.

The latest evidence from the UK Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS) and the Mothers and Babies: Reducing Risk through Audits and Confidential Enquiries across the UK (MBRRACE-UK) showed that unvaccinated pregnant women and their babies have died after admission to hospital with COVID-19 and 98% of pregnant women in ICU with COVID-19 were unvaccinated.  According to recent data reported by Public Health Scotland, pregnant women with COVID-19 have a higher risk of severe disease requiring admission to critical care than non-pregnant women of a similar age. 

With the arrival of the Delta variant increased numbers of pregnant women have been admitted to hospital with moderate to severe COVID-19 symptoms requiring critical care. The Scottish Intensive Care Society Report (SICSAG) Report, published on 13 October, highlighted that of the 89 COVID-19 positive pregnant women who were admitted to critical care between December 2020 and end September 2021, 88 were unvaccinated, 1 was partially vaccinated, and none was fully vaccinated.

As advised by the JCVI, COVID-19 continues to pose a significant risk to unvaccinated pregnant women and their babies, therefore I recommend that fertility treatment should be deferred for patients who are not fully vaccinated against COVID-19.   This applies to NHS services providing any fertility treatment (with the exception of Fertility Preservation) aimed at creating a pregnancy.

To summarise, this recommendation takes account of: the JCVI advice that pregnant women should be considered as a clinical risk group within the COVID-19 vaccination programme due to growing evidence that they are at increased risk of serious consequences from COVID-19; data from UKOSS and MBRRACE-UK revealing that clinical outcomes following COVID-19 in pregnant women have worsened over the course of the pandemic, with the UKOSS study and SICSAG report both finding that the vast majority of pregnant women who were admitted to hospital with COVID-19 were unvaccinated; and of course the concerns raised with me directly by the lead Clinicians in the NHS Assisted Conception Units.

We are now seeing an exponential rise in cases of Omicron, with increased transmissibility.  As there is still uncertainty around the impact of this variant on pregnant women, and whilst the Delta variant continues to account for a significant number of cases in the UK, a more cautious approach to fertility treatment in unvaccinated women is now recommended. This overall approach is a protective one and based on the robust published evidence.

I recommend that women who have had their first and second COVID-19 vaccinations and who have had or (in the event that it is less than 3 months since their second dose) who are waiting for their booster dose should continue their treatment as normal, in line with advice.  It should be noted that access to boosters will be delayed in the event of a positive PCR test. Clinicians can get further guidance in the Green Book on this type of post infection scenario COVID-19: the green book, chapter 14a.

The COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective and NHS Scotland strongly recommends people get the vaccine when offered. There is no evidence to suggest that the COVID-19 vaccines will affect fertility in women or men. More information is available on this at NHS Inform Pregnancy, breastfeeding and the coronavirus vaccine | The coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine.

There will be a small number of women for whom vaccination may be clinically contraindicated – guidance on this is also set out in the Green Book Chapter 14a COVID-19 greenbook chapter 14a. Treatment for those women should be risk assessed on a case by case basis by treating clinicians who can take further advice, including from their local immunisation coordinator, as well as Green Book chapter 14a.

All patients having treatment temporarily deferred should have the deferral time added back on to their treatment journey to ensure that no patient loses out on treatment, for example by reason of age.

This recommendation will be kept under review. It will be reviewed alongside emerging evidence of risk as well as the prevailing levels of COVID-19 during January and February 2022 to ascertain whether treatment of unvaccinated women should recommence, or whether a further deferral is necessary.  I shall of course keep you updated.

Thank you for your continuing support and valued input.

Yours sincerely

Professor Sir Gregor Smith
Chief Medical Officer

 

So, to summarize, your article makes it sound like some sort of punitive and unreasonable measure that applies to all healthcare provides when the language clearly states its a temporary recommendation to save the lives of unvaccinated pregnant women and their fetuses seeking IVF through the NHS because they are at a substantially higher risk of poor healthcare outcomes.

But, in all honesty, my personal opinion is that maybe they should reconsider and just not help anti-vaxxers breed at all, period.

Edit: Gawddammit. @hayden_horn beat me to it.

Edited by bolverk
  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11,401

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, bolverk said:

If anything is conspiratorial, it's that gawdawful "news article" you quoted from. Just look at the last few lines:

This now means that if women in Scotland are currently unvaccinated and have frozen embryos in storage, they will no longer be able to access them without paying a hefty fee to have them transferred to a clinic in a different country.

Furthermore, the IVF treatment would then also have to be carried out in that country too - meaning more ludicrous costs - a move from the SNP government that Scottish Labour's health spokeswoman Jackie Baillie previously blasted as "inhumane".

Is the above factual? Is the accusation that it applies to non-NHS providers factual? It sounds like an opinion piece to me. You know, something that is trying to sway your thinking with specious claims.

 

How about we go to the actual statement from Scotland's Chief Medical Officer (I really hope you take the time to read it):

So, to summarize, your article makes it sound like some sort of punitive and unreasonable measure that applies to all healthcare provides when the language clearly states its a temporary recommendation to save the lives of unvaccinated pregnant women and their fetuses seeking IVF through the NHS because they are at a substantially higher risk of poor healthcare outcomes.

But, in all honesty, my personal opinion is that maybe they should reconsider and just not help anti-vaxxers breed at all, period.

Edit: Gawddammit. @hayden_horn beat me to it.

great minds...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Immaculate Vibes

Immaculate Vibes 114

Posted
Posted

 

I think this article touches on an important change. Millions of people who have been afraid of getting Covid for two years have gotten It in the last month. Now that they’re no longer afraid there will be society wide push to return to more normal life. Some Covid policies that are exclusionary or divisive will be rolled back. You need a population in fear or suffering lots of anxiety to support those kinds of policies. It just won’t be there to the same level anymore. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PenelopeWitherspoon

PenelopeWitherspoon 19,279

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

 

I think this article touches on an important change. Millions of people who have been afraid of getting Covid for two years have gotten It in the last month. Now that they’re no longer afraid there will be society wide push to return to more normal life. Some Covid policies that are exclusionary or divisive will be rolled back. You need a population in fear or suffering lots of anxiety to support those kinds of policies. It just won’t be there to the same level anymore. 

This is just fucking stupid.  Of course, it is in the WSJ which used to be Center Right but has been swinging further and further right.  I hope NYC keeps its vaccine passports and requirements/mandates in place.  Fuck the stupid and selfish.  

Also, France is looking to make their vaccine passports even more restrictive where you have to be vaccinated and cannot test out.  Bravo.  And on that front, that means Djokovic might not get to play the French Open as it would apply to sporting arenas and there are NO exceptions.  Fuck around and find out.  Stop being pussies and get fucking vaccinated.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...