Long term social distancing: Impact on public life & public transport?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
1,432
I think the virus or the possibility of passing it onto family members is likely to be of greater concern.
I'd take my chances with the virus if the alternative was being homeless. If that meant I couldn't visit my parents then so be it. I can't see them at the moment anyway.

One possible outsome of this is that people will move or change jobs so they don't have to commute on public transport. That won't work for most people in London though.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Huntergreed

Established Member
Joined
16 Jan 2016
Messages
1,769
Location
Coach J Seat 39
I think the virus or the possibility of passing it onto family members is likely to be of greater concern.
The risk of anyone under the age of 55 dying from COVID really is negligible. The best approach now is to shield those who are in the risk group (55+), but for everyone else the risk of the virus causing death is much less than 0.5%. The collapse of the economy would affect 100% of the population, make thousands homeless and jobless, it would take decades to recover from, and is far, far more damaging than taking the 1 in 200 chance (much lower for under 55's) from losing your life to this virus. This is a fact that even our government seem to be either blissfully unaware of or entirely ignorant towards, and it's beginning to worry me, considering at the Scottish briefing today Sturgeon mentioned she wouldn't hesitate a second lockdown if her cases start to increase again. Our 'leaders' don't seem to realise the extent of the economic damage this is really doing.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
1,808
Location
London
I think the virus or the possibility of passing it onto family members is likely to be of greater concern.
That’s the equivalent of someone who can only commute by car ringing their boss and saying “I can’t come into work because I’m terrified of being killed in a car crash”.

People irrationally refusing to attend work following furlough ending should rightly be sacked. Sadly there will soon be plenty of jobless people only too grateful for their jobs.
 

Islineclear3_1

Established Member
Joined
24 Apr 2014
Messages
3,406
Location
PTSO or platform depending on the weather
I think the virus or the possibility of passing it onto family members is likely to be of greater concern.
Only if you, or somebody very close to you has had the virus.

I would wager that if your employer told you to return to work tomorrow, and you had to take the train or bus, you would not be so concerned about the virus. And less so if you told your employer that you were too scared to come to work and be faced with the sack...
 

FelixtheCat

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2015
Messages
3,601
Location
London or somewhere else
That’s the equivalent of someone who can only commute by car ringing their boss and saying “I can’t come into work because I’m terrified of being killed in a car crash”.

People irrationally refusing to attend work following furlough ending should rightly be sacked. Sadly there will soon be plenty of jobless people only too grateful for their jobs.
If you've got government scientists saying that the government is lifting restrictions too early, that's not irrational.
 

Huntergreed

Established Member
Joined
16 Jan 2016
Messages
1,769
Location
Coach J Seat 39
If you've got government scientists saying that the government is lifting restrictions too early, that's not irrational.
The scientists are trained in epidemiology and base their judgements and advice on a purely medical perspective. If we were to listen to only those scientists, by the time we were able to safely go to work again there would be ne workplaces left as these people are trained to study scientific and medical evidence and to advise how to suppress a disease most effectively, rather than to sustain a healthy and prosperous economy.

It does worry me slightly that ministers could to be making judgements purely on a scientific perspective with less overall regard for the economy than the suppression of the virus to unnecessarily low levels.
 

FelixtheCat

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2015
Messages
3,601
Location
London or somewhere else
The scientists are trained in epidemiology and base their judgements and advice on a purely medical perspective. If we were to listen to only those scientists, by the time we were able to safely go to work again there would be ne workplaces left as these people are trained to study scientific and medical evidence and to advise how to suppress a disease most effectively, rather than to sustain a healthy and prosperous economy.
"People irrationally refusing to attend work following furlough ending should rightly be sacked."

How is it irrational if the scientists who the government claim to be following are questioning the judgement of that government?
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
1,808
Location
London
"People irrationally refusing to attend work following furlough ending should rightly be sacked."

How is it irrational if the scientists who the government claim to be following are questioning the judgement of that government?
Turn it round the other away then:

It’s rational for an employer to sack an employee who refuses to attend work, and give their job to someone who will turn up when required. And that is exactly what will happen.

What the employee thinks is neither here nor there.
 
Last edited:

NorthOxonian

Member
Joined
5 Jul 2018
Messages
658
Location
Oxford/Newcastle
"People irrationally refusing to attend work following furlough ending should rightly be sacked."

How is it irrational if the scientists who the government claim to be following are questioning the judgement of that government?
Isn't it only a minority of the scientists who are questioning the judgement? I'm sure I read that the majority of the scientists were in favour but some were dissenting, which is exactly what you'd want.
 

underbank

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2013
Messages
1,473
Location
North West England
One possible outsome of this is that will will move or change jobs so they don't have to commute on public transport. That won't work for most people in London though.
Unless there's a vaccine, I think the public transport problems will be long term. It may well mean that London-centric employers will have to go back to how it used to be for many of them and open regional/local offices. It's the ease and availability of public transport that has facilitated London becoming what it currently is. If the firms find it difficult to attract staff or staff refuse to go to work due to public transport, then they may have no choice but to wind the clock back a bit and provide office facilities outside London. Personally, I think that would be a brilliant side-effect of the pandemic. For far too long there've been far too few "good jobs" out in the regions.
 

Dave1987

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,439
So this is the first day since the Government decided to relax the lockdown even though the infection rate is still high. Having seen London this morning I can tell you right now that social distancing is either impossible or not being adhered to. So people acting as if there was no pandemic on. The UK is very much at a crossroads now. We do not have infections down to double digits yet. No effective track and trace system. The Government has no idea exactly how widespread the virus is yet some parts of the railway network you would not even know there is a pandemic on. I think a second wave of infection is inevitable if things carry on like they are today.
 

Huntergreed

Established Member
Joined
16 Jan 2016
Messages
1,769
Location
Coach J Seat 39
"People irrationally refusing to attend work following furlough ending should rightly be sacked."

How is it irrational if the scientists who the government claim to be following are questioning the judgement of that government?
Because the risk of this virus to the general public has been massively overestimated by members of the public due to initial messaging being too aggressive and based on fear.

If the virus had a high death rate, say 5% or more, then of course it would be completely necessary to follow the scientific evidence to get the disease suppressed completely before being able to ever consider returning to work, as the risk posed would be far too high.

However with this virus, the death rate is 0.5%, and much lower for under 55's which is the considerable majority of the UK workforce. The risk of getting killed in a car crash on the way to work is considerably higher than the risk of dying from this infection for most of the UK workforce, would you say it's justified for someone who phones in to work everyday saying they 'can't come in because I could die in a car crash' was justified? No, and the risk of dying from the virus is much lower than that for the vast majority, hence why it's important to look beyond the virus and start to see the bigger picture.

The government messaging needs to change from 'we need to get rid of the big, bad deadly virus' to 'we need to get back to normal again whilst not overwhelming hospitals', as the risk levels have been hugely over perceived by 95% of the public, meaning that it could cause economic collapse if we don't move fast enough, which would be, much, much worse than the effects of the virus and would affect literally everyone.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
1,478
Location
Ely
If the firms find it difficult to attract staff or staff refuse to go to work due to public transport, then they may have no choice but to wind the clock back a bit and provide office facilities outside London.
Depending on who the employer is and what they do, they may well instead grasp the opportunity to outsource such jobs to China or India. Which would be rather less desireable.
 

Huntergreed

Established Member
Joined
16 Jan 2016
Messages
1,769
Location
Coach J Seat 39
Depending on who the employer is and what they do, they may well instead grasp the opportunity to outsource such jobs to China or India. Which would be rather less desireable.
And damage what's left of the economy even more as work that can be undertaken in the UK is no longer done here, but instead moved elsewhere.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
5,829
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
I agree with this - lately I've noticed my co-workers starting to feel very subdued and down in the dumps with working from home - the minority that claim to like it, even amongst strict office workers, usually have some sort of agenda (i.e. a suspicion the lack of oversight suits them) or are near the end of their careers and happy to do their own thing. It is simply not a natural condition for humans. The last three weeks or so, I have really had enough. It probably doesn't help that our employer is public sector and is taking a very risk averse approach to getting people back. I despair. Many of us are experimental scientists and I dread to think what unworkable rot our management will try and enforce on us. They might not get us back on-site until Christmas. Whilst this has been going on, several private sector scientific companies locally have continued working relatively normally, without any corona incidents!

The social distancing stuff is not plausible long term. I feel we have a slight advantage in the UK in being a bit stand-offish anyway, we're not, in the main, touchy-feely southern Europeans, but still, any government minister that believes this business will become a demented 'new normal' needs their head examined, urgently. Even in my public sector role, I have no idea how we will function effectively - how is the wealth generating private sector supposed to survive this?
I couldn't agree more. I've noticed the mood amongst my colleagues slowly getting more downbeat, and everyone is clearly getting really fed up with it all. There is going to have to be a point in the very near future where we have to consider the entire population's wellbeing, both physically and mentally.

The scientists are trained in epidemiology and base their judgements and advice on a purely medical perspective. If we were to listen to only those scientists, by the time we were able to safely go to work again there would be ne workplaces left as these people are trained to study scientific and medical evidence and to advise how to suppress a disease most effectively, rather than to sustain a healthy and prosperous economy.

It does worry me slightly that ministers could to be making judgements purely on a scientific perspective with less overall regard for the economy than the suppression of the virus to unnecessarily low levels.
Its all worth considering that none of the scientific advisors will want to be the on that suggests a relaxation for fear of being the one to blame. So in a way I can't blame them for erring on the side of caution. However whilst they may well feel some scientific justification in their caution, the one thing that they don't take into consideration other factors like the economic impact. So whilst the media and much of the public fixate on the infection / death rate, or the R0 value, there is so much more to factor into the equation. Like how the heck are we going to pay for all of this, and what if we can't?
 

Mogster

Member
Joined
25 Sep 2018
Messages
755
Depending on who the employer is and what they do, they may well instead grasp the opportunity to outsource such jobs to China or India. Which would be rather less desireable.
That’s one of my concerns about the move to greater home working. The job can presumably be done from anywhere so possibly by someone in another country on lower wages.
 

Huntergreed

Established Member
Joined
16 Jan 2016
Messages
1,769
Location
Coach J Seat 39
I couldn't agree more. I've noticed the mood amongst my colleagues slowly getting more downbeat, and everyone is clearly getting really fed up with it all. There is going to have to be a point in the very near future where we have to consider the entire population's wellbeing, both physically and mentally.

Its all worth considering that none of the scientific advisors will want to be the on that suggests a relaxation for fear of being the one to blame. So in a way I can't blame them for erring on the side of caution. However whilst they may well feel some scientific justification in their caution, the one thing that they don't take into consideration other factors like the economic impact. So whilst the media and much of the public fixate on the infection / death rate, or the R0 value, there is so much more to factor into the equation. Like how the heck are we going to pay for all of this, and what if we can't?
It's my fear that by the time the wellbeing and economic factors are considered, it'll be too late and the damage will be done. The government really do have their eyes set on suppressing this virus clearly, and whilst I of course recognise that we cannot overwhelm the health board as that would be disastrous, is it really worth completely destroying the economy in the way we're going to if we proceed with the current attitude? I don't think so, and I think it's time for the emphasis of the messaging from both the government and media to change to the protection of the economy over 'control the virus'.
 

FelixtheCat

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2015
Messages
3,601
Location
London or somewhere else
Turn it round the other away then:

It’s rational of the employer to sack an employee who refuses to attend work, and give their job to someone who will turn up when required. And that is what will happen.

What the employee thinks is neither here nor there.
So, what we've established is that 'rational action' is different for different people. Shocking discovery. It still doesn't mean that your first claim about irrationality is anything other than pants.

Isn't it only a minority of the scientists who are questioning the judgement? I'm sure I read that the majority of the scientists were in favour but some were dissenting, which is exactly what you'd want.
Where did you read that?
In favour of what?

Unless there's a vaccine, I think the public transport problems will be long term. It may well mean that London-centric employers will have to go back to how it used to be for many of them and open regional/local offices. It's the ease and availability of public transport that has facilitated London becoming what it currently is. If the firms find it difficult to attract staff or staff refuse to go to work due to public transport, then they may have no choice but to wind the clock back a bit and provide office facilities outside London. Personally, I think that would be a brilliant side-effect of the pandemic. For far too long there've been far too few "good jobs" out in the regions.
Not even a vaccine, more that there's an effective track & trace programme. If we're able to do that, then we can "control the virus". The government was saying that said programme was the most important step to being able to come out of lockdown. We're coming out of lockdown, and there's not an effective track and trace programme. And yet, we're supposed to believe what the government says today rather than what it said 3 days ago.

Because the risk of this virus to the general public has been massively overestimated by members of the public due to initial messaging being too aggressive and based on fear.

If the virus had a high death rate, say 5% or more, then of course it would be completely necessary to follow the scientific evidence to get the disease suppressed completely before being able to ever consider returning to work, as the risk posed would be far too high.

However with this virus, the death rate is 0.5%, and much lower for under 55's which is the considerable majority of the UK workforce.
Leaving aside the platitudes about messaging based on fear, I'll look at your 0.5% figure.

That figure is the lowest end of any of the figures coming from reputible sources. UK scientists are quoted as saying that they believe it lies between 0.5 and 1%. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51674743). Basically, this is another thing that we don't really know.

It is flawed to compare the number of people who tested positive and number who died, because the number who tested positive is contingent on testing. The UK is failing, as are a number of other countries.

But, it is also flawed to use the death figures, because that too relies on testing people who are dead/dying. The number of excess deaths during the current pandemic is an awful lot higher than the official death toll. What explains this descrepency?

The death rate has been quoted as anything from 0.18% (but that's from The Daily Mail) to 4.5%.

TLDR: We don't know the death rate.

The risk of getting killed in a car crash on the way to work is considerably higher than the risk of dying from this infection for most of the UK workforce, would you say it's justified for someone who phones in to work everyday saying they 'can't come in because I could die in a car crash' was justified? No, and the risk of dying from the virus is much lower than that for the vast majority, hence why it's important to look beyond the virus and start to see the bigger picture.
(@43066 - It might be worth you reading this bit: )

1870 people died in the UK in a car crash last year (https://assets.publishing.service.g...485/road-casualties-year-ending-june-2019.pdf). That's slightly up from the rolling average (+1.4%).

~38,500 people have died in the UK in 5 months from COVID-19.

OK, so let's add in serious injuries from road traffic accidents. That brings us to almost 30,000 in a year. Remember, we've had 38,500 from COVID-19 in 5 months.

Even if we take your 0.5% figure, we're still way higher than road traffic accidents. That carries a risk of just under 3 in 100000, or 0.003%. Um...


The government messaging needs to change from 'we need to get rid of the big, bad deadly virus' to 'we need to get back to normal again whilst not overwhelming hospitals'...
My emphasis.

I agree there.

...as the risk levels have been hugely over perceived by 95% of the public, meaning that it could cause economic collapse if we don't move fast enough, which would be, much, much worse than the effects of the virus and would affect literally everyone.
And yet you've compared COVID-19 to road traffic accidents, and have either over-estimated the latter, or vastly underestimated the former. What gives you the right to tell everyone else how they perceive risks?

It's my fear that by the time the wellbeing and economic factors are considered, it'll be too late and the damage will be done. The government really do have their eyes set on suppressing this virus clearly, and whilst I of course recognise that we cannot overwhelm the health board as that would be disastrous, is it really worth completely destroying the economy in the way we're going to if we proceed with the current attitude? I don't think so, and I think it's time for the emphasis of the messaging from both the government and media to change to the protection of the economy over 'control the virus'.
Actually, they haven't. The government is coming out of lockdown well before* other countries. They also went into lockdown far later than other countries, and that lockdown was weak in comparison. The government botched the early response to the virus which means that we're far behind other countries.

*In terms of infection rate and death rate, not in terms of time.
 
Last edited:

Greenboy

On Moderation
Joined
29 Oct 2019
Messages
245
Location
Woking
So this is the first day since the Government decided to relax the lockdown even though the infection rate is still high. Having seen London this morning I can tell you right now that social distancing is either impossible or not being adhered to. So people acting as if there was no pandemic on. The UK is very much at a crossroads now. We do not have infections down to double digits yet. No effective track and trace system. The Government has no idea exactly how widespread the virus is yet some parts of the railway network you would not even know there is a pandemic on. I think a second wave of infection is inevitable if things carry on like they are today.
I'm no expert but I think you could well be right about a second wave if people don't act responsibly, I know it's a pain to say the least but the situation is what it is and we're by no means out of the woods yet.
 

37424

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2020
Messages
477
Location
Leeds
Because the risk of this virus to the general public has been massively overestimated by members of the public due to initial messaging being too aggressive and based on fear.

If the virus had a high death rate, say 5% or more, then of course it would be completely necessary to follow the scientific evidence to get the disease suppressed completely before being able to ever consider returning to work, as the risk posed would be far too high.

However with this virus, the death rate is 0.5%, and much lower for under 55's which is the considerable majority of the UK workforce. The risk of getting killed in a car crash on the way to work is considerably higher than the risk of dying from this infection for most of the UK workforce, would you say it's justified for someone who phones in to work everyday saying they 'can't come in because I could die in a car crash' was justified? No, and the risk of dying from the virus is much lower than that for the vast majority, hence why it's important to look beyond the virus and start to see the bigger picture.

The government messaging needs to change from 'we need to get rid of the big, bad deadly virus' to 'we need to get back to normal again whilst not overwhelming hospitals', as the risk levels have been hugely over perceived by 95% of the public, meaning that it could cause economic collapse if we don't move fast enough, which would be, much, much worse than the effects of the virus and would affect literally everyone.
Well at the moment I will go along more with the Scientists than the armchair experts. There are still plenty of people out there who find themselves more at risk through being in moderate risk groups but are not shielding and those who suddenly find themselves in potentially higher risk jobs such as public transport. We have yet to see what the impact of the last 2 weekends will be as its seems likely that many are now ignoring social distancing rules.

There is still a lot to learn about this virus
 

Huntergreed

Established Member
Joined
16 Jan 2016
Messages
1,769
Location
Coach J Seat 39
But, it is also flawed to use the death figures, because that too relies on testing people who are dead/dying. The number of excess deaths during the current pandemic is an awful lot higher than the official death toll. What explains this discrepancy?
This is likely caused by the fact that many other treatments (cancer screening, operations etc) have been postponed or cancelled and as a result those with many other conditions have not received the treatment they ultimately needed to survive. The lockdown has, I imagine, also taken a severe toll on mental wellbeing and caused an increase in suicide rates and this could also account for a number of the deaths, combined with those caused from the virus. Of course during the peak some of these deaths have been from Covid, but many of the deaths have been accelerated when people have perhaps had 6 months to a year of life left. Whilst I hate to sound horrible, is it really worth causing the worst recession since the Baroque era and risking the careers and livelihoods of the younger generation over trying to add 6 months onto the lives of those who are already nearing the end of their natural life? If this is the case we may see mortality rates drop below the average sometime over the next year.

1870 people died in the UK in a car crash last year (https://assets.publishing.service.g...485/road-casualties-year-ending-june-2019.pdf). That's slightly up from the rolling average (+1.4%).

~38,500 people have died in the UK in 5 months from COVID-19.

OK, so let's add in serious injuries from road traffic accidents. That brings us to almost 30,000 in a year. Remember, we've had 38,500 from COVID-19 in 5 months.

Even if we take your 0.5% figure, we're still way higher than road traffic accidents. That carries a risk of just under 3 in 100000, or 0.003%. Um...
That's not entirely the case. The daily reported deaths are people who have died with Covid in their body at the time, not from it. In fact I recall when the death figures were well up in the hundreds, there were in fact only 15-20 per day dying from Covid with no underlying conditions, and some of these have been found to have undiagnosed conditions upon post-mortem examinations.

Actually, they haven't. The government is coming out of lockdown well before* other countries. They also went into lockdown far later than other countries, and that lockdown was weak in comparison. The government botched the early response to the virus which means that we're far behind other countries.

*In terms of infection rate and death rate, not in terms of time.
I can't say I disagree with you there, I do perhaps think that it was a little hasty to reopen schools now when September would have been adequate. 3 more weeks before they decided to lift the lockdown in England (like what Scotland did) I think would have perhaps been the correct path to take, but now it's getting to stage where we need to consider more than just Covid. I'm not saying I think lockdown should be completely lifted yet, doing so would be incredibly reckless, but I do think we need to shift the emphasis and public view onto a more rational one and emphasise the importance of reopening the economy quickly which could negatively impact everyone instead of just focusing on the suppression of the virus. Perhaps the government are focusing on this, but there's little to no mention of it in the briefings, and when this is combined by the phrase 'guided by the science' you do have to wonder whether that's all science, or simply medical science, which doesn't take into account the social or economic impacts of the decisions made.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
1,808
Location
London
So, what we've established is that 'rational action' is different for different people. Shocking discovery. It still doesn't mean that your first claim about irrationality is anything other than pants.
If a virus poses a negligible risk (less than being killed in a car crash) then its irrational to tell your employer you’re scared to travel to work due to the virus, if you’d be prepared to drive to work. L

In any case, if you’ve signed a contract which requires to be at work during certain hours, you have a choice of either doing as you’re contracted to do, or being sacked. Your own feelings really don’t come into it. Whether you think that’s “pants” or not, that’s the way the world works, I’m afraid.

It’s clear that some posters on here have yet to enter the world of work!!!
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
1,478
Location
Ely
And yet, we're supposed to believe what the government says today rather than what it said 3 days ago.
The Government clearly don't know what they are doing, and it seems that they are (so far very poorly) trying to balance the immense fear they have over-successfully instilled into the population against the impending economic and social catastrophe. I'm not sure it helps anyone's sanity much to be looking to them for authorative guidance as to what is important or not on a day-to-day basis.

TLDR: We don't know the death rate.
The CDC in the USA has recently estimated 0.26%. There's no way from the data now available that it is more than 1%, probably significantly below 0.5%.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
1,808
Location
London
1870 people died in the UK in a car crash last year (https://assets.publishing.service.g...485/road-casualties-year-ending-june-2019.pdf). That's slightly up from the rolling average (+1.4%).

~38,500 people have died in the UK in 5 months from COVID-19.

OK, so let's add in serious injuries from road traffic accidents. That brings us to almost 30,000 in a year. Remember, we've had 38,500 from COVID-19 in 5 months.

Even if we take your 0.5% figure, we're still way higher than road traffic accidents. That carries a risk of just under 3 in 100000, or 0.003%. Um...
We are talking about the risk of death for a healthy working age person with no underlying conditions.

Very few deaths in this group. Anyone in this group who claims to be scared of the virus needs to get a grip, and get back to work.
 

greyman42

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2017
Messages
1,714
So this is the first day since the Government decided to relax the lockdown even though the infection rate is still high. Having seen London this morning I can tell you right now that social distancing is either impossible or not being adhered to. So people acting as if there was no pandemic on. The UK is very much at a crossroads now. We do not have infections down to double digits yet. No effective track and trace system. The Government has no idea exactly how widespread the virus is yet some parts of the railway network you would not even know there is a pandemic on. I think a second wave of infection is inevitable if things carry on like they are today.
You may be right, you may be wrong. But at some point we are going to have to dip our toe in the water and take the risk. We are now at that point due to the state of the economy.
 

LowLevel

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2013
Messages
4,389
We are talking about the risk of death for a healthy working age person with no underlying conditions.

Very few deaths in this group. Anyone in this group who claims to be scared of the virus needs to get a grip, and get back to work.
It's fair to be scared of it. It can still make you feel very unwell, have lasting side effects and like an uncontrollable toss of a coin make actually just kill you anyway in a very nasty way regardless of risk factors. It is particularly unpleasant and doesn't behave in a manner we have learned to predict yet.

That being said a healthy respect for it and the sensible precautions against it can be reinforced by that so fear is not necessarily a bad thing.

Some people will just naturally be more nervy than others. I am not bothered myself, other colleagues are terrified. You can pin that on how information is presented.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top