• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Vaccine Progress, Approval, and Deployment

Status
Not open for further replies.

DannyMich2018

Member
Joined
19 Dec 2018
Messages
836
I'm 39 and had my first one yesterday. I booked it on Thursday last week the day bookings for my age group opened. Had to travel a few miles but don't mind travelling at all. Was done at Odeon Nuneaton, quite an unusual experience using the cinema seats as a waiting area! (Cinema not open) Very well organised with a steady stream coming in and out. Many people on fb I know who are even just 32 are having their jabs so great progress been made.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

initiation

Member
Joined
10 Nov 2014
Messages
432
There is a bit of a (non) story about if Jeremy Corbyn has had the vaccine or not. He is over 70 so has been eligible for quite a long time.

One of Starmer's private secretaries said "It’s not a privacy thing. I can’t imagine why anybody would want to say that’s a private matter between me and my jab. It’s not, it’s either you’ve had the jab or you haven’t. So yeah, if you’ve had the jab you should say and if he hasn’t then he needs to sort of be honest I suppose about that."

Err...why is it not a privacy thing? We shouldn't be asking details of what medical treatments people have had. This level of intrusion into people's lives is going to take years to undo.

He is obviously in a higher risk category but it is his choice to have it or not.

 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,674
Location
Ely
One of Starmer's private secretaries said "It’s not a privacy thing. I can’t imagine why anybody would want to say that’s a private matter between me and my jab. It’s not, it’s either you’ve had the jab or you haven’t. So yeah, if you’ve had the jab you should say and if he hasn’t then he needs to sort of be honest I suppose about that."

What a coherent argument :rolleyes: No wonder Starmer is doing so poorly if that's the quality of people he has around him.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
41,964
Location
Yorks
To be fair, if Corbyn's pushing a zero Covid/heavily pro-restriction line (as has been reported) at the same time as refusing vaccination, he ought to justify that position.
 

peters

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jul 2020
Messages
916
Location
Cheshire
Err...why is it not a privacy thing? We shouldn't be asking details of what medical treatments people have had. This level of intrusion into people's lives is going to take years to undo.

A vaccine isn't a treatment and it's not as personal as you may think. I'm sure when you were at school they did some vaccines which were offered to everyone in your year group, if someone didn't get one everyone would know that they remained in class when everyone else went to the school hall for a vaccine. There are also certain mandatory vaccine requirements for visiting certain countries (not including COVID vaccines), so if you see someone boarding a plane to certain countries you know they've had a certain vaccine. If a government minister visits one of those countries on official business he/she can't exactly hide that they went there to avoid disclosing they've had a vaccine.

I also had a reminder by SMS the day before I had a COVID vaccine which mentioned both by name and the fact I was booked in for a COVID vaccine and where it was booked. (Which is also enough information to determine which type I was booked in for.) When I got a SMS reminder for an appointment with a specialist it didn't have that level of detail, it just mentioned the location and time of the appointment, no mention of the specialist or the department they work in. Presumably SMS is classed as not secure so the medical information disclosed in a SMS needs to be limited.

As Kier Starmer is Labour leader I think it's reasonable for him to know which of his MPs have and haven't been vaccinated, as that way he plan around that e.g. taking precautions if arranging a meeting which includes someone who has not received a vaccine.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,674
Location
Ely
To be fair, if Corbyn's pushing a zero Covid/heavily pro-restriction line (as has been reported) at the same time as refusing vaccination, he ought to justify that position.

Which is a rather better argument than that offered by Starmer's aide!

I'm not sure what the zero-Covid position is on vaccination anyway. Presumably they are all for it, but their position is so silly I don't spend a lot of time investigating it.

That said, I'm not convinced we should be trying to get anyone to disclose private healthcare data if they don't want to, for whatever reason. If that means we unfortunately have to put up with some hypocrisy from time to time, that seems a fair price to pay.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,153
One thing worth remembering is people in their 30s are more likely to have work and childcare commitments than those in older age groups, so might be less likely to accept the 1st available appointment. They also want to ensure some people are ready to book a last minute appointment if someone else cancels their appointment for whatever reason.
That makes a lot of sense. My parents would have got to their vaccinations if they'd been 80 miles away and had to get a taxi. In their 70s they have to take Covid somewhat seriously because there's a significant genuine risk to their health, and as such they wanted to be able to stop hiding away and wasting the rest of their life.

My risk profile in my 40s is such that I've not been particularly personally worried at all, and have had a chance to watch the success of the vaccines in older people make the second half of the vaccine programme a bit unecessary. In those circumstances I would have been unwilling to travel a long way, and certainly wouldn't have messed around with taxis just to use the stupid drive-thru appointment they initially gave me.

As it happens I'm not sure I'd have accepted an appointment at the start of the working week if I'd realised the side effects were as common and as unpleasant as they are - we lost 0 days to actual Covid in our company, but we've lost an average of 1.5 days for every single person who's had the jab.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,775
Which is a rather better argument than that offered by Starmer's aide!

I'm not sure what the zero-Covid position is on vaccination anyway. Presumably they are all for it, but their position is so silly I don't spend a lot of time investigating it.

That said, I'm not convinced we should be trying to get anyone to disclose private healthcare data if they don't want to, for whatever reason. If that means we unfortunately have to put up with some hypocrisy from time to time, that seems a fair price to pay.
I don't accept that whether you or I, or Jeremy Corbyn, or Boris Johnson, or the man in the moon, have taken a vaccine is private in the way that you suggest. As a private individual, I fully accept that there are circumstances when it may be reasonable for someone to seek to establish whether or not I've been vaccinated for a disease, and that I may need to demonstrate my status to do certain things*. I accept that when I travel to certain places, and I accept it where my vaccination status may have an impact upon the health of others. Indeed, I'd go further and suggest that this country is insufficiently assertive about the importance of certain vaccines, and the need to prove vaccination status to access services.

In the context of a disease that is having the impact that Covid is having, I also consider that those in public life have a wider responsibility to use their influence. To that end, I regard Corbyn's equivocation about vaccine as being of the same moral disrepute as the Blairs' unwillingness to declare their position on whether Leo had received the MMR - technically justifiable, but in itself a significant message and one that undermines public health.

* - Please note, that though I believe that proving my vaccine status may be necessary sharing information, I am not convinced that the use of it for "vaccine passports" is necessary or of value within a country. It does raise significant issues, and I am far from convinced that it achieves a result in proportion to it's impact.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,674
Location
Ely
I don't accept that whether you or I, or Jeremy Corbyn, or Boris Johnson, or the man in the moon, have taken a vaccine is private in the way that you suggest. As a private individual, I fully accept that there are circumstances when it may be reasonable for someone to seek to establish whether or not I've been vaccinated for a disease, and that I may need to demonstrate my status to do certain things*. I accept that when I travel to certain places, and I accept it where my vaccination status may have an impact upon the health of others. Indeed, I'd go further and suggest that this country is insufficiently assertive about the importance of certain vaccines, and the need to prove vaccination status to access services.

I'm not entirely sure what point you're making here, but it sounds really quite sinister, and not the sort of society we've lived in up till now.

Do you have some examples of 'certain things' and 'services' for which you think one ought to require vaccination in order to do/access? Apart from international travel - of course I accept other countries have every right to impose conditions on entry (although this is why we have diplomats, to try and make these things as easy as possible).

In the context of a disease that is having the impact that Covid is having, I also consider that those in public life have a wider responsibility to use their influence. To that end, I regard Corbyn's equivocation about vaccine as being of the same moral disrepute as the Blairs' unwillingness to declare their position on whether Leo had received the MMR - technically justifiable, but in itself a significant message and one that undermines public health.

I think people are entitled to their own private business, whether in the public eye or not. The only possible exception to that is if they are being outright hypocrites (eg. the various American evangelists who continually preach against homosexuality and then it turns out they are themselves homosexual - there's probably a 'public interest' argument there). Even more the case when it comes to their children, who haven't asked to be in public eye in the first place.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,775
I'm not entirely sure what point you're making here, but it sounds really quite sinister, and not the sort of society we've lived in up till now.

Do you have some examples of 'certain things' and 'services' for which you think one ought to require vaccination in order to do/access? Apart from international travel - of course I accept other countries have every right to impose conditions on entry (although this is why we have diplomats, to try and make these things as easy as possible).

I think people are entitled to their own private business, whether in the public eye or not. The only possible exception to that is if they are being outright hypocrites (eg. the various American evangelists who continually preach against homosexuality and then it turns out they are themselves homosexual - there's probably a 'public interest' argument there). Even more the case when it comes to their children, who haven't asked to be in public eye in the first place.
For example, I strongly support those states in the USA that have implemented requirements that children have received certain vaccines to be able to register in schools, subject to limited exemption rights. The doctrine in those states (California, following a fatal measles outbreak, is one) is that the risks to others from not being vaccinated significantly outweighs the benefits of allowing complete parental freedom of choice. Where the benefit of the vaccine is both personal (having received it, I will be protected from the disease) and collective (if I don't get it, that significantly protects others), this seems a reasonable trade off between personal and collective freedoms; I wouldn't take the same view of (say) a Tetanus jab because the benefit is fundamentally personal.

As for the question of those in the public eye, it is a difficult trade-off. In the case of the Blairs (remember, it was their action, not that of their baby son, that was central), I consider it fell the wrong side of the line because it was a situation in which the PM failed to back the policy of his government. In Corbyn's case, I agree that there is some difficulty when he's been asked the question, and it's obviously being used to attack his credibility. If the answer was "no comment", I'd have had no issue; the plea for privacy has a strong whiff of equivocation around it which is what I struggle with and where I strongly suspect a lack of moral courage to declare a position.

Ultimately, though, my view is that receiving a generally available vaccination against transmissible disease is not just a private matter; it has a public element because the effect of vaccination for a transmissible disease is public, not just private.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,996
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
For example, I strongly support those states in the USA that have implemented requirements that children have received certain vaccines to be able to register in schools, subject to limited exemption rights. The doctrine in those states (California, following a fatal measles outbreak, is one) is that the risks to others from not being vaccinated significantly outweighs the benefits of allowing complete parental freedom of choice. Where the benefit of the vaccine is both personal (having received it, I will be protected from the disease) and collective (if I don't get it, that significantly protects others), this seems a reasonable trade off between personal and collective freedoms; I wouldn't take the same view of (say) a Tetanus jab because the benefit is fundamentally personal.

As for the question of those in the public eye, it is a difficult trade-off. In the case of the Blairs (remember, it was their action, not that of their baby son, that was central), I consider it fell the wrong side of the line because it was a situation in which the PM failed to back the policy of his government. In Corbyn's case, I agree that there is some difficulty when he's been asked the question, and it's obviously being used to attack his credibility. If the answer was "no comment", I'd have had no issue; the plea for privacy has a strong whiff of equivocation around it which is what I struggle with and where I strongly suspect a lack of moral courage to declare a position.

Ultimately, though, my view is that receiving a generally available vaccination against transmissible disease is not just a private matter; it has a public element because the effect of vaccination for a transmissible disease is public, not just private.
So in essence you would be comfortable in being told what you must, and perhaps must not put in your body so as to mitigate any risk that you might feel guilty for something you will never know you have done. Because fundamentally none of us will ever know if we have actually infected anyone else with any transmittable disease.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying people should not get the vaccine. I myself am only 3 weeks away from my second jab. However what you are proposing is taking away people's ability to make their own assessment of risk of both disease and vaccine, and handing this power to the state. In 2021 the desire to vaccinate the population is benign, but who is to say that in the future this new found power won't be abused? Already there is talk of covid boosters for the vulnerable, how long before people are compelled to have yearly, or even twice yearly boosters even though we may not actually need them? Believe it or not, politicians and even scientists can get, well let's just say distracted by other elements in the equation. And even if the scientists don't, they can sometimes be so focused that they lose sight of the bigger picture. The scientists working on the atomic bomb in the latter half of WWII probably thought they would bring peace to a world at war, but instead brought it to within minutes of destruction.

This is why we should always have choices, and why we should always question.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,674
Location
Ely
For example, I strongly support those states in the USA that have implemented requirements that children have received certain vaccines to be able to register in schools, subject to limited exemption rights. The doctrine in those states (California, following a fatal measles outbreak, is one) is that the risks to others from not being vaccinated significantly outweighs the benefits of allowing complete parental freedom of choice. Where the benefit of the vaccine is both personal (having received it, I will be protected from the disease) and collective (if I don't get it, that significantly protects others), this seems a reasonable trade off between personal and collective freedoms; I wouldn't take the same view of (say) a Tetanus jab because the benefit is fundamentally personal.

I guess we're just not going to agree on that. To take the example of measles, there's an effective vaccination, and for a disease that the vast majority of children will recover from just fine. The risk posed by a unvaccinated child to a vaccinated child is very low indeed, and well below the bar that I would require for effective compulsion to undergo a medical treatment. That bar ought to be set very very high. The State does not own our bodies - there's a whole lot of very nasty history down that path.

As for the question of those in the public eye, it is a difficult trade-off. In the case of the Blairs (remember, it was their action, not that of their baby son, that was central), I consider it fell the wrong side of the line because it was a situation in which the PM failed to back the policy of his government.

Well, we don't know if they backed the policy or not, as we don't know what happened. I don't agree they needed to make that public (one of the very few times I've agreed with Blair!) I suppose it could be argued that not having the combined vaccine when they were telling everyone else to - if that is what happened - is 'public interest', but I'm not terribly comfortable with going down that route when it involves matters that I believe ought to be private.

In Corbyn's case, I agree that there is some difficulty when he's been asked the question, and it's obviously being used to attack his credibility. If the answer was "no comment", I'd have had no issue; the plea for privacy has a strong whiff of equivocation around it which is what I struggle with and where I strongly suspect a lack of moral courage to declare a position.

But you may be of the position *both* that you don't want to vaccinated (or indeed that you *do* want to be), *and* that it is no business of anyone to know either way. That's pretty much my belief.
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
5,501
A vaccine isn't a treatment and it's not as personal as you may think. I'm sure when you were at school they did some vaccines which were offered to everyone in your year group, if someone didn't get one everyone would know that they remained in class when everyone else went to the school hall for a vaccine.
That may be true but everyone would have forgotten within a week. I neither knew nor cared which of my mates had had the various vaccines or not. I think a few people declined the BCG vaccine but I don't recall any ill feeling towards them.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,674
Location
Ely
That may be true but everyone would have forgotten within a week. I neither knew nor cared which of my mates had had the various vaccines or not. I think a few people declined the BCG vaccine but I don't recall any ill feeling towards them.

Yes - I remember not having it as a teenager, though I don't remember why now, and it has never caused any issues (so far). As it turned out some years later I was diagnosed with a mild but rare immune system condition that is a contraindication to having that specific vaccine, so that was probably for the best!
 

peters

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jul 2020
Messages
916
Location
Cheshire
I think a few people declined the BCG vaccine but I don't recall any ill feeling towards them.

BCG was a strange one. I remember having a signed consent form from my parents to have it, having a test one week prior to the vaccination test and being told the reaction to the test proved I still had antibodies from when I was given the vaccine as a baby so didn't need it again. Most people at my school had been born at a different hospital so hadn't received it as a baby and were only getting it aged 14. I also doubt that one was forgotten about after a week given that one creates a temporary scar which can last for around 3 months.

Meningitis C was another strange one. It was introduced as a new vaccine when I was getting towards the end of my compulsory education and it was offered to, I think, the whole school with final years getting done first and then they came back to do the other years at a later date. I also found that other people the same age as me weren't offered it while in compulsory education and when I went to university, in a different area, one of the university doctors started telling everyone to get it because he thought no-one at university at that time would have been offered it before they left school.

To take the example of measles, there's an effective vaccination, and for a disease that the vast majority of children will recover from just fine.

It's now normally done as a MMRV vaccine to protect against measles, mumps, rubella and chicken pox, previously MMR. I had chicken pox as a young child and while I'm sure it wasn't life threatening, it was a very nasty disease to get and just having to be isolated from other children for around 2 weeks was difficult enough without being in a lot of pain and feeling like hundreds of strange things had attached themselves to my skin. I had no idea what a spot was at the time!
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
32,531
It's now normally done as a MMRV vaccine to protect against measles, mumps, rubella and chicken pox, previously MMR. I had chicken pox as a young child and while I'm sure it wasn't life threatening, it was a very nasty disease to get and just having to be isolated from other children for around 2 weeks was difficult enough without being in a lot of pain and feeling like hundreds of strange things had attached themselves to my skin. I had no idea what a spot was at the time!

Agreed. Having had Measles at a very young age, Mumps aged 3 and Chicken Pox aged 7, and remembering the last two vividly, I’d rather have had a vaccine. Particularly as mumps left me with a lifelong issue that I’d rather not have.
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
5,501
It's now normally done as a MMRV vaccine to protect against measles, mumps, rubella and chicken pox, previously MMR. I had chicken pox as a young child and while I'm sure it wasn't life threatening, it was a very nasty disease to get and just having to be isolated from other children for around 2 weeks was difficult enough without being in a lot of pain and feeling like hundreds of strange things had attached themselves to my skin. I had no idea what a spot was at the time!
I didn't even know there was a vaccine for chicken pox. I think I was six or seven when I had chicken pox. Didn't really bother me. I remember the calamine lotion, I liked the smell of it. My kids were one and three when they caught it. They didn't seem the least bit bothered.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,775
So in essence you would be comfortable in being told what you must, and perhaps must not put in your body so as to mitigate any risk that you might feel guilty for something you will never know you have done. Because fundamentally none of us will ever know if we have actually infected anyone else with any transmittable disease.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying people should not get the vaccine. I myself am only 3 weeks away from my second jab. However what you are proposing is taking away people's ability to make their own assessment of risk of both disease and vaccine, and handing this power to the state. In 2021 the desire to vaccinate the population is benign, but who is to say that in the future this new found power won't be abused? Already there is talk of covid boosters for the vulnerable, how long before people are compelled to have yearly, or even twice yearly boosters even though we may not actually need them? Believe it or not, politicians and even scientists can get, well let's just say distracted by other elements in the equation. And even if the scientists don't, they can sometimes be so focused that they lose sight of the bigger picture. The scientists working on the atomic bomb in the latter half of WWII probably thought they would bring peace to a world at war, but instead brought it to within minutes of destruction.

This is why we should always have choices, and why we should always question.
I agree with questioning, and also that choices must exist. But those choices may sometimes be hard ones, and need to be framed in terms of collective rather than personal benefit, based on odds rather than personal certainty.
 

DelayRepay

Established Member
Joined
21 May 2011
Messages
2,929
Sorry if this has been posted already but NHS England is opening bookings for 32 and 33 year olds today.

Locally to me, they are running a walk in clinic tomorrow offering AZ vaccines - second doses if you had your first at least eight weeks ago, and first doses to those over 40. No appointments needed. I think they have a lot of surplus AZ following the decision not to use it for under 40s.

I wonder if we'll see another 'bumper weekend' if other areas are doing similar, along with the 'surge vaccines' in places like Bolton and Bedford?
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,996
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
I agree with questioning, and also that choices must exist. But those choices may sometimes be hard ones, and need to be framed in terms of collective rather than personal benefit, based on odds rather than personal certainty.
The collective? What is this, some species from a popular science fiction fiction franchise?

"We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us."

Ye Gods man, your views genuinely concern me.
 

Silver Cobra

Member
Joined
4 Jun 2015
Messages
940
Location
Bedfordshire
While it’s good to see that I can now book my vaccinations, unfortunately the vaccination centres nearest to where I live aren’t available to be booked. For the first vaccine, it offers Stevenage as the nearest place, while for the second, it offers Wimbledon down in London. I wouldn’t mind so much if I could have both at Stevenage, but having to travel as far as London for one isn’t really viable.
 

VauxhallandI

Established Member
Joined
26 Dec 2012
Messages
2,749
Location
Cheshunt
While it’s good to see that I can now book my vaccinations, unfortunately the vaccination centres nearest to where I live aren’t available to be booked. For the first vaccine, it offers Stevenage as the nearest place, while for the second, it offers Wimbledon down in London. I wouldn’t mind so much if I could have both at Stevenage, but having to travel as far as London for one isn’t really viable.
That’s odd as I had so many places to choose from including tens of pharmacies from the NHS app. My local GP has offered one venue which happens to be close to me.
 

Silver Cobra

Member
Joined
4 Jun 2015
Messages
940
Location
Bedfordshire
That’s odd as I had so many places to choose from including tens of pharmacies from the NHS app. My local GP has offered one venue which happens to be close to me.

While I’m hoping it’s just a case of demand being why the nearest vaccination centres aren’t available to me, my concern is it’s the whole hysteria with the AZ vaccine and blood clots. As far as I’m aware, the centres in my hometown and nearby Biggleswade only offer AZ vaccines. I’m more than happy to have the AZ seeing that the odds of a blood clot are still so remote (100 times lower than travelling on a plane).
 

DelayRepay

Established Member
Joined
21 May 2011
Messages
2,929
While it’s good to see that I can now book my vaccinations, unfortunately the vaccination centres nearest to where I live aren’t available to be booked. For the first vaccine, it offers Stevenage as the nearest place, while for the second, it offers Wimbledon down in London. I wouldn’t mind so much if I could have both at Stevenage, but having to travel as far as London for one isn’t really viable.

Book it anyway - once you've had the first shot, cancel the second booking and re-book. I had to book my second shot in Stevenage as it was the closest place, but it's too far away really. Since having my first shot I've cancelled the Stevenage booking and re-booked for Milton Keynes.

I see you're in Bedfordshire and I wonder if they're currently re-jigging things to try to bring some vaccines forward given the situation? Might sort its self out in a few days?

I assume you're in your 30s and therefore not eligible for the AZ vaccine which is probably also limiting the number of places being offered until they re-jig things.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
41,964
Location
Yorks
I wasn't aware that AZ was banned for the under 30's, rather that an alternative would be offered.
 

DelayRepay

Established Member
Joined
21 May 2011
Messages
2,929
I wasn't aware that AZ was banned for the under 30's, rather that an alternative would be offered.
I don't think it's banned, but if you try to book online and are under 40, the system will only offer appointments where one of the other vaccines is available. So if your nearest large centre is working through a stock of AZ, their appointment slots will be shown to over 40s and people who need a second AZ dose, but not to under 40s or people who need a second dose of one of the other types.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
41,964
Location
Yorks
I don't think it's banned, but if you try to book online and are under 40, the system will only offer appointments where one of the other vaccines is available. So if your nearest large centre is working through a stock of AZ, their appointment slots will be shown to over 40s and people who need a second AZ dose, but not to under 40s or people who need a second dose of one of the other types.

That's interesting. I suspect if you get called by your GP it may be different.
 

DelayRepay

Established Member
Joined
21 May 2011
Messages
2,929
Just another thought - the people booking their first doses now will be getting their second doses in July/August (depending on whether they stick with 12 weeks for this cohort or reduce it to 8 weeks, which I guess will depend on vaccine availability.

I wonder if some of the places currently being used as vaccination centres might not be available, come July/August as they will want to re-open for their normal business. For example I had my vaccine at a private gym. I assume that at some point the gym will want their premises back and so another venue will have to be found.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top