Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post
Comments
-
Ok it would be contrary to expectations. But the bar for emergency approved medicine is a bit higher than that, which is why the approval reports expressly said the data on severity was insufficient. The data showing prevention of infections met the standard for approval, the data indicating a reduction in the severity of breakthrough infections did not.
Leaving that fact aside, and focussing on it being contrary to expectations, does that explain statements like this for example:
Just to clarify, do you think provax people think that the vaccine stops you from getting/passing on Covid?
From day one, it has been made clear to all that the benefit of a vaccine was to reduce the effects of Covid on those who contracted it.
Does it being contrary to (immunology) expectations that the high performance against preventing infections would not have an effect against severe disease explain why some people think it was made clear from day 1 the whole point of the vaccine "was to reduce the effects of Covid on those who contracted it" and not actually to prevent them from contracting it in the first place?
Or what about this?
the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials
The data on severity was insufficient, and whilst the prevention data might lead to some expectations, does that explain how some people think the trial data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven?
These are just two examples. As DohnJoe notes, multiple posters tried to argue this point. But none were able to actually provide anything concrete for why they believed this.
In my opinion, they believed a demonstrable falsehood because of a narrative that was carefully created and controlled.
If this opinion is wrong, what is the explanation as to why so many people believed this falsehood?
0 -
There does not have to be a falsehood. The standard for approval is strict and data requirements v specific. The data can be comprehensive but not usuable for approval. That does not mean they were not reviewing the data and making expert assessments.
You are attempting a 'gotcha' moment where you try to win an argument via an indirect side point you are trying to use as a proxy.
I have explained that it was approved really because it generated an immune response, detected as infection prevention and correctly expected to protect v severe disease.
You are claiming conspiracy... but you have entirely failed to show any such thing. All the approvals and statements made can be explained as genuine sincere responses based on the understanding of the data available at the time or the context of the question. What they have said may have been borne out to be true, false or even mistaken or incomplete or a difference in emphasis. But I havent seen anything indicating a conspiracy or need to control a narrative to obscure the truth.
A trial run with more vulnerable participants during an outbreak would have generated enough severe case data to meet approval standards on that basis alone. This has been borne out by study after study. So no need to obscure the truth when it speaks for itself - and it did.
"To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)
3 -
I am not suggesting the approval was based on a falsehood. This is the lie:
Just to clarify, do you think provax people think that the vaccine stops you from getting/passing on Covid?
From day one, it has been made clear to all that the benefit of a vaccine was to reduce the effects of Covid on those who contracted it.
It's very simple. Either that is correct or it is not.
Do you think it is correct?
0 -
The idea is to challenge views using links, video, articles etc and explaining your belief from them. One liner "you've been told..." isn't acceptable and posters have been thread banned for that style of badgering posting that does nothing to promote discussion and just attempts to shut it down or becomes a circular argument which is boring for anyone reading the thread.
Also, do not comment on mod instructions on thread. This is off topic and will result in a thread ban.
1 -
"Reduce the effects": That is a benefit of the vaccine - the primary benefit. As an individual statement it is true / in isolation it is correct. I would say it is not the whole story.
We have already discussed the issue of infection \ transmisson above with reference to the studies. It is not a fixed answer due to variants, but for the periods when the data was solid, this was also legitimately emphasised as a benefit of vaccination and was part of the rationale for vaccine passports.
So I reject the premise that the answer means what you say it means. You are treating it as a 'gotcha' to prove a conspiracy, which is the point I refuted in previous post.
"To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)
2 -
Advertisement
-
"Reduce the effects": That is a benefit of the vaccine - the primary benefit. As an individual statement it is true / in isolation it is correct. I would say it is not the whole story.
It is undoubtedly true now that reducing effects is the primary benefit. But it was not true on day 1 as the poster said. The primary benefit on day 1 was believed to be the prevention of infection.
That is the point I am making. That the narrative shifted to the vaccines are working amazingly well as intended because we all knew from day 1 that the primary benefit was to reduce the effects and not to prevent infection. This is demonstrably false.
Yes it is true on day 1 that there was an expectation that if the primary benefit of reducing infection failed, there would hopefully be a secondary benefit of reducing the effects.
I've posted a huge amount of links before to show this, but here are just a few to remind you:
Here is the most to uptodate version - Aug 22 - of CDC's benefits of vaccination:
There are many benefits of getting vaccinated against COVID-19.
COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States are safe and are effective at protecting people from getting seriously ill, being hospitalized, and even dying.
Getting children and teens vaccinated against COVID-19 can help keep them from getting very sick if they do get COVID-19.
Vaccinating children can also help relieve the strain on families by providing greater confidence in children participating in childcare, school, and other activities.
COVID-19 vaccines can offer added protection to people who had COVID-19, including protection against being hospitalized from a new infection, especially as variants continue to emerge.
As with vaccines for other diseases, people are protected best when they stay up to date with the recommended number of doses and boosters, when eligible.
The above are the highlighted points on the page, the primary benefits as it were. Absolutely no mention of preventing infections. Fine, that reflects what we know currently.
Here is the earliest version of that page - Nov 2020:
Below is a summary of the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination based on what we currently know. CDC will continue to update this page as more data become available.
COVID-19 vaccination will help keep you from getting COVID-19●
COVID-19 vaccines are being carefully evaluated in clinical trials and will be authorized or approved only if they make it substantially less likely you’ll get COVID-19.
●
Based on what we know about vaccines for other diseases, experts believe that getting a COVID-19 vaccine may help keep you from getting seriously ill even if you do get COVID-19.
●
Getting vaccinated yourself may also protect people around you, particularly people at increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19.
●
Experts continue to conduct more studies about the effect of COVID-19 vaccination on severity of illness from COVID-19, as well as its ability to keep people from spreading the virus that causes COVID-19.
COVID-19 vaccination will help keep you from getting COVID-19 is the big bold headline on the page. This was based on what they knew then. And this was pre-approval, and they explicitly say that the vaccines "will be authorized or approved only if they make it substantially less likely you’ll get COVID-19." This is the clearly the intended primary benefit.
Yes they say that based on experience, there is an expectation that even if you do get COVID-19 the vaccine may help to reduce the severity. Reducing the severity is clearly an anticipated secondary benefit.
Sure you can argue because its pre-approval whether or not this constitutes day 1. So here is the page version from January 2021, post approval:
COVID-19 vaccination will help keep you from getting COVID-19
●
All COVID-19 vaccines currently available in the United States have been shown to be highly effective at preventing COVID-19. Learn more about the different COVID-19 vaccines.
●
All COVID-19 vaccines that are in development are being carefully evaluated in clinical trials and will be authorized or approved only if they make it substantially less likely you’ll get COVID-19. Learn more about how federal partners are ensuring COVID-19 vaccines work.
●
Based on what we know about vaccines for other diseases and early data from clinical trials, experts believe that getting a COVID-19 vaccine may also help keep you from getting seriously ill even if you do get COVID-19.
●
Getting vaccinated yourself may also protect people around you, particularly people at increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19.
●
Experts continue to conduct more studies about the effect of COVID-19 vaccination on severity of illness from COVID-19, as well as its ability to keep people from spreading the virus that causes COVID-19.
Again the primary benefit is clear - "have been shown to be highly effective at preventing COVID-19"
And they reference the secondary benefit - "may also help keep you from getting seriously ill" and "conduct more studies about the effect of COVID-19 vaccination on severity of illness from COVID-19"
At this stage - Jan 2021 - vaccine roll outs had begun recently. This is Day 1.
I'm not treating this as some sort of gotcha. I am simply pointing out the reality. As I have done many times.
Yet a huge amount of people, including yourself and many others on this forum, are blissfully unaware of this reality, and are repeatedly denying it, using what we now know with the benefit of hindsight to claim that the primary benefit of vaccination from day 1 was to reduce the effects of the disease and not to prevent infection.
And the more you and others argue this, the more you confirm my belief that there has been a deliberately created and controlled narrative to push this idea.
It's why I use the analogy with the "Emperor's New Clothes" - people are absolutely certain of this idea that from day 1 the primary benefit was to reduce severity, not prevent infection - but if you ask them to explain why they believe this, they are unable to do so.
We've seen it time and time again in this thread.
3 -
You seen to think the vaccines were produced not to prevent transmission.
That is clearly and evidently incorrect when it comes to the alpha variable , and less so, but still significantly, for the delta variant.
when it came to the omicron variant, the base design for the vaccines were already there, so when it was clear that the vaccine prevented serious illness to a higher degree than preventing transmission, it was deemed satisfactory to use the original vaccine base design.
There is no conspiracy here other than when you are making up
4 -
You seen to think the vaccines were produced not to prevent transmission.
I didn't mention anything about transmission. Absolutely nothing.
0 -
The difference between what was emphasised as primary benefit and secondary benefit at a point in time in the 'narrative' seems like rather thin gruel to make a grand conspiracy out of it.
At all points what was said was based on the best available data, you have not shown what was untrue \ unsound in any of the statements made as to the specifics of the vaccine benefit at the point in time they were said. The approval was sound. The claims made for the vaccines were sound at the time they were made.
So I don't accept your premise. Even I did, that we were 'blissfully unaware'... well maybe the reason for that is that the actual material impact is precisely zero.
"To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)
1 -
So are we finally agreed that, irrespective of what we know now about the efficacy, the vaccines were initially approved in late 2020 primarily to prevent Covid 19 infections rather than to reduce the severity of Covid 19 infections?
0 -
Advertisement
-
No I don't agree with that wording. The vaccines were initially approved on the basis of trial data showing that they prevented Covid infections. That does not have the same meaning as your statement. My opinion on the approval is stated in earlier posts 12206 & 12208.
"To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)
1 -
Ok, but you say you don't accept my premise on the grounds:
At all points what was said was based on the best available data, you have not shown what was untrue \ unsound in any of the statements made as to the specifics of the vaccine benefit at the point in time they were said. The approval was sound. The claims made for the vaccines were sound at the time they were made
I have never disputed any of the above. I totally agree that "The approval was sound. The claims made for the vaccines were sound at the time they were made" and have always maintained this.
What I am claiming is that the following is untrue:
Just to clarify, do you think provax people think that the vaccine stops you from getting/passing on Covid?
From day one, it has been made clear to all that the benefit of a vaccine was to reduce the effects of Covid on those who contracted it.
And:
the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials
I have asked you whether or not you agree and you keep answering that the approval was sound based on the data available at the time.
But that is not in dispute, not or am I claiming sort of conspiracy around it.
The conspiracy concerns the revisionism with the benefit of hindsight as evidenced by the claims "From day one, it has been made clear to all that the benefit of a vaccine was to reduce the effects of Covid on those who contracted it" and "the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials"
These statements are factually incorrect, and in my opinion, are a result of a deliberately controlled narrative.
But it is impossible to put meat on the bones of that theory if you are simply disputing it on the grounds that these statements are in fact correct.
And indeed contradicting the claim that vaccines were approved primarily to prevent Covid 19 infections, without anything to back it up, is simply further evidence that people's beliefs are being shaped by a narrative with hindsight, rather than the actual facts.
0 -
are you HONESTLY going to try to play word salad now by claiming there's a difference between "prevent transmission" and "prevent infection" ????
how the hell do you get infected if its not transmitted from one person to another???
come on now, that as much of a bad faith argument you could possibly make.
4 -
The vaccines were approved for a variety of reasons, for example, safety was one of them, was it the only one? No. Other factors included reducing severe effects from the disease. Hence variety.
In terms of effectiveness:
First link:
RESULTS
A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups.
CONCLUSIONS
A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728
Second link:
Vaccine efficacy – Comirnaty (Pfizer)
A phase II/III trial of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine enrolled more than 43,000 people aged ≥12 years.
An interim analysis at 2 months after dose 2 reported vaccine efficacy of 95.0% (95% CI: 90.3–97.6) in preventing symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in people aged 16 or older years who did not have evidence of previous infection with SARS-CoV-2.1
Vaccine efficacy – Spikevax (Moderna)
An ongoing phase III trial of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine involves more than 30,000 people aged 18 years or older (mean age 51.4 years, range 18 to 95 years).9 About one-quarter were aged ≥65 years, and about one-fifth of adults in the study aged 18–64 years had a medical condition with increased risk of severe COVID-19.
Preliminary results of this trial at 2 months after dose 2 reported an efficacy of 94.1% (95% CI: 89.3–96.8) in preventing symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in participants who had not previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. All 30 severe COVID-19 cases occurred in the placebo group, resulting in a vaccine efficacy estimate of 100% (95% CI unable to be estimated). One death due to SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred in the placebo group.
Moderna bivalent original/Omicron BA.1 vaccine
A phase II/III P205 trial in more than 800 people aged 18 years or older is ongoing.20 Participants received either the Moderna bivalent vaccine (containing 25 μg each of both the ancestral strain of SARS-CoV-2 and the Omicron BA.1 variant) or the Moderna original vaccine (50 μg) as a second booster dose, at least 3 months after a Moderna original primary course (using 100 μg doses) and Moderna original first booster dose (50 μg).
At 1 month after vaccination, participants who received the Moderna bivalent vaccine had modestly higher neutralising antibody titres against the Omicron BA.1 variant than people who received the original vaccine. These were 1.7 times higher (95% CI: 1.5–2.0) in people with no previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 1.9 times higher (95% CI: 1.5–2.4) in people with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Vaccine efficacy – Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca)
Phase II/III trials of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine are ongoing. More than 57,000 people aged 18 years or older are enrolled.
An interim analysis of pooled data was conducted as of 4 November 2020 from 2 ongoing randomised, blinded, controlled trials:
- a phase II/III study, COV002, in adults aged 18 years or older in the United Kingdom
- a phase III study, COV003, in adults aged 18 years or older in Brazil.
This analysis showed the overall vaccine efficacy was 70.4% (95% CI: 54.8–80.6) in preventing symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in people aged 18 years or older 15 or more days after the second dose in the primary efficacy study population.23 The median duration of follow-up from 15 or more days after the second dose was 48 days.23
It seems to be relatively effective to me. If the above information is wrong, then please explain and demonstrate how, and what conspiracy is involved.
4 -
The above is correct information and demonstrates precisely why this statement:
Just to clarify, do you think provax people think that the vaccine stops you from getting/passing on Covid?
From day one, it has been made clear to all that the benefit of a vaccine was to reduce the effects of Covid on those who contracted it.
is totally incorrect. And it also proves this statement to be totally incorrect:
the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials
You say it "seems to be relatively effective" - I'd go further and say the data available at the time showed it to be highly effective at preventing infection.
Pfizer - vaccine efficacy of 95.0% (95% CI: 90.3–97.6) in preventing symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19
Moderna - reported an efficacy of 94.1% (95% CI: 89.3–96.8) in preventing symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19
AZ - efficacy was 70.4% (95% CI: 54.8–80.6) in preventing symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in people aged 18 years
The info you have posted does nothing to demonstrate that the primary function of the Covid vaccines was intended to be anything other than to prevent symptomatic cases of Covid.
What you have posted is exactly why the CDC said on Day 1:
COVID-19 vaccination will help keep you from getting COVID-19
All COVID-19 vaccines currently available in the United States have been shown to be highly effective at preventing COVID-19.
Your links and info simply confirm what I keep repeating and being told that I am wrong.
2 -
You are the one making the claim that vaccines were approved primarily to prevent infections. This speaks to the intention in the minds of the approvers at the time - which is not the same as the cited official reason for approval which must be based on strict trial data requirements. Imo you have failed to provide anything to back up that claim specifically re: intentionality. To jump on challenges to that claim as not having anything to back it up as further proof of the conspiracy is takes some amount of confirmation bias seen from my perspective.
You have laid out your claim of a conspiracy on the thread, that is the purpose of the thread.
Frankly I don't see a conspiracy, I think even it there was such a narrative shift it is a meaningless irrelevence and is doesn't amount to a hill of beans as far as conspiracies go. All I see are word games and word play signifying nothing of import and the entire line of inquiry is a sideshow. Therefore my view is that it is pointless to continue debating this 'intentionality' aspect further at this time. I will respond to claims about the actual capabilities of vaccines where I feel they are being misrepresented.
"To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)
2 -
Whilst I think intuitively you have a point, I am only dealing in the facts of the data upon which the vaccines were approved, which is why I didn't mention transmission.
If you want an answer to the conundrum take it up with the CDC who said on day 1:
Experts continue to conduct more studies about the effect of COVID-19 vaccination on severity of illness from COVID-19, as well as its ability to keep people from spreading the virus that causes COVID-19.
They couldn't claim definitive efficacy on transmission because they did not have the data to do so. Something to do with flying the plane at the speed of science whilst it was still being built apparently:
Janine Small, president of international markets at Pfizer, told the European Parliament on Monday that Pfizer did not know whether its COVID-19 vaccine prevented transmission of the virus before it entered the market in December 2020. But Pfizer never claimed to have studied the issue before the vaccine’s market release.
0 -
You are the one making the claim that vaccines were approved primarily to prevent infections. This speaks to the intention in the minds of the approvers at the time - which is not the same as the cited official reason for approval which must be based on strict trial data requirements.
Eh? I have cited the intention of the CDC:
COVID-19 vaccines are being carefully evaluated in clinical trials and will be authorized or approved only if they make it substantially less likely you’ll get COVID-19
And I have cited the official reason for approval which must be based on strict trial data requirements. I have done this from 5 different regulators on three different vaccines.To remind you, here is the FDA on Pfizer:
Comirnaty is a monovalent COVID-19 vaccine that is approved for use as a two-dose primary series for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 12 years of age and older.
Oddly enough the intention and the official reason concur.
And you say I have not backed this claim up?!
To jump on challenges to that claim as not having anything to back it up as further proof of the conspiracy is takes some amount of confirmation bias seen from my perspective.
Apologies if I have missed it, but what have you used to back up your claim that the vaccines were not approved primarily to prevent infections?
I will respond to claims about the actual capabilities of vaccines where I feel they are being misrepresented.
Fine, I am not trying to convince you of these facts, as I said I have long since realised that is both unnecessary and pointless, but as long as you and others engage in this revisionism, I will point it out for what it is.
0 -
so im going to ask you again .... now answer the question this time
are you claiming there is a difference between "preventing transmission" and "preventing infection" ???
because your bleated consistently about "preventing infection" and now your trying to claim that you said nothing about "preventing transmission"..
so .. one last time...
are you claiming there is a difference between "preventing transmission" and "preventing infection" ???
3 -
Good. Trials showed they were safe and showed they were effective. They also reduce the severity of the disease.
There doesn't seem to be any conspiracy here, so what's all the fuss about?
You originally wrote in this thread "It is pretty clear now that the vaccine is not granting immunity."
Immunity means resistance, it doesn't mean invincibility, e.g. catching Covid confers immunity for a period, that doesn't mean someone won't catch and develop it again shortly after, it just means their resistance is much higher for a period. It's a relative term. Likewise Covid vaccines give general immunity, but that wanes after awhile, hence we need boosters.
4 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
There doesn't seem to be any conspiracy here, so what's all the fuss about?
The fuss stems back to my original post on the subject some 6 months ago:
This is my problem with the vaccines. When the vaccines were first rolled out the clear expectation was that the primary function was to prevent catching Covid.
When it became abundantly clear that this was not working as intended, but they were having good effect in preventing serious illness and death, very few vaccine proponents acknowledged this. It was spun as if the primary function all along was to reduce serious illness and death, and anybody who thought they were taking the vaccine to prevent them getting Covid just didn't understand how vaccines worked.
At the time there was an immediate fuss caused in response by everybody arguing that the primary function was not to prevent Covid, the primary function all was to reduce serious illness and death.
And here we are six months later, posters still spinning this yarn, yet not one of them has managed to provide any evidence that at time of the initial roll out the goal was to prevent serious illness and death rather than infection.
I just made the point in the first place, the fuss was caused by everybody trying and failing to disprove it.
Which rather neatly proves the point I was making.
0 -
Didn't Pfizer say in front of the EU that they didn't even test whether they stopped transmission?..
Jeez, I was wondering how ye were still going on about it, but it's obvious really, ye know ye were taken for a ride too..and ye fell for it..
0 -
The claims touting this Pfizer admission as some sort of 'gotcha' were already debunked on the thread.
Nobody was taken for a ride. The only people being taken for a ride are those duped into thinking it was some sort of 'gotcha' moment.
"To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)
1 -
ah the same crap from you as well..... cannot comprehend the corelation between infection and transmission.
pfizer DID NOT HAVE TO test for transmission because the vaccines were designed to reduce risk of infection.
You cannot transmit what you do not have.
and as for the cherry, the results showed the vaccines DID have a reduction effect on transmission of the early variants of the disease FOR WHICH THE VACCINES WERE DESIGNED
Post edited by sydthebeat on4 -
Your first posts were a year ago. They were more related to the vaccines not performing as you expected.
As for the above, you keep referring to this "primary goal". Seems subjective to me. Vaccines have multiple goals. Many would argue the primary goal of these vaccines, any vaccines, is to be safe.
5 -
But the indication of a drug approved for emergency use is not subjective. It is specific. That's kind of the point.
Many might argue the primary goal is to be safe, but that is a nonsense. The question of safety is one of risk, not one of benefit. It is only relevant if there is a benefit - i.e regulators ask what is the benefit? And then if they are satisfied there is a benefit, they ask is it safe.
But, rather than the of vagueness of what many would argue, do you agree with these statements, that people have argued:
Just to clarify, do you think provax people think that the vaccine stops you from getting/passing on Covid?
From day one, it has been made clear to all that the benefit of a vaccine was to reduce the effects of Covid on those who contracted it.
and
the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials
0 -
Many might argue the primary goal is to be safe, but that is a nonsense.
Is your personal opinion. I'd disagree. I wouldn't say it's the only goal, but it's definitely paramount, we all remember how the vaccine trials of tens of thousands of people were halted when one person fell sick or died.
The question of safety is one of risk, not one of benefit.
Both have to be weighed up.
Trials showed very good effectiveness and safety, I'm not the slightest bit surprised they were approved. Yes it was a faster process, but understandable considering we were in the midst of a global pandemic.
3 -
Advertisement
-
Both have to be weighed up.
OK, no argument there from me. They are weighed up against each other. The summary of the benefit/risk analysis of Pfizer by the EMA was:
Overall, the available data are supportive of a positive B/R in the proposed indication.
Clearly both were weighed up specifically in the context of the proposed indication. And what was the proposed indication:
Intended indication: ‘Active immunisation to prevent COVID-19 disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus, in individuals 16 years of age and older’.
Who'd have thought it?
0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)