|
|
Post by GeneralFaye on Mar 29, 2020 14:31:39 GMT
Turkey most capped player Rustu in critical condition.
|
|
|
|
Post by berahinosgoals on Mar 29, 2020 14:38:22 GMT
I dont want to pay more tax so yes, I'll be on cash work foreigners a lot after this, they are working us to the bone and bleeding us dry for our efforts allready, more so with the tax hikes and double N.I they will put in place after this has finished. Maybe though if we didnt send £130 billion pounds out in the name of aid in the last ten years we wouldn't need to resort to draconian measures. Look how much we threw into the E.U, one of the biggest contributors, When this is over its slave britain, double tax and double N.I. It is selfish individuals like you that give the self- employed a bad reputation, I don't suppose you will reduce your use of public services and facilities to make up for you stealing from the public purse. I pay enough in taxes, it's not my fault they waste it |
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Mar 29, 2020 14:40:32 GMT
I’ve not heard anything since Whitty’s update a couple of days ago. You might have heard talk of an “antigen” test but that’s another form of diagnosis (faster than traditional pcr) of a live case rather than immunity like the antibody test. So I assume it’s still being validated, hopefully NHS staff start getting it in thenmext couple of weeks. We have 3.5 million ordered in though. Back with some more lay-man's thoughts  If these 'underlying health conditions' have the effect of suppressing the natural immune system, is there any way that 'at risk' groups could have their immunity boosted? It wouldn't stop them catching it but may reduce the effects/mortality. I'd start charging by the response here mate  Because we don’t know the full pathological effects of Covid, any attempt to boost immunity (which is difficult anyway) or treat without guidance or evidence may be misguided, we’ve seen with something as simple as ibuprofen it’s been recorded as having negative effects. For many people it’s not that their immune system is suppressed, it’s the fact their condition say (COPD) is particularly exacerbated by the respiratory conditions of COVID. COPD is hard enough to manage as is, nevermind with a serious infection on top. For some people, boosting the immune system could also be clinically disastrous as their conditions are caused by the body attacking itself, particularly with stuff like Crohn’s disease. Finally it’s well worth noting, no one has immunity to this, it’s a new disease and if you come into contact with it you will get it, so even if you have the best immune system in the world, it doesn’t have antibodies to this, they will only be created by exposure or an eventual vaccine. The only thing that changes is that your response will be better in suppressing it, but each case would have to be viewed individually, there are no one size fits all treatments atm. So that’s why the best form of immunity “boost” as it were for those at risk is isolation until the transmission chains are severely disrupted or a vaccine is viable. |
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Mar 29, 2020 14:41:38 GMT
Thick as pig shit😡
|
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Mar 29, 2020 14:44:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 29, 2020 14:46:37 GMT
I was just going to post this Crouch, people have asked for clarity from the government....the basic conditions have been made clear, the problem is that some people do not stick to them. It's perhaps hard for some to comprehend, but perhaps there is only so much that the government can do. |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Mar 29, 2020 14:48:56 GMT
The article is pretty correct. It should mention that the authority The People Health Agency actually WANT as many of the swedes as possible to get this, and the sooner the better now. That's why. Addition: A lady representing the business sector in some way, on National tv the other night, said something like this on prime time "We shouldn't have any restrictions at all regarding the Corona virus. It's worse to close down the society and companies can't survive. What will that lead to? Even more deaths through suicide than Corona would cause. Yeah, it is tragic with all the death cases, but that's the way life is". That is the strong force the leaders and The People Health Agency have to fight simultaneously. Another thing that makes it difficult for them actually is the fact they aren't closing down the schools, or The Swedish Mountain resort activities this Easter period coming. Why? Because the crimes would go up by several hundred %, they say. Fantastic, isn't it?! In Sweden "the leaders" let the young criminals rule and decide, not only when crimes are commited, but also when no crime has happened. The only country in the world. |
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Mar 29, 2020 14:49:55 GMT
Thought you'd missed one there Bert 
|
|
|
|
Post by zerps on Mar 29, 2020 14:50:05 GMT
Imagine being obsessed with politics when your party will never be elected again 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Mar 29, 2020 14:52:11 GMT
Never seen a buffet with an offering of a plate of oranges before - plenty of vitamin c I guess so liking the logic... |
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Mar 29, 2020 14:59:43 GMT
Consultant died after testing positive in Leicester. Aged 55.
|
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Mar 29, 2020 14:59:57 GMT
Back with some more lay-man's thoughts If these 'underlying health conditions' have the effect of suppressing the natural immune system, is there any way that 'at risk' groups could have their immunity boosted? It wouldn't stop them catching it but may reduce the effects/mortality. I'd start charging by the response here mate Because we don’t know the full pathological effects of Covid, any attempt to boost immunity or treat without guidance or evidence may be misguided, we’ve seen with something as simple as ibuprofen it’s been recorded as having negative effects. For many people it’s not that their immune system is suppressed, it’s the fact their condition say (COPD) is particularly exacerbated by the respiratory conditions of COVID. COPD is hard enough to manage as is, nevermind with a serious infection on top. For some people, boosting the immune system could also be clinically disastrous as their conditions are caused by the body attacking itself, particularly with stuff like Crohn’s disease. Finally it’s well worth noting, no one has immunity to this, it’s a new disease and if you come into contact with it you will get it, so even if you have the best immune system in the world, it doesn’t have antibodies to this, they will only be created by exposure or an eventual vaccine. So that’s why the best form of immunity “boost” as it were for those at risk is isolation until the transmission chains are severely disrupted or a vaccine is viable. The vaccine is a year away - minimum. 12 months of 'lockdown' is utterly unsustainable. What therefore is the interim position? Lockdown until there is stability then rigorous 'test and trace' for any localised outbreaks? Limited slackening of restrictions but maintaining social distancing, only essential travel out of locality etc? Back to work but only with a hazmat suit? The conundrum is that in the absence of a vaccine the best thing you could actually do for yourself and the nation is catch a mild dose and get back to work. Lockdown mitigates against that - plus of course you don't know your dose will only be mild. There is also the issue that as you get a critical mass of people who have contracted and recovered you could get a two tier society - those at risk and the 'invincibles' do you continue to treat both groups the same? And will there be people saying 'why can't I go to the pub- I've had it?' And if they do is that penalising those who did stay at home as asked and didn't get it? And if we get a long hot summer I can't see the good burghers of Tottenham, Aston and Toxteth staying in their high rises watching repeats of Mrs Brown somehow. Testing times ahead. |
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Mar 29, 2020 15:00:48 GMT
With that much food about surely you were tempted? |
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Mar 29, 2020 15:08:59 GMT
Back with some more lay-man's thoughts If these 'underlying health conditions' have the effect of suppressing the natural immune system, is there any way that 'at risk' groups could have their immunity boosted? It wouldn't stop them catching it but may reduce the effects/mortality. I'd start charging by the response here mate Because we don’t know the full pathological effects of Covid, any attempt to boost immunity (which is difficult anyway) or treat without guidance or evidence may be misguided, we’ve seen with something as simple as ibuprofen it’s been recorded as having negative effects. For many people it’s not that their immune system is suppressed, it’s the fact their condition say (COPD) is particularly exacerbated by the respiratory conditions of COVID. COPD is hard enough to manage as is, nevermind with a serious infection on top. For some people, boosting the immune system could also be clinically disastrous as their conditions are caused by the body attacking itself, particularly with stuff like Crohn’s disease. Finally it’s well worth noting, no one has immunity to this, it’s a new disease and if you come into contact with it you will get it, so even if you have the best immune system in the world, it doesn’t have antibodies to this, they will only be created by exposure or an eventual vaccine. The only thing that changes is that your response will be better in suppressing it, but each case would have to be viewed individually, there are no one size fits all treatments atm. So that’s why the best form of immunity “boost” as it were for those at risk is isolation until the transmission chains are severely disrupted or a vaccine is viable. Cheque is in the post  |
|
|
|
Post by henry on Mar 29, 2020 15:09:53 GMT
Never seen a buffet with an offering of a plate of oranges before - plenty of vitamin c I guess so liking the logic... Apart from the near empty bottle of Vodka, thats the worse looking buffet iv'e ever seen. Chicken with apricots - the dirty bastards. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2020 15:10:51 GMT
Why? It’s uplifting for the soul to see beauty. Do they cross infect anyone while driving there? When they park right behind another car and get out are they at least 6 ft away from others? When they are walking in a field, are they touching grocery items that someone else has just touched, using a pin pad that 1000’s have used that day? I’ve heard of people disinfecting their credit cards, but has anyone disinfected their wallet? While it is necessary to buy supplies, I think you are far less likely to be exposed to a virus while walking through the countryside than through your local supermarket. The point is that should they have a road traffic accident on the way there or back they will be using up much needed resources, this is mentioned numerous times further up the thread and is common sense really. Probably more likely to have an accident driving through an urban area. |
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Mar 29, 2020 15:11:27 GMT
Because we don’t know the full pathological effects of Covid, any attempt to boost immunity or treat without guidance or evidence may be misguided, we’ve seen with something as simple as ibuprofen it’s been recorded as having negative effects. For many people it’s not that their immune system is suppressed, it’s the fact their condition say (COPD) is particularly exacerbated by the respiratory conditions of COVID. COPD is hard enough to manage as is, nevermind with a serious infection on top. For some people, boosting the immune system could also be clinically disastrous as their conditions are caused by the body attacking itself, particularly with stuff like Crohn’s disease. Finally it’s well worth noting, no one has immunity to this, it’s a new disease and if you come into contact with it you will get it, so even if you have the best immune system in the world, it doesn’t have antibodies to this, they will only be created by exposure or an eventual vaccine. So that’s why the best form of immunity “boost” as it were for those at risk is isolation until the transmission chains are severely disrupted or a vaccine is viable. The vaccine is a year away - minimum. 12 months of 'lockdown' is utterly unsustainable. What therefore is the interim position? Lockdown until there is stability then rigorous 'test and trace' for any localised outbreaks? Limited slackening of restrictions but maintaining social distancing, only essential travel out of locality etc? Back to work but only with a hazmat suit? The conundrum is that in the absence of a vaccine the best thing you could actually do for yourself and the nation is catch a mild dose and get back to work. Lockdown mitigates against that - plus of course you don't know your dose will only be mild. There is also the issue that as you get a critical mass of people who have contracted and recovered you could get a two tier society - those at risk and the 'invincibles' do you continue to treat both groups the same? And will there be people saying 'why can't I go to the pub- I've had it?' And if they do is that penalising those who did stay at home as asked and didn't get it? And if we get a long hot summer I can't see the good burghers of Tottenham, Aston and Toxteth staying in their high rises watching repeats of Mrs Brown somehow. Testing times ahead. If, as I've understood it, the post infection immunity lasts for 12 month's then by time the vaccine is available many will be pretty much in the same boat again |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2020 15:11:49 GMT
Allready talk of tax hikes ,& double N.I. Welcome to slave britain "Talk of" by whom? Your mates at the pub? |
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Mar 29, 2020 15:12:51 GMT
Because we don’t know the full pathological effects of Covid, any attempt to boost immunity or treat without guidance or evidence may be misguided, we’ve seen with something as simple as ibuprofen it’s been recorded as having negative effects. For many people it’s not that their immune system is suppressed, it’s the fact their condition say (COPD) is particularly exacerbated by the respiratory conditions of COVID. COPD is hard enough to manage as is, nevermind with a serious infection on top. For some people, boosting the immune system could also be clinically disastrous as their conditions are caused by the body attacking itself, particularly with stuff like Crohn’s disease. Finally it’s well worth noting, no one has immunity to this, it’s a new disease and if you come into contact with it you will get it, so even if you have the best immune system in the world, it doesn’t have antibodies to this, they will only be created by exposure or an eventual vaccine. So that’s why the best form of immunity “boost” as it were for those at risk is isolation until the transmission chains are severely disrupted or a vaccine is viable. The vaccine is a year away - minimum. 12 months of 'lockdown' is utterly unsustainable. What therefore is the interim position? Lockdown until there is stability then rigorous 'test and trace' for any localised outbreaks? Limited slackening of restrictions but maintaining social distancing, only essential travel out of locality etc? Back to work but only with a hazmat suit? The conundrum is that in the absence of a vaccine the best thing you could actually do for yourself and the nation is catch a mild dose and get back to work. Lockdown mitigates against that - plus of course you don't know your dose will only be mild. There is also the issue that as you get a critical mass of people who have contracted and recovered you could get a two tier society - those at risk and the 'invincibles' do you continue to treat both groups the same? And will there be people saying 'why can't I go to the pub- I've had it?' And if they do is that penalising those who did stay at home as asked and didn't get it? And if we get a long hot summer I can't see the good burghers of Tottenham, Aston and Toxteth staying in their high rises watching repeats of Mrs Brown somehow. Testing times ahead. I think much of the strategy will lie in the antibody test and assessing who has had it. When we had just 200 confirmed cases they extrapolated that around 10,000 people actually had the virus. Now we’re at what 20,000 so if you extrapolate up again that’s a million. When that comes in, I reckon we’ll be able to start scaling back some of the social distancing measures and I reckon it will be a compulsory part of going back to work. They will probably relax in stages rather than all of society all at once to stagger it, those who then contract it will be told to isolate etc. Probably followed by a triggering of similar measures if there is another outbreak, but hopefully now we’d be much more vigilant there would be extensive testing and contact tracing which our initial response lacked heavily. This should allow is to control outbreaks as they happen, but it requires massive investment. If enough people get it, say 8 out of 10 then we will have a degree of freedom at the R0 will definitely plummet below 1 as statistically 80% of people you come across would be unable to contract it. This is the fabled “herd immunity” that could potentially protect the 2 out of 10 who haven’t had it. But they were caught off guard by how contagious this thing is, so that is now a much lengthier process to obtain because of lockdown even though most will be mild. It’s a puzzle and one they’ll have to work out as they go, but they know lockdown isn’t sustainable, that’s why the antibody test is being fast tracked, get that going and we may finally be able to identify just how many people have had it and what the feasible strategy is moving forward. At this point, I don’t see how they can accurately say where we stand. The people who may be most effected will be those most at risk though, I can’t see even how with mass antibody testing how you get those people back into society safely, it may be their lockdown has to last much longer but that’s not feasible at all and any further outbreak to that population risks so many lives. It’s a real puzzle. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 29, 2020 15:13:28 GMT
The point is that should they have a road traffic accident on the way there or back they will be using up much needed resources, this is mentioned numerous times further up the thread and is common sense really. Probably more likely to have an accident driving through an urban area. Indeed ... on their way out to the countryside. |
|
|
|
Post by Los Alfareros on Mar 29, 2020 15:15:43 GMT
Coronaoke?? - It could catch on.....
Me first - Don't stand so close to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Mar 29, 2020 15:17:09 GMT
Our Government only relaxed regulations and red tape on the manufacture and supply of PPE yesterday. Yesterday. All our troubles seemed so far away (China) now it seems they are here to stay. |
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Mar 29, 2020 15:19:18 GMT
Coronaoke?? - It could catch on..... Me first - Don't stand so close to me. Yesterday. Bat out of hell.
|
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Mar 29, 2020 15:19:52 GMT
With that much food about surely you were tempted? You’re so predictable😄 |
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Mar 29, 2020 15:22:51 GMT
The point is that should they have a road traffic accident on the way there or back they will be using up much needed resources, this is mentioned numerous times further up the thread and is common sense really. Probably more likely to have an accident driving through an urban area. Probably, but definitely less likely to have an accident if they don't get in the car at all. |
|
|
|
Post by dexta on Mar 29, 2020 15:23:04 GMT
The vaccine is a year away - minimum. 12 months of 'lockdown' is utterly unsustainable. What therefore is the interim position? Lockdown until there is stability then rigorous 'test and trace' for any localised outbreaks? Limited slackening of restrictions but maintaining social distancing, only essential travel out of locality etc? Back to work but only with a hazmat suit? The conundrum is that in the absence of a vaccine the best thing you could actually do for yourself and the nation is catch a mild dose and get back to work. Lockdown mitigates against that - plus of course you don't know your dose will only be mild. There is also the issue that as you get a critical mass of people who have contracted and recovered you could get a two tier society - those at risk and the 'invincibles' do you continue to treat both groups the same? And will there be people saying 'why can't I go to the pub- I've had it?' And if they do is that penalising those who did stay at home as asked and didn't get it? And if we get a long hot summer I can't see the good burghers of Tottenham, Aston and Toxteth staying in their high rises watching repeats of Mrs Brown somehow. Testing times ahead. I think much of the strategy will lie in the antibody test and assessing who has had it. When we had just 200 confirmed cases they extrapolated that around 10,000 people actually had the virus. Now we’re at what 20,000 so if you extrapolate up again that’s a million. When that comes in, I reckon we’ll be able to start scaling back some of the social distancing measures and I reckon it will be a compulsory part of going back to work. They will probably relax in stages rather than all of society all at once to stagger it, those who then contract it will be told to isolate etc. Probably followed by a triggering of similar measures if there is another outbreak, but hopefully now we’d be much more vigilant there would be extensive testing and contact tracing which our initial response lacked heavily. This should allow is to control outbreaks as they happen, but it requires massive investment. If enough people get it, say 8 out of 10 then we will have a degree of freedom at the R0 will definitely plummet below 1 as statistically 80% of people you come across would be unable to contract it. This is the fabled “herd immunity” that could potentially protect the 2 out of 10 who haven’t had it. But they were caught off guard by how contagious this thing is, so that is now a much lengthier process to obtain because of lockdown even though most will be mild. It’s a puzzle and one they’ll have to work out as they go, but they know lockdown isn’t sustainable, that’s why the antibody test is being fast tracked, get that going and we may finally be able to identify just how many people have had it and what the feasible strategy is moving forward. At this point, I don’t see how they can accurately say where we stand. The people who may be most effected will be those most at risk though, I can’t see even how with mass antibody testing how you get those people back into society safely, it may be their lockdown has to last much longer but that’s not feasible at all and any further outbreak to that population risks so many lives. It’s a real puzzle. you seem to be in the loop fella.. I was talking to someone in the fire service and they reckon we're going to have three surges of this virus this year... |
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Mar 29, 2020 15:23:33 GMT
Coronaoke?? - It could catch on..... Me first - Don't stand so close to me. Yesterday. Bat out of hell.
It's the end of the world as we know it -R.E.M. Stand clear - M.O.P. Breathe -Pearl Jam I don't know what all the fuss is about -Peter Coates |
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Mar 29, 2020 15:23:41 GMT
The vaccine is a year away - minimum. 12 months of 'lockdown' is utterly unsustainable. What therefore is the interim position? Lockdown until there is stability then rigorous 'test and trace' for any localised outbreaks? Limited slackening of restrictions but maintaining social distancing, only essential travel out of locality etc? Back to work but only with a hazmat suit? The conundrum is that in the absence of a vaccine the best thing you could actually do for yourself and the nation is catch a mild dose and get back to work. Lockdown mitigates against that - plus of course you don't know your dose will only be mild. There is also the issue that as you get a critical mass of people who have contracted and recovered you could get a two tier society - those at risk and the 'invincibles' do you continue to treat both groups the same? And will there be people saying 'why can't I go to the pub- I've had it?' And if they do is that penalising those who did stay at home as asked and didn't get it? And if we get a long hot summer I can't see the good burghers of Tottenham, Aston and Toxteth staying in their high rises watching repeats of Mrs Brown somehow. Testing times ahead. I think much of the strategy will lie in the antibody test and assessing who has had it. When we had just 200 confirmed cases they extrapolated that around 10,000 people actually had the virus. Now we’re at what 20,000 so if you extrapolate up again that’s a million. When that comes in, I reckon we’ll be able to start scaling back some of the social distancing measures and I reckon it will be a compulsory part of going back to work. They will probably relax in stages rather than all of society all at once to stagger it, those who then contract it will be told to isolate etc. Probably followed by a triggering of similar measures if there is another outbreak, but hopefully now we’d be much more vigilant there would be extensive testing and contact tracing which our initial response lacked heavily. This should allow is to control outbreaks as they happen, but it requires massive investment. If enough people get it, say 8 out of 10 then we will have a degree of freedom at the R0 will definitely plummet below 1 as statistically 80% of people you come across would be unable to contract it. This is the fabled “herd immunity” that could potentially protect the 2 out of 10 who haven’t had it. But they were caught off guard by how contagious this thing is, so that is now a much lengthier process to obtain because of lockdown even though most will be mild. It’s a puzzle and one they’ll have to work out as they go, but they know lockdown isn’t sustainable, that’s why the antibody test is being fast tracked, get that going and we may finally be able to identify just how many people have had it and what the feasible strategy is moving forward. At this point, I don’t see how they can accurately say where we stand. The people who may be most effected will be those most at risk though, I can’t see even how with mass antibody testing how you get those people back into society safely, it may be their lockdown has to last much longer but that’s not feasible at all and any further outbreak to that population risks so many lives. It’s a real puzzle. The WHO have announced clinical trials of four drugs which may help fight Covid-19 and they're enrolling patients from Norway and Spain. www.cnbc.com/2020/03/27/who-officials-enroll-first-patients-from-norway-and-spain-in-historic-coronavirus-drug-trial.html |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2020 15:27:04 GMT
Probably more likely to have an accident driving through an urban area. Indeed ... on their way out to the countryside. Or the supermarket |
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Mar 29, 2020 15:27:57 GMT
I think much of the strategy will lie in the antibody test and assessing who has had it. When we had just 200 confirmed cases they extrapolated that around 10,000 people actually had the virus. Now we’re at what 20,000 so if you extrapolate up again that’s a million. When that comes in, I reckon we’ll be able to start scaling back some of the social distancing measures and I reckon it will be a compulsory part of going back to work. They will probably relax in stages rather than all of society all at once to stagger it, those who then contract it will be told to isolate etc. Probably followed by a triggering of similar measures if there is another outbreak, but hopefully now we’d be much more vigilant there would be extensive testing and contact tracing which our initial response lacked heavily. This should allow is to control outbreaks as they happen, but it requires massive investment. If enough people get it, say 8 out of 10 then we will have a degree of freedom at the R0 will definitely plummet below 1 as statistically 80% of people you come across would be unable to contract it. This is the fabled “herd immunity” that could potentially protect the 2 out of 10 who haven’t had it. But they were caught off guard by how contagious this thing is, so that is now a much lengthier process to obtain because of lockdown even though most will be mild. It’s a puzzle and one they’ll have to work out as they go, but they know lockdown isn’t sustainable, that’s why the antibody test is being fast tracked, get that going and we may finally be able to identify just how many people have had it and what the feasible strategy is moving forward. At this point, I don’t see how they can accurately say where we stand. The people who may be most effected will be those most at risk though, I can’t see even how with mass antibody testing how you get those people back into society safely, it may be their lockdown has to last much longer but that’s not feasible at all and any further outbreak to that population risks so many lives. It’s a real puzzle. The WHO have announced clinical trials of four drugs which may help fight Covid-19 and they're enrolling patients from Norway and Spain. www.cnbc.com/2020/03/27/who-officials-enroll-first-patients-from-norway-and-spain-in-historic-coronavirus-drug-trial.htmlHopefully there will be therapies up and running soon, especially if they’re from existing medicines as you can avoid much of the red tape that comes with designing a new treatment (such as the most effective antibodies extracted from existing patients story I posted the other day) but they still have to come through the trials and show efficacy. Also, all treatments have side effects and a full risk assessment of these would have to be taken before they begin any rollout. It’s also important that these drugs would only ameliorate cases in hospital, they wouldn’t stop a spread but they would potentially help those in hospital with the disease. But we’d still need very careful monitoring of the spread of any local outbreaks. With viruses, the first line of defence is always prophylaxis like a vaccine, but therapeutics would help to save a lot more people and potentially free up key resources like ventilators etc as severe cases with treatment become mild and so on. That story also confirms, the vaccine target for one trial is one of the viral proteins, this would indicate it will be pretty stable and not at risk of heavily mutating. Promising. |
|
