Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Coronavirus: The Thread

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Coronavirus: The Thread

Old 4th Jul 2020, 21:22
  #8141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: deep in the forest of life
Posts: 8
Thank you VP959 for your information without having/using an agenda within these troubled times. Very succinct.
Many years ago I did the infection control route. Bringing it back into my daily routine was easy seeing as I live alone. I don't use a mask, though do use a face covering whilst doing the grocery shop. Last week was the first time I was able to purchase hand sanitiser. I must assume all others who've cleared the shelves have actually drunk theirs:-)


Now BoJo has lifted much of the lock-down I am ever more aware of how the "general public" look upon this as a free for all--business as usual and be damned with the consequences as it'll never happen to me attitude. The Bournemouth beaches/Durdle Dor debacle was a nightmare for those living there. I am fortunate living where I do yet can fully understand those in high rise blocks needing an outlet whereby they have no green-space. I too can empathise having lived on the 18th floor of Fintas Towers, Fahaheel.

I also have trawled through much information/disinformation plopped hither and thither by our Government and others. I must admit I don't believe any of them; particularly now various figures appear to have been "massaged". Looking at the figures for those recovered and those cases still active most certainly sets my alarm bells ringing.

So what to do eh? Be aware, trust yourself by doing the right thing by distancing for your sake, rather than for anyone else. They apparently couldn't give a fig anyway. Keep safe without becoming paranoid; this too shall pass.







katya2607 is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2020, 23:31
  #8142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Balikpapan, INDONESIA
Age: 68
Posts: 536
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
Perhaps worth trying to determine what the relative benefits and disbenefits of wearing a normal surgical-type mask might be.

As far as the wearer is concerned, a normal surgical-type mask, or similar fairly porous face covering, isn't going to offer much in the way of protection from infection. What it will do pretty well is offer others protection from infection, if worn by an infected person, just by reducing the spread of viral particles. So, in essence, wearing a surgical-type mask, or other face covering, is an altruistic act, that may protect others if the wearer is infected, but perhaps isn't aware of it.

This makes mask-wearing a pretty hard sell, as a lot of people just won't do something like this in order to help others. People are often inherently selfish, and won't do things that offer them little benefit. Add in that it's pretty well understood that inexperienced mask-wearers will almost certainly touch their faces more than they otherwise would, and you have the situation where the altruism of mask wearing carries a potentially more serious disbenefit to the wearer than just the discomfort; they may well be at greater risk of catching this particular disease, especially if there are many people not wearing masks around.

To be effective, mask wearing really needs to be strictly enforced in areas where it may have some benefit, like indoors, in enclosed spaces shared with others. Wearing masks outdoors, especially when not in close proximity with others, offers little benefit to anyone, and is fairly pointless, as any slight air movement outside will tend to disperse any expired droplets pretty quickly.

If governments were serious about wanting to control this virus, whilst allowing life to return to something close to normality, then the easy way to do this is to mandate that everyone wears a mask when in any publicly accessible enclosed space, including places where crowds may gather, like sports stadiums. Combined with enhanced hand hygiene measures, and regular surface disinfection, the chances are that this would be as effective as social distancing and lockdown.

I have told this tale on here before so will keep it brief. In a previous life I used to walk into work from a mining camp to the mine offices, early in the morning, in the dark and down a long (2km) straight road.
I always knew when one particular miner was on site because he always set out 10-15 minutes ahead of me and I would catch an occasional glimpse of his cigarette end in the calm, desert, night-air.
And I could smell his cigarette smoke even though I was 500 - 1000 metres behind him. That smoke had been in his lungs 10 minutes earlier.

Has any testing been done to quantify aerosolised virus in crowded (and not so crowded) environments?
It seems to me that if I could smell Mike's cigarettes from a km away then the potential for aerosol transmission may be under-estimated.
Perhaps a few policemen wearing something like the Draeger sniffers when they attend a protest rally might throw some light on the subject.
WingNut60 is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2020, 23:51
  #8143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 965
Originally Posted by WingNut60 View Post
I have told this tale on here before so will keep it brief. In a previous life I used to walk into work from a mining camp to the mine offices, early in the morning, in the dark and down a long (2km) straight road.
I always knew when one particular miner was on site because he always set out 10-15 minutes ahead of me and I would catch an occasional glimpse of his cigarette end in the calm, desert, night-air.
And I could smell his cigarette smoke even though I was 500 - 1000 metres behind him. That smoke had been in his lungs 10 minutes earlier.

Has any testing been done to quantify aerosolised virus in crowded (and not so crowded) environments?
It seems to me that if I could smell Mike's cigarettes from a km away then the potential for aerosol transmission may be under-estimated.
Perhaps a few policemen wearing something like the Draeger sniffers when they attend a protest rally might throw some light on the subject.
There is extensive research concerning this in the agricultural sector, notably nil/ light wind, surface temperature inversion conditions.

Spray drift can travel many km in such "calm" conditions. Not so in wind.

currawong is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2020, 00:27
  #8144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Balikpapan, INDONESIA
Age: 68
Posts: 536
Originally Posted by currawong View Post
There is extensive research concerning this in the agricultural sector, notably nil/ light wind, surface temperature inversion conditions.

Spray drift can travel many km in such "calm" conditions. Not so in wind.

https://youtu.be/FPUstarVuls
Sort of like when early morning joggers are out??

But I was also pondering the benefit of a little research into aerosols in an enclosed environment like an auditorium or shopping centre.
And I mean research by measurement and not just by theorising.
WingNut60 is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2020, 00:32
  #8145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 965
Originally Posted by WingNut60 View Post
Sort of like when early morning joggers are out??

But I was also pondering the benefit of a little research into aerosols in an enclosed environment like an auditorium or shopping centre.
And I mean research by measurement and not just by theorising.
Exactly that time.

Inside? Best I can do is this -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...a6d_story.html

currawong is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2020, 06:25
  #8146 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,608
Sunday Times “expose” of the sweatshop factories in Leicester.

I say “expose”, whereas the dispiriting thing is that it is obvious that the dozens of such factories have been operating for years paying below minimum wage without any fear of being shut down, and for the same reason so much else has been allowed to go on - fear if accusations of racism.

The report details how an undercover reporter found work within hours of starting to look inside a factory which has been operating at full capacity throughout the entire lockdown and without physical separation, mask, sanitisers or any other precautions. Looking at the machinery and factory they aren’t exactly hard to find.

I can’t help thinking the current local lockdown is a waste of time whilst these factories keep on operating.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b...nuts-lwj7d8fg2

Boohoo’s sweatshop suppliers: ‘They only exploit us. They make huge profits and pay us peanuts’

My first full day of work on a dilapidated factory floor at the heart of Leicester’s garment manufacturing district began on Thursday with the vaguest of promises: “Depending on how you work,” the boss informed me, “we’ll decide your pay.”...... From yet another Indian worker, I learnt that I could expect to be paid £3.50 to £4 an hour. The national minimum wage for those aged 25 and over is £8.72......

When I set off to visit some factories last week, posing as a student in need of work, I never expected to find myself being offered a job on a factory floor only hours after the government announced that a sharp rise in coronavirus cases in and around Leicester had forced exceptional containment measures.......


I was quickly turned away from an early stop in Kitchener Road, where I visited one building housing several clothing companies. I could hear the clatter of sewing machines through an open window but the doors were locked. When I rang the bell, a woman appeared after a long wait and told me they had no work to offer. Behind the open door I could see people at work without masks, but a man suddenly appeared, tried to snatch my phone from my hand and shouted at me to leave.

A few stops later I arrived at Jaswal Fashions, a manufacturer of leisurewear near Belgrave Gate, a short walk from Leicester Cathedral. A door was open and I slipped inside to ask the first worker I met if a job was available. He told me he would ask his boss, and minutes later I was standing in front of an ironing board next to a stack of fabric. I was being given a trial run before they decided whether to hire me.

The conditions inside were hot and cramped. Stacks of boxes lined the walls and scraps of material were strewn across the concrete floor. There were several people at work but only a couple wore masks, most of the time pulled uselessly down to their chins. As far as I could see, no one wore gloves and there were no health warning signs, no hand sanitiser and no evidence of social distancing measures.......

That afternoon, a fellow worker passed on a warning. “You are not to tell anyone about working here,” he said. “You are working illegally, so do not discuss or say anything with other people. You have to be discreet. Don’t discuss this with anyone at all.”

Before I left, the foreman I’d met earlier offered me a cup of tea and talked a little about his life in the local clothing industry. “Anywhere in Leicester you will only find textile factories that pay up to £4 an hour,” he said. “I’ve been here for five years and I’m still on just over £5 an hour.” I asked him if he was afraid of catching Covid-19. “We can’t do anything if we just stay home afraid,” he said. “You have to earn your bread, after all.”

He told me not to worry about breaking the lockdown rules. “Even if it is implemented strictly, all that will happen will be a big fine. Nothing else to worry about.”.......

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...inked-lockdown

Boohoo booms as Leicester garment factories are linked to lockdown

......
Thulsi Narayanasamy, a labour rights researcher at the Business and Human Rights Centre (BHRC), went inside Leicester garment factories earlier this year. “I’ve been inside garment factories in Bangladesh, China and Sri Lanka, and I can honestly say that what I saw in the middle of the UK was worse than anything I’ve witnessed overseas,” she said, describing squalid conditions with boarded windows, cramped workers and blocked fire escapes.....

Last edited by ORAC; 5th Jul 2020 at 07:26.
ORAC is online now  
Old 5th Jul 2020, 07:14
  #8147 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,608
Soho, Saturday evening.......

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ice-in-england

'Crystal clear' drunk people can't socially distance, say police in England







Last edited by ORAC; 5th Jul 2020 at 08:43.
ORAC is online now  
Old 5th Jul 2020, 07:19
  #8148 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 77
Posts: 16,695
“You have to earn your bread, after all.”
And their in lies the rub, from Leicester garment factories, Thai coconut plantations to Bolivian rose growers. We can easily boycott their products but it is the workers that suffer.

The price in shops may rise, while demand and turnover may drop, will the increased price be transferred to workers pay? At every stage there is a percentage mark up. In reverse the return is reduced.

50 years ago a friend told me how a lemon on a tree in his grove cost 1/2d, at the docks it was a 1d. By the time it reached the shops it was a shilling. The risk was with the grower, the work by the picker, the margin at the shop about 10 times the value on the tree.

Virtuous shoppers can starve innocents.

Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2020, 07:22
  #8149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Japan
Posts: 735
In Soho, at least they are all outside in the 'fresh' air, which is assumed to be relatively safer.
jolihokistix is online now  
Old 5th Jul 2020, 07:29
  #8150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 378
First off, the gases in cigarette smoke don't behave like droplets expired from someone breathing. An illustration of this is to look at the difference in the way the "smoke" behaves between someone smoking and someone vaping. The vaping cloud tends to disperse very much more rapidly as it evaporates, whereas the particulates in smoke cannot evaporate, so tend to linger around a lot longer before they disperse and settle out on surfaces.

With regard to agricultural spray drift, then the atomised droplets are expelled from the spray head at very much higher pressure than someone breathing, orders of magnitude greater. The idea behind spraying crops is to get a high concentration of the spray as close as possible to the crop. This means that as well as the spray being at a very high pressure, producing very finely atomised droplets, it's also several orders of magnitude more concentrated than expired breath in terms of droplet concentration. The drift problem comes from the fact that the droplet size is small and the spray is dense, so the distance some of the spray will drift before evaporating will be a great deal further.

A lot of work has been done on how far expired droplets travel, and it's nothing like the sort of distances that crop spray may drift. From someone breathing normally, expired droplets may travel about half a metre. From someone coughing or sneezing they may travel around 1.5m to 3m. The other factor is that studies have shown that the concentration of viral particles in expired breath isn't that high, especially for someone who isn't coughing or sneezing. The virus is shed from fairly deep in the respiratory system, and not easy to detect in the mouth and nose, which is why swabs have to be taken from deep at the back of the throat or right at the back of the nasal cavity.
VP959 is online now  
Old 5th Jul 2020, 08:29
  #8151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 965
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
First off, the gases in cigarette smoke don't behave like droplets expired from someone breathing. An illustration of this is to look at the difference in the way the "smoke" behaves between someone smoking and someone vaping. The vaping cloud tends to disperse very much more rapidly as it evaporates, whereas the particulates in smoke cannot evaporate, so tend to linger around a lot longer before they disperse and settle out on surfaces.

With regard to agricultural spray drift, then the atomised droplets are expelled from the spray head at very much higher pressure than someone breathing, orders of magnitude greater. The idea behind spraying crops is to get a high concentration of the spray as close as possible to the crop. This means that as well as the spray being at a very high pressure, producing very finely atomised droplets, it's also several orders of magnitude more concentrated than expired breath in terms of droplet concentration. The drift problem comes from the fact that the droplet size is small and the spray is dense, so the distance some of the spray will drift before evaporating will be a great deal further.

A lot of work has been done on how far expired droplets travel, and it's nothing like the sort of distances that crop spray may drift. From someone breathing normally, expired droplets may travel about half a metre. From someone coughing or sneezing they may travel around 1.5m to 3m. The other factor is that studies have shown that the concentration of viral particles in expired breath isn't that high, especially for someone who isn't coughing or sneezing. The virus is shed from fairly deep in the respiratory system, and not easy to detect in the mouth and nose, which is why swabs have to be taken from deep at the back of the throat or right at the back of the nasal cavity.
All good points.

What is often overlooked though is that the volatile component of a droplet may evaporate (ie the water), the active component, be it pesticide or other remains airborne and on a far more unpredictable trajectory.

The only saving grace can be that the concentration by this time is much lower, below damage threshold.
currawong is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2020, 08:41
  #8152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 378
Originally Posted by currawong View Post
All good points.

What is often overlooked though is that the volatile component of a droplet may evaporate (ie the water), the active component, be it pesticide or other remains airborne and on a far more unpredictable trajectory.

The only saving grace can be that the concentration by this time is much lower, below damage threshold.

Absolutely, and for crop spraying this is desirable, as it tends to increase the concentration of the pesticide right where it's needed, at the level of the crops. I believe that crop sprayers are designed to deliver a droplet size that is closely tailored to the optimum needed to deliver a high concentration at the crop level, whilst not allowing too much of the stuff to get airborne (not my field, but a former colleague worked for years on atomisation with regard to delivery of chemical and biological agents, and could talk for hours about droplet size and the ways to get specific sizes of droplets).
VP959 is online now  
Old 5th Jul 2020, 08:59
  #8153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 965
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
Absolutely, and for crop spraying this is desirable, as it tends to increase the concentration of the pesticide right where it's needed, at the level of the crops. I believe that crop sprayers are designed to deliver a droplet size that is closely tailored to the optimum needed to deliver a high concentration at the crop level, whilst not allowing too much of the stuff to get airborne (not my field, but a former colleague worked for years on atomisation with regard to delivery of chemical and biological agents, and could talk for hours about droplet size and the ways to get specific sizes of droplets).
Reminds me of a friend with a lab background who was forever concerned about volatalisation and what might get airborne when one flushed the toilet.
currawong is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2020, 09:34
  #8154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London
Posts: 422
Originally Posted by currawong View Post
Reminds me of a friend with a lab background who was forever concerned about volatalisation and what might get airborne when one flushed the toilet.
As I've mentioned before on this thread - the droplets and aerosols created during toilet flushing were a major transmission route of SARS-CoV-1 back in 2003 (e.g. in Amoy Gardens and Metropole Hotel in Hong Kong).
stagger is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2020, 09:40
  #8155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Balikpapan, INDONESIA
Age: 68
Posts: 536
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
First off, the gases in cigarette smoke don't behave like droplets expired from someone breathing. An illustration of this is to look at the difference in the way the "smoke" behaves between someone smoking and someone vaping. The vaping cloud tends to disperse very much more rapidly as it evaporates, whereas the particulates in smoke cannot evaporate, so tend to linger around a lot longer before they disperse and settle out on surfaces.

With regard to agricultural spray drift, then the atomised droplets are expelled from the spray head at very much higher pressure than someone breathing, orders of magnitude greater. The idea behind spraying crops is to get a high concentration of the spray as close as possible to the crop. This means that as well as the spray being at a very high pressure, producing very finely atomised droplets, it's also several orders of magnitude more concentrated than expired breath in terms of droplet concentration. The drift problem comes from the fact that the droplet size is small and the spray is dense, so the distance some of the spray will drift before evaporating will be a great deal further.

A lot of work has been done on how far expired droplets travel, and it's nothing like the sort of distances that crop spray may drift. From someone breathing normally, expired droplets may travel about half a metre. From someone coughing or sneezing they may travel around 1.5m to 3m. The other factor is that studies have shown that the concentration of viral particles in expired breath isn't that high, especially for someone who isn't coughing or sneezing. The virus is shed from fairly deep in the respiratory system, and not easy to detect in the mouth and nose, which is why swabs have to be taken from deep at the back of the throat or right at the back of the nasal cavity.
So your answer would be, No.
No one has done any current studies to quantify aerosolised virus in confined crowd conditions.

With a virus that seems to defy the odds at every turn then I'd have thought that this might be an opportune moment to carry out just such verification.
Wander through one of those crowds with a set of of receptor plates of various material on the end of a stick.
That is if Draeger don't make a suitable sniffer.



WingNut60 is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2020, 09:46
  #8156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 378
Originally Posted by WingNut60 View Post
So your answer would be, No.
No one has done any current studies to quantify aerosolised virus in confined crowd conditions.

With a virus that seems to defy the odds at every turn then I'd have thought that this might be an opportune moment to carry out just such verification.
Wander through one of those crowds with a set of of receptor plates of various material on the end of a stick.
That is if Draeger don't make a suitable sniffer.
There are lots of studies looking at droplet spread with regard to infection control. Various measurement techniques have been used, from crude droplet collection systems to clever droplet and air flow visualisation techniques. As already mentioned, the spread is modest, around half a metre or so for someone breathing normally, increasing to around 1.5 to 3m for someone coughing or sneezing. There are links to some of this work earlier in this thread, when social distancing was being discussed.
VP959 is online now  
Old 5th Jul 2020, 10:15
  #8157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London
Posts: 422
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
There are lots of studies looking at droplet spread with regard to infection control. Various measurement techniques have been used, from crude droplet collection systems to clever droplet and air flow visualisation techniques. As already mentioned, the spread is modest, around half a metre or so for someone breathing normally, increasing to around 1.5 to 3m for someone coughing or sneezing. There are links to some of this work earlier in this thread, when social distancing was being discussed.
Aerosol spread is different to droplet spread - aerosolization involves smaller particles that aren't limited in their spread in the same ways as droplets (which fall to the ground quite rapidly). Aerosolized particles can spread to fill an enclosed indoor space.

There has, as you say, been quite a bit of research on droplet spread - much less on aerosols. A couple of recent papers have discussed the distinction and the implications of aerosol vs droplet spread...

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/26/14857

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293495/



stagger is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2020, 10:25
  #8158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 378
Not sure if Hancock is just ill-informed, or toeing a political line with this nonsense:

Asymptomatic transmission not known before care home transfers - Hancock

Health Secretary Matt Hancock told the BBC's Andrew Marr that the UK government had not known about asymptomatic transmission when patients were transferred from hospital to care homes en masse during the pandemic.

At the time, he said, asymptomatic transmission "was not known". "Because no other coronavirus transmits asymptomatically, is my understanding," he said. "This point about asymptomatic transmission was something the whole world was learning about in that period but we did not know about."

The health secretary said ministers had not known how many of those transferred from hospital to care homes had the coronavirus.

He also denied the government had sought to blame doctors for the decision to discharge patients from hospitals into care homes.
This is complete BS, as many years ago, back when the CCRU was still operating, one of their earliest findings was that coronoviruses that cause some common cold symptoms could be transmitted asymptomatically. To just assume that this wouldn't be the case for the SARS-CoV-2 coronovirus seems a bit odd, given the other precautionary measures that were being put in place at the time.
VP959 is online now  
Old 5th Jul 2020, 10:30
  #8159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London
Posts: 422
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
Not sure if Hancock is just ill-informed, or toeing a political line with this nonsense:



This is complete BS, as many years ago, back when the CCRU was still operating, one of their earliest findings was that coronoviruses that cause some common cold symptoms could be transmitted asymptomatically. To just assume that this wouldn't be the case for the SARS-CoV-2 coronovirus seems a bit odd, given the other precautionary measures that were being put in place at the time.
Indeed - total BS. Asymptomatic transmission in SARS-type coronaviruses was known about 15 years ago....

Asymptomatic SARS Coronavirus Infection among Healthcare Workers, Singapore - Emerg Infect Dis. 2005Jul; 11(7): 1142–1145.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3371799/

"We documented a substantial incidence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV infection in exposed healthcare workers before full infection control was in place."
stagger is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2020, 10:39
  #8160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 378
Originally Posted by stagger View Post
Aerosol spread is different to droplet spread - aerosolization involves smaller particles that aren't limited in their spread in the same ways as droplets (which fall to the ground quite rapidly). Aerosolized particles can spread to fill an enclosed indoor space.

There has, as you say, been quite a bit of research on droplet spread - much less on aerosols. A couple of recent papers have discussed the distinction and the implications of aerosol vs droplet spread...

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/26/14857

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293495/
Aerosols are hard to generate from just breathing normally, though. The energy required to create very fine aerosols, that may well travel longer distances, is significantly more than the body normally imparts to expired air. Coughing and sneezing can produce fine aerosols, though, as can the moist air expelled from the exhalation valve of a mask, where the velocity has been increased via the restricted valve outlet. The question then comes down to the probability of both sufficient aerosolised particles being expired, together with the time that the virus remains viable within these rapidly dehydrating micro droplets. The studies that have looked at the quantities of viral material expired with each breath seem to suggest that it's pretty small, hence the advice that time in close proximity to someone infected is so significant, perhaps.

The evidence from other, similar, viruses seems to suggest that it's the larger droplets that may present the greatest risk, both because they probably have a higher concentration of viral particles and because the virus may be able to persist in viable form for a longer period of time in such droplets.
VP959 is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.