Biden's Mandate may be a tad too far


JohnsonJones
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

FWIW @Fether I’m pro-covid safety measures (masks, vaccine, distance, etc).  I just don’t vocalize things to much online or IRL. 

I think the vast majority of people are. It’s the mandate that has people angry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Fether said:

Genuine question for everyone, and don’t read too much into the question.

If instead of Covid, it was Ebola and people were vomiting blood in the street and you had first hand experience of multiple people dying of it, would you be down for a vaccine mandate?

Assumptions:

- vaccine is 90% affective and so the thought process is that it’s not just about your safety, but mass immunity bro minimize spread, even to those who are vaccinated

No, not at all. If a disease was bad enough you wouldn't need a mandate. People would be asking for it. For example, Small Pox is estimated to have killed 90% of the Native American population (whereas we have a 99% survival chance with Covid). In some sources I read they even estimated it killed up to 95% of the population in the areas it spread.

You wouldn't need a mandate if Covid was actually a vicious disease. People would readily ask for it. People who want a mandate for a disease that has a 99% chance for survival are more interested in power and control.

Mass immunity will come naturally with a disease with 99% survival rate. It more humorous though with Fact Checkers now you are trying to say its actually 98.2%, as if that is a huge difference. It isn't. So, let's compare Small Pox to Covid -- 10% chance of survival (at that time for some) in comparison to (for arguments sake) 98% chances of survival. I remember, my brother being part of the hysteria, in the beginning, with the saying a chance of 10% death rate (4-10%) -- not even close.

A truly dangerous disease will need no mandate. I would rely heavily on the citizens intelligence rather than government authority -- control and power -- to limit freedoms.

This then brings the question, we know smoking kills people, and that second hand smoke also can kill people. Are you OK with a mandate that prevents smokers from obtaining a job if they don't quite smoking?

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Fether said:

Genuine question for everyone, and don’t read too much into the question.

If instead of Covid, it was Ebola and people were vomiting blood in the street and you had first hand experience of multiple people dying of it, would you be down for a vaccine mandate?

Assumptions:

- vaccine is 90% affective and so the thought process is that it’s not just about your safety, but mass immunity bro minimize spread, even to those who are vaccinated

To me, it seems like the answer to a question like this is a product of trying to balance the potential ill effects and efficacy of the vaccine itself, versus the ill effects and mortality rate of the disease the vaccine is supposed to protect against, and factoring in the severity of punishment imposed upon those who refuse to comply with the vaccine.  

That's the calculation that a lot of the folks who are citing Jacobson v. Massachusetts for the proposition that "heck yeah, the government can force you to take a vaccine" are missing:  a) the disease in question was smallpox which IIRC had 30%+ mortality amongst European-Americans (and far higher amongst Native Americans), b) the defendant failed to provide any technically-admissible evidence as to why he, specifically, was an unfit subject for vaccination, and c) the penalty imposed against him for noncompliance was fairly minimal (a $5 fine, equivalent to less than $200 today)

In the hypothetical you offer:  Ebola, I understand, has a mortality rate that averages around 50%; and I will presume that "90% effective" means "90% of the people who receive it neither become symptomatic with, nor spread, the disease thereafter".  I will further presume that the evidence that this hypothetical vaccine is harmful is statistically sketchy at best, and that it is impossible to take any particular individual and make a sound medical argument as to why this individual would be better off remaining unvaccinated.  And so in that case, I'd say "sure, let's do a mandate".

But let's remember that when it comes to COVID-19:

  • The disease's mortality is somewhere on the order of 5% or less (possibly *much* less; I'm too lazy to look up the stats and refresh my memory);
  • It has been demonstrated that at least a few people have good medical reason not to receive some particular versions of the vaccine;
  • The penalty being bandied about is, effectively, your employability--your ability to support yourself.  While I freely support the right of individuals and corporations to associate with and disassociate from whomever they please, I believe that should be a grass-roots process rather than the result of government effectively hanging a scarlet letter around your neck.  And frankly, based on things "mainstream" wags like Jimmy Kimmel and others have said lately, there seems to be a spreading perception that "we really don't mind if these unvaccinated rubes just die off altogether"; which is downright scary.
  • While (last time I dug into it) there had been good evidence that the various COVID-19 vaccines could limit one's likelihood of being infected with/spreading some earlier variants of COVID; my takeaway at present is that with the Delta variant the traditional indicia of "effectiveness" for the various COVID vaccines have been seriously compromised (significant portions of the vaccinated can still get it, and it appears a majority of the vaccinated can still transmit it even if they don't "get" it themselves).  The one overwhelming remaining benefit to vaccination seems to be that it appears COVID-19-infected folks tend to manifest less-severe symptoms if they had been vaccinated prior to infection--which is a great reason for you to get the vaccine; but which really has very little to do with me

Now, all that said:  I think COVID vaccination is a good thing; I am inclined to think most of the arguments against vaccination are overblown; I am upset that so many people shillyshallied about getting it back before the Delta variant became a thing.  And I support the right of overloaded hospitals to triage their ICUs and, if necessary, give preferential treatment to patients who did get the vaccine.  But, would I want to see the unvaccinated jailed, fired from their jobs, or forcibly exiled from the rest of society?  No.  I think the punitive regimens that are being bandied about at this point impose penalties that are disproportionate to the misbehavior they seek to address, and most likely represent a White House that is lashing out at an enemy it thinks it can beat after having just had its clock cleaned by the Taliban.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Anddenex said:

No, not at all. If a disease was bad enough you wouldn't need a mandate. People would be asking for it. For example, Small Pox is estimated to have killed 90% of the Native American population (whereas we have a 99% survival chance with Covid). In some sources I read they even estimated it killed up to 95% of the population in the areas it spread.

You wouldn't need a mandate if Covid was actually a vicious disease. People would readily ask for it. People who want a mandate for a disease that has a 99% chance for survival are more interested in power and control.

Mass immunity will come naturally with a disease with 99% survival rate. It more humorous though with Fact Checkers now you are trying to say its actually 98.2%, as if that is a huge difference. It isn't. So, let's compare Small Pox to Covid -- 10% chance of survival (at that time for some) in comparison to (for arguments sake) 98% chances of survival. I remember, my brother being part of the hysteria, in the beginning, with the saying a chance of 10% death rate (4-10%) -- not even close.

A truly dangerous disease will need no mandate. I would rely heavily on the citizens intelligence rather than government authority -- control and power -- to limit freedoms.

The smallpox vaccine had its detractors as well. One of them met a rather unpleasant end, much like several anti-vax public figures that have been in the news recently. This article is from 1903.

20210830_221154.thumb.jpg.4bd3b8ca5ee279d0ba952b2c6f93d609.jpg

 

10 hours ago, Anddenex said:

This then brings the question, we know smoking kills people, and that second hand smoke also can kill people. Are you OK with a mandate that prevents smokers from obtaining a job if they don't quite smoking?

This is a pretty flimsy comparison. Smokers are only a threat to others when they're actively smoking. I would also note that smokers pay higher insurance rates, something that some people on the left (not me, to be clear) are advocating for unvaccinated people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Godless said:

The smallpox vaccine had its detractors as well. One of them met a rather unpleasant end, much like several anti-vax public figures that have been in the news recently. This article is from 1903.

To be expected. Right and one person is a great comparison -- no, it is probably more a flimsy argument.

Why does that surprise you? If you don't take a vaccines with that high of a death rate you are more likely to die from it. You still didn't add anything.

3 hours ago, Godless said:

 

This is a pretty flimsy comparison. Smokers are only a threat to others when they're actively smoking. I would also note that smokers pay higher insurance rates, something that some people on the left (not me, to be clear) are advocating for unvaccinated people.

I'm OK if you think it is a flimsy comparison. It doesn't change the reason for the mandate.

Right, and Covid is only a threat if you have it (it is "active" in you), and if you have it (for argument sake) you have a 98% chance of survival, unlike with Small Pox. So, not a big deal. You are more likely to survive Covid without a vaccine, especially if you are asymptomatic, which thus says the whole argument for being vaccinated for Covid is flimsy at best. You seem to call out the smokers as flimsy, but unable to see the flimsy argument for Covid.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Fether said:

So you would be equally angry if they mandated an Ebola vaccine in an Ebola outbreak?

Great question, I believe though it was answered in my post above. Similar to Small Pox with the Native American Indians (death rate 90% or higher) Ebola from what I just read specified a 90% death rate, but according to JAG he specified around 50%.

This high of a death rate the government wouldn't need to mandate. You wouldn't be hearing any satire videos of 99% survival rate. The population would recognize that this hasn't to do with any government control, as 50-90% of the population is dying.

Let me provide a different scenario. Population of China is 1.4 Billion. If a virus as deadly as Ebola came through China first (as with Covid) we would have seen (if statistics and spread is fast) 700 million Chinese citizens die (assuming no vaccine). This would have set fear of death in the heart of every person watching the news. We then would have seen a similar happening across the world as it spread. The majority of the surviving citizens would be anticipating a vaccine with that high of death rate. A mandate would be unnecessary.

I wouldn't vote for, and it would be disturbing if the government forces because it then creates a slippery slope with humans who desire power and control. If a person chooses not to get the vaccine and want to risk the death rate, that is their choice. What is the argument, "My body, my choice," except with vaccines it actually is their body and not the body of an innocent human being. I would get vaccinate as quickly as possible with a disease that has less than a 50% chance of survival, and I wouldn't worry about people who haven't been vaccinated because I am vaccinated.

I would think if Covid, actually was a vicious disease, even with a 15% chance of death rate you would see more people requesting the vaccine.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Godless said:

The smallpox vaccine had its detractors as well. One of them met a rather unpleasant end, much like several anti-vax public figures that have been in the news recently. This article is from 1903.

20210830_221154.thumb.jpg.4bd3b8ca5ee279d0ba952b2c6f93d609.jpg

 

This is a pretty flimsy comparison. Smokers are only a threat to others when they're actively smoking. I would also note that smokers pay higher insurance rates, something that some people on the left (not me, to be clear) are advocating for unvaccinated people.

When I was a kid I had the smallpox vaccine  3 time because it did not take.  We knew when it did not take because when it took it left a scar.  It was finally established that the reason it did not take is because I have natural immunity to smallpox.  If someone has had COVID-19 and is immune there is absolutely no reason to get the vaccine.  After my quarantine for testing positive for COVID-19 I was informed by my health care professionals (including the Utah State health department) that I would not need the vaccine.  But interestingly this was all before the "vaccine" was released.  I have been informed that having recovered from COVID-19 and having had the "vaccine" (for no other reason than to calm my wife) that I am now 7 times less likely to be re-infected, require hospitalization or die.  There is a report out of Israel that says that those with natural immunity that have not had the "vaccine" are 7 time less likely as well.

I have yet to see any data that the "vaccine" benefits someone with natural immunity.  Which ought to make sense because the "vaccine" was reverse engineered from those those with natural immunity to create the exact same RNA messaging of those with natural immunity.  Until our government accepts natural immunity I am convinced that ALL the call for "vaccine" mandates are as corrupt as the FBI and Olympic committee has been concerning young female gymnasts. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

If a person chooses not to get the vaccine and want to risk the death rate, that is their choice. What is the argument, "My body, my choice," except with vaccines it actually is their body and not the body of an innocent human being. I would get vaccinate as quickly as possible with a disease that has less than a 50% chance of survival, and I wouldn't worry about people who haven't been vaccinated because I am vaccinated.

I would think if Covid, actually was a vicious disease, even with a 15% chance of death rate you would see more people requesting the vaccine.

But this ISNT the argument. The argument is that even though you have the vaccine, there is still a chance to get Covid. So they want everyone to get Covid vaccines for other people protection, not their own. Being around other non vaccinated people increases your chance of contracting it. The question is, should the government mandate individuals do things to prevent those individuals killing others?

If forcing everyone to get vaccinated saves 1,100, 1000, 10000, 100000 or 1000000 lives, is it justified? What’s the line?

Now I am actually on the same page as everyone. I think it is wrong the mandate this. I’m just curious if we would change our opinion if the disease was more dangerous 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Fether said:

But this ISNT the argument. The argument is that even though you have the vaccine, there is still a chance to get Covid. So they want everyone to get Covid vaccines for other people protection, not their own. Being around other non vaccinated people increases your chance of contracting it. The question is, should the government mandate individuals do things to prevent those individuals killing others?

If forcing everyone to get vaccinated saves 1,100, 1000, 10000, 100000 or 1000000 lives, is it justified? What’s the line?

Now I am actually on the same page as everyone. I think it is wrong the mandate this. I’m just curious if we would change our opinion if the disease was more dangerous 

I think in general, the argument that “you’re killing people just by existing, unless you proceed to do exactly what I say” is a tremendously dangerous argument to make in a democratic republic.

Conceptually, my answer to your last question would be “yes”; but I don’t think I have to know precisely what the danger threshold would need be, before asserting that a disease with under 5% mortality doesn’t justify a significant government penalty for the mere offense of existing-while-unvaccinated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think in general, the argument that “you’re killing people just by existing, unless you proceed to do exactly what I say” is a tremendously dangerous argument to make in a democratic republic.

This isn’t exactly accurate. Again, the argument is more “you may be killing people because you are refusing to take this safety precaution”. I would compare it to driving at night without headlights. Day to day, it only affects you, but should you get in a car accident, depending on whether you hit another person or a fire hydrant, it may harm someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Fether said:

This isn’t exactly accurate. Again, the argument is more “you may be killing people because you are refusing to take this safety precaution”. I would compare it to driving at night without headlights. Day to day, it only affects you, but should you get in a car accident, depending on whether you hit another person or a fire hydrant, it may harm someone else.

I continue to disagree. ;)  Driving without headlights is an affirmative action—you chose not to take the precaution of turning on your headlights; but before that you chose to get into a car and drive; and you could have made another prior choice that would have rendered the precaution unnecessary (take a bike, walk, public transport, etc) 

Theres no antecedent to the choice to avoid the precaution of vaccination, except perhaps a choice to stop existing.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patients’ Rights on Trial: Going to Court to Get Hospitals to Treat Dying COVID Patients with Ivermectin.

https://odysee.com/@FrontlineCovid19CriticalCareAlliance:c/FLCCC-WEBINAR-Patients-Rights-on-Trial:9

Of course there is no evidence that Ivermectin works for COVID, unless you count the thousands of people who have recovered from COVID right after taking it.

Watch the first 5 minutes to see a real-life Ivermectin success for Sue Dickinson. Amazingly, the hospital where she recovered still does not include Ivermectin in their treatment protocol. Looking right at the sun and denying it is there.

The saddest thing is that the doctors have such a god complex that they actually hope the Ivermectin doesn't work after they are forced to allow it.

image.png.20217644c838b032ec5370547700fe2f.png

Edited by clwnuke
Adding a little information
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People shouldn't have to check their parents out of a hospital to get low-cost effective medicine

image.png.818dfa748d8a89804247c040d8b2b644.png

Dr. and Mrs. Morros got Covid-19. Dr. Morros (a radiologist) went to their local hospital for outpatient treatment with Regenron. He was admitted from the outpatient clinic after receiving Regeneron and after worsening symptoms. The hospital refused to allow Dr. Morros to receive Ivermectin. Their daughter, Kristina Morros, flew from The Netherlands to the US to help her parents. Kristina is a nurse anesthetist and she helped nurse both her sick parents back to health with the I-MASK+ protocol (includes Ivermectin) at home in collaboration with a family member who is also a doctor. This is their story.

https://odysee.com/@FrontlineCovid19CriticalCareAlliance:c/Morros_Family_Testimonial_for_Ivermectin:5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Fether said:

But this ISNT the argument. The argument is that even though you have the vaccine, there is still a chance to get Covid. So they want everyone to get Covid vaccines for other people protection, not their own. Being around other non vaccinated people increases your chance of contracting it. The question is, should the government mandate individuals do things to prevent those individuals killing others?

If forcing everyone to get vaccinated saves 1,100, 1000, 10000, 100000 or 1000000 lives, is it justified? What’s the line?

Now I am actually on the same page as everyone. I think it is wrong the mandate this. I’m just curious if we would change our opinion if the disease was more dangerous 

I recognize it wasn't your argument, I was more specifying a known argument about, "My Body, My Choice," that's all. Sorry that was confusing.

My decision would be the same. The government shouldn't have any right or authority to make any mandate on private organizations. That's beyond it authority without the consent and vote of the people.

However, Ebola with a 50% to 90% potential death rate if you are diagnosed with it does give more credence to a potential mandate.

The argument for protection I would say is faulty. We don't get vaccinated to protect others, we get vaccinated to protect ourselves. That is the main purpose of the vaccine. If the vaccine guaranteed that you couldn't pass any mutation or variation of the virus, then we might have a solid argument for the protection of others. The Covid vaccine though, according to some research (shared by @clwnuke in another thread) that vaccinated persons are more likely to spread the Delta variant to unvaccinated persons. If so, a person with the vaccination is now more dangerous to me than an unvaccinated person -- which sadly has a tinge of irony.

This is why I personally think, if a virus was shown to kill more than 10% of the population you would see more people volunteering and asking for the vaccine. One percent chance for death isn't something to force upon people, nor mandate. People can choose for themselves. Personally, I think if you are high risk you should get the vaccine, unless a doctor tells you otherwise.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Right. Ebola would be a different game totally. 

Worth mentioning: Ebola is many times deadlier than COVID, but also many times LESS contagious due to the fact that it isn't an airborne pathogen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Godless said:

Worth mentioning: Ebola is many times deadlier than COVID, but also many times LESS contagious due to the fact that it isn't an airborne pathogen. 

Yup, that’s why I thought the hype for Ebola was absurd. And when Obama appointed an Ebola czar I thought that was a waste of time and resources. 
 

However, and it’s a huge however, “Ebola” was scarier because the fatality rate is much higher than Covid. So while I think it was overblown, I at least understand the ignorance and concern. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell me again why we need a mandate to preserve Big Pharma's profits from the Covid pandemic??

India’s Uttar Pradesh State Now COVID-Free, Recovery Rate Up 98.6% Because Of Ivermectin

image.png.50a0fa5a91224cf3ac6634cf9a3badf4.png

https://www.christianitydaily.com/articles/13293/20210917/india-s-uttar-pradesh-state-now-covid-free-recovery-rate-up-98-6-because-of-ivermectin.htm

Covid is affecting every aspect of work life in America. The FDA and the CDC say don't use Ivermectin. Uttar Pradesh is only 5.8% vaccinated but was the "the first state in [India] to introduce large-scale prophylactic and therapeutic use of Ivermectin," and is now virtually Covid free. It's hard to argue with the success of 240 million people.

Dr. Anshul Pareek led a team in May to June 2020 to administer Ivermectin to patients on an experimental basis. Agrawal said, "It was observed that none of them developed Covid-19 despite being in daily contact with patients who had tested positive for the virus."Agrawal added that Ivermectin has helped the state maintain low positivity rates despite its high population density. He added, "Once the second wave subsides, we would conduct our own study as there has been an emerging body of evidence to substantiate our timely use of Ivermectin from the first wave itself."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, clwnuke said:

Tell me again why we need a mandate to preserve Big Pharma's profits from the Covid pandemic??

India’s Uttar Pradesh State Now COVID-Free, Recovery Rate Up 98.6% Because Of Ivermectin

image.png.50a0fa5a91224cf3ac6634cf9a3badf4.png

https://www.christianitydaily.com/articles/13293/20210917/india-s-uttar-pradesh-state-now-covid-free-recovery-rate-up-98-6-because-of-ivermectin.htm

Covid is affecting every aspect of work life in America. The FDA and the CDC say don't use Ivermectin. Uttar Pradesh is only 5.8% vaccinated but was the "the first state in [India] to introduce large-scale prophylactic and therapeutic use of Ivermectin," and is now virtually Covid free. It's hard to argue with the success of 240 million people.

Dr. Anshul Pareek led a team in May to June 2020 to administer Ivermectin to patients on an experimental basis. Agrawal said, "It was observed that none of them developed Covid-19 despite being in daily contact with patients who had tested positive for the virus."Agrawal added that Ivermectin has helped the state maintain low positivity rates despite its high population density. He added, "Once the second wave subsides, we would conduct our own study as there has been an emerging body of evidence to substantiate our timely use of Ivermectin from the first wave itself."

The article you linked references a few different sources. 

The first is an Indian news outlet that mentions strict test, trace, and isolate measures as a contributing factor to the low rates, as well as curfews. That all sounds like liberty-infringing government overreach that wouldn't be tolerated here. That article also mentions that roughly 90 million Uttar Pradesh residents are vaccinated, about 44% of the population. The US is a little above 50%, but a lot of places are slacking in the test/trace/isolate protocol, and we don't have curfews. That article mentioned nothing about Ivermectin.

The second article linked was directly related to Ivermectin. It was a US-based conservative media page that greets you with this:Screenshot_20210917-141603_Chrome.thumb.jpg.461526d52df5641d7597a8a504e956a6.jpg

Definitely seems like they're focused on balanced, objective reporting. I didn't read the article. Waste of time.

There was a third article to another Indian publication that talked about Ivermectin as treatment in Uttar Pradesh.

TBH, I don't feel like I'm informed enough to make a good judgement call on Ivermectin. Is there evidence that it may be working in India? Maybe. But it's worth noting that they seem to have stricter test/trace/isolate measures in place than we do. Combine that with a decent vax rate and curfews and it's hard to say that Ivermectin was the magic solution that turned things around for them. Maybe it was. Maybe it contributed to the recovery in addition to curfews and other government mandates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Godless looks like the vaccination rate mentioned is based on getting both doses according to Harvard's Covid site. 90 million people have the first shot, but only 16 million have the second. Even with 90 million we are only talking a 37.5% vaccination rate. I think you are brushing off the data without analysis.

Here are some August 5th, 2021 stats from Johns Hopkins for different India states with and without the use of Ivermectin. They show a clear difference. You are right - we are all not informed about Ivermectin because the FDA/CDC and media are doing everything in their power to suppress information that contradicts their narrative. You are not being given a fair picture. The question is why?

Uttar Pradesh on Ivermectin:  Population 240 Million [4.9% fully vaccinated]

COVID Daily Cases: 26

COVID Daily Deaths: 3

The United States off Ivermectin: Population 331 Million [50.5% fully vaccinated]

COVID Daily Cases: 127,108

COVID Daily Deaths: 574

Let us look at other Ivermectin using areas of India with numbers from August 5, 2021, compiled by the JHU CSSE:

Delhi on Ivermectin: Population 31 Million [15% fully vaccinated]

COVID Daily Cases: 61

COVID Daily Deaths: 2

Uttarakhand on Ivermectin: Population 11.4 Million [15% fully vaccinated]

COVID Daily Cases: 24

COVID Daily Deaths: 0

Now look at an area of India that rejected Ivermectin (like Utah). Tamil Nadu announced they would reject Ivermectin and instead follow the dubious USA-style guidance of using Remdesivir. Knowing this, you might expect their numbers to be closer to the US, with more cases and more deaths. You would be correct. Tamil Nadu went on to lead India in COVID-19 cases.

Tamil Nadu continues to suffer for its choice to reject Ivermectin. As a result, the Delta variant continues to ravage their citizens while it was virtually wiped out in the Ivermectin-using states. Likewise, in the United States, without Ivermectin, both the vaccinated and unvaccinated continue to spread the Delta variant like wildfire.

Tamil Nadu off Ivermectin: Population 78.8 Million [6.9% fully vaccinated]

COVID Daily Cases: 1,997

COVID Daily Deaths: 33

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share