 Poster: A snowHead
|
@j b, sorry, I don't know anything about the Pfizer trial, other than it's a large cohort.
As for the regulators, I hope they use the same criteria for approving the vaccine as they would for any other candidate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@rob@rar, good question ... I doubt most people have the capacity to establish a rational analysis of the probabilities, not even thinking about the damage done to herd immunity by not vaccinating those who can be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| under a new name wrote: |
| @rob@rar, good question ... I doubt most people have the capacity to establish a rational analysis of the probabilities, not even thinking about the damage done to herd immunity by not vaccinating those who can be. |
Putting aside the contribution that vaccines can have to wider societal protection, it's always perplexed me when people ignore the every real, well understood risks of whatever ailment the vaccine offers protection against, and focus on the poorly understood, significantly smaller risks of "side effects".
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| under a new name wrote: |
| @rob@rar, good question ... I doubt most people have the capacity to establish a rational analysis of the probabilities, not even thinking about the damage done to herd immunity by not vaccinating those who can be. |
Putting aside the contribution that vaccines can have to wider societal protection, it's always perplexed me when people ignore the every real, well understood risks of whatever ailment the vaccine offers protection against, and focus on the poorly understood, significantly smaller risks of "side effects". |
While that is true, for the vast majority covid is a minor irritation and some possible side effects of the vaccine could be long lasting. I'm in no way anti vaccine but a bit of caution is no bad thing
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| snowdave wrote: |
@richb67, the _provisional_ official ranking is, in order:
older adults’ resident in a care home and care home workers
all those 80 years of age and over and health and social care workers
all those 75 years of age and over
all those 70 years of age and over
all those 65 years of age and over
high-risk adults under 65 years of age
moderate-risk adults under 65 years of age
all those 60 years of age and over
all those 55 years of age and over
all those 50 years of age and over
rest of the population (priority to be determined) |
I'm sure I won't be popular (yeah big assumption) but I think Mr Egg had a kind of point. Other than Health and social care workers who should be first, shouldn't 65 and below (all ages below) be prioritised before the over 70s? Protect the NHS and get the economy moving?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| robs1 wrote: |
| ... for the vast majority covid is a minor irritation and some possible side effects of the vaccine could be long lasting. |
What information do we use to make that assessment? How do you assess the risk of perhaps ending up with 'Long Covid', compared to the risk of unidentified side effects for which there is no evidence they actually exist?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| LaForet wrote: |
@grumpygargoyle The problem is twofold. First, we don't know if the vaccine (and others) are preventive or palliative, or both. A preventive vaccine stops you from contracting the disease, a palliative vaccine doesn't, it just moderates the effects when you do contract it. So if it's 'only' palliative (and 'only' is still a very good result) then it's not helping contain the spread. And not every one will respond equally, so getting the virus may still be bad, albeit perhaps not fatal.
[Caveat: I'm not an immunologist, just a retired scientist with the time to read around the subject. So obviously I'm happy to be corrected on any of this.] |
From the way the results were presented, the 90% efficiency for 94 positive cases, implies 86 in the placebo group and 8 of those receiving the vaccine tested positive. It is unclear whether the participants of the trial are tested on a regular basis, or just if they have symptoms/are in close contact with a positive case. Now I would imagine the former would be the case, which would imply preventative property of the vaccine.
Secondly in the press release Dr. Albert Bourla, Pfizer Chairman and CEO states:
“Today is a great day for science and humanity. The first set of results from our Phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine trial provides the initial evidence of our vaccine’s ability to prevent COVID-19”
Using the word prevent COVID, should be another indicator that it is indeed a preventative vaccine. Obviously we'll know more once the full phase three data is released, but I am quite optimistic as to the preventative properties of the vaccine based on the little evidence we have seen so far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| halfhand wrote: |
| snowdave wrote: |
@richb67, the _provisional_ official ranking is, in order:
older adults’ resident in a care home and care home workers
all those 80 years of age and over and health and social care workers
all those 75 years of age and over
all those 70 years of age and over
all those 65 years of age and over
high-risk adults under 65 years of age
moderate-risk adults under 65 years of age
all those 60 years of age and over
all those 55 years of age and over
all those 50 years of age and over
rest of the population (priority to be determined) |
I'm sure I won't be popular (yeah big assumption) but I think Mr Egg had a kind of point. Other than Health and social care workers who should be first, shouldn't 65 and below (all ages below) be prioritised before the over 70s? Protect the NHS and get the economy moving? |
Perhaps further discussion on that could be in one of the already-running Apres threads? This thread is quite useful for updates on the latest thinking /news on when we are likely to table to ski in the Alps and further afield.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| robs1 wrote: |
| rob@rar wrote: |
| under a new name wrote: |
| @rob@rar, good question ... I doubt most people have the capacity to establish a rational analysis of the probabilities, not even thinking about the damage done to herd immunity by not vaccinating those who can be. |
Putting aside the contribution that vaccines can have to wider societal protection, it's always perplexed me when people ignore the every real, well understood risks of whatever ailment the vaccine offers protection against, and focus on the poorly understood, significantly smaller risks of "side effects". |
While that is true, for the vast majority covid is a minor irritation and some possible side effects of the vaccine could be long lasting. I'm in no way anti vaccine but a bit of caution is no bad thing |
Like all the long lasting side effects from all other vaccinations?
https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/initiative/detection/immunization_misconceptions/en/index4.html
I'd be far more worried about long COVID than vaccine side effects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| achilles wrote: |
| halfhand wrote: |
| snowdave wrote: |
@richb67, the _provisional_ official ranking is, in order:
older adults’ resident in a care home and care home workers
all those 80 years of age and over and health and social care workers
all those 75 years of age and over
all those 70 years of age and over
all those 65 years of age and over
high-risk adults under 65 years of age
moderate-risk adults under 65 years of age
all those 60 years of age and over
all those 55 years of age and over
all those 50 years of age and over
rest of the population (priority to be determined) |
I'm sure I won't be popular (yeah big assumption) but I think Mr Egg had a kind of point. Other than Health and social care workers who should be first, shouldn't 65 and below (all ages below) be prioritised before the over 70s? Protect the NHS and get the economy moving? |
Perhaps further discussion on that could be in one of the already-running Apres threads? This thread is quite useful for updates on the latest thinking /news on when we are likely to table to ski in the Alps and further afield. |
Odd how you didn't chastise snowdave or others for posting and quoting but you're right however I wasn't discussing just responding  . I've not seen that list posted anywhere else either
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
I meant on Snowheads but perhaps I've missed it.
Anyway or January trip orgniser e-mailed to say ej have changed our return flights on 9th Jan to earlier in the day and he has arranged our transfer from GVA to VT. I can't see this trip happening but will leave it a bit longer before pulling the plug.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK @LaForet and @rob@rar, looking for some clarification of whether the Pfizer vaccine stopped actual infections I found what seemed a knowledgeable analysis. That suggested that they primarily looked at symptomatic cases, and only did the lab tests to confirm Covid afterwards.
https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/09/covid-19-vaccine-from-pfizer-and-biontech-is-strongly-effective-early-data-from-large-trial-indicate/
In other words, it is possible as @LaForet postulated that vaccinated individuals still got infected asymptomatically and might be capable of passing on infection. Not all bad, if vaccination reduces the illness to something mild it would be much easier to manage - but it means protection would be of the individual and unvaccinated people would remain as vulnerable as now.
(Apologies for those who feel that this isn't the right thread for vaccine discussions - but it seemed bizarre to respond to points raised here on a completely different thread and expect people to make the connection).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@j b, thanks.
Pfizer need to publish more than a press release pretty quickly to answer those questions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
@j b, thanks.
Pfizer need to publish more than a press release pretty quickly to answer those questions. |
They are due to request Emergency Authorisation with the FDA in the US in the 3rd week of November. Should hear more then at the latest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| robs1 wrote: |
| ... for the vast majority covid is a minor irritation and some possible side effects of the vaccine could be long lasting. |
What information do we use to make that assessment? How do you assess the risk of perhaps ending up with 'Long Covid', compared to the risk of unidentified side effects for which there is no evidence they actually exist? |
Plenty of viruses can leave people with long recovery periods. Every person will have to make a decision on whether to have it or not.
I'm happy to rely on the licencing bodies to decide if it's safe enough for the majority to take, We will be fairly down the list so unlikely we will get it before spring
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| halfhand wrote: |
| achilles wrote: |
| halfhand wrote: |
| snowdave wrote: |
@richb67, the _provisional_ official ranking is, in order:
older adults’ resident in a care home and care home workers
all those 80 years of age and over and health and social care workers
all those 75 years of age and over
all those 70 years of age and over
all those 65 years of age and over
high-risk adults under 65 years of age
moderate-risk adults under 65 years of age
all those 60 years of age and over
all those 55 years of age and over
all those 50 years of age and over
rest of the population (priority to be determined) |
I'm sure I won't be popular (yeah big assumption) but I think Mr Egg had a kind of point. Other than Health and social care workers who should be first, shouldn't 65 and below (all ages below) be prioritised before the over 70s? Protect the NHS and get the economy moving? |
Perhaps further discussion on that could be in one of the already-running Apres threads? This thread is quite useful for updates on the latest thinking /news on when we are likely to table to ski in the Alps and further afield. |
Odd how you didn't chastise snowdave or others for posting and quoting but you're right however I wasn't discussing just responding . I've not seen that list posted anywhere else either |
Not chastising. Just finding it a bit of a wade to find the skiing stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
@achilles, Fair enough, apologies. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| One thing which I've never been able to get my head around, is how do you assess the risk of not having a vaccine which is deemed suitable for you, compared to deciding not to have the vaccine because of the possible associated risks? |
Interesting question, this should be a data driven decision and the reason I'm sceptical is that it there isn't that much data. However what data there is might show that it's safe as houses for everyone, we don't know yet.
examples
scenario 1 - best case, zero side affects reported, trial had a wide range of participants including those in at risk groups. Yippee all good, stop reading here and do a little dance.
scenario 2
quite a bad scenario - there are some side affects, as an example - in one trial for a competitor vaccine 70% of people reported some kind of side affects. Yes seventy per cent. So the bad scenario is that a small but significant group of people get quite ill after being vaccinated. Most reported side affects are likely mild (bruised arm) or unrelated (I've was diagnosed with cancer a week after taking the vaccine) but the more there are the more data crunching, investigating and time that is required to complete the trial
background
According to reports 43k people have been involved in the trial, some were on the placebo so less have taken the vaccine, we don't know the % who had side affects, we don't know the age or health distribution of the trial. It's likely to be a reasonable representation of the population but skewed towards healthy people because you always test on healthy volunteers first so maybe the first 1-5k to take the vaccine were all healthy.
Note in the UK ca 5% are over 80 (3 million people) and many more are at risk.
So, the regulatory body has to make a decision. Does the data from the 43k people demonstrate that the product is safe to give to people in at risk-groups, if so all of them or just some ? they will look at the trial data to see the data for that age/health group. BUT even if 5% of the trial participants were at risk that is still only 2k people so it's a big decision to make, that is not a lot of people especially when some had the placebo. So they will look at general trends to see if side affects increase with age etc. if not then scenario 1 and all is good.
But let's say they work out that an at risk person who catches Covid and isn't vaccinated has a 20% change of dying of Covid in the next 12 months and a 40% chance of being hospitalised. They might estimate that the risk from the vaccine is 0.5% death, 1% hospitalisation (remember this is bad scenario). That's probably straightforward and approval is given. So re the question above the vaccine is 'suitable for you'.
Note - I'm ignoring the fact that the vaccine is currently estimated at 90% effective and the trial is still ongoing so that number will change. FYI, it looks like a very small group of people (hundreds maybe a few thousand) have had the vaccine AND been exposed to the Covid virus.
Now, then the NHS (or NICE ?, not sure who) has to decide who to give it to. If there is a 1% chance that everyone in a high risk who is vaccinated ends up needing medical care and they vaccine 3 million people in 2 months the NHS could be overwhelmed with moderately ill geriatrics ! maybe in that case it would be better to keep people sheltered and stagger the vaccine roll-out to those people using the remaining doses for others.
Also, if it's 90% effective what does that means to the at-risk groups who've been vaccinated ? do they go out a mingle increasing the chance of catching Covid by more than 10x so leading to more deaths. It's likely they will still have to have some sheltering until the vaccine has covered most of us but maybe not imprisoned like at present. So would it be better to use the vaccines on other priority groups ?
Now this is all illustrative only, but the point is to try and show that there are a lot of uncertainties and although this is good news we are a long way from knowing if it is great news.
So I asked myself would I vaccinate the at-risk people first ? I erred on the side of caution and came to the conclusion that it's unlikely there is the data to support this but if you give the vaccine to 1 million plus healthy people you get a shed load of data to better answer the question posed above. Pure conjecture on my part based on zero actual data, but now you all have a glimpse into my mind ! we'll see more data in the coming weeks and months.
Now where is my half empty glass...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@iainm, ah yes the insult, sign of the man who has stopped bothering to think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@boobleblooble, I'd say he was spot on  I didn't understand it either
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| richb67 wrote: |
| They might estimate that the risk from the vaccine is 0.5% death, 1% hospitalisation (remember this is bad scenario). |
How likely do you think that is (or will be), based on Phase 1/2 data and Phase 3 data when it's released?
| richb67 wrote: |
| So I asked myself would I vaccinate the at-risk people first ? I erred on the side of caution and came to the conclusion that it's unlikely there is the data to support this but if you give the vaccine to 1 million plus healthy people you get a shed load of data to better answer the question posed above. |
And in the meantime what happens to the vulnerable groups while less vulnerable groups are being vaccinated (and might receive protection from getting ill, but not protection from getting infected)? Let's not forget, the vulnerable groups were the ones who died in their tens of thousands during the first wave of infection, and are currently running at two or three hundred deaths a day (more than 500 reported today).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@richb67, the trouble is that intelligent folk (such as many Snowheads) ask questions beyond the data available.
In the case of the Pfizer vaccine the report (no detail) that side effects, other than temporary sore arm or similar, haven't been a problem suggests short term risk less than 0.1%. But longer term risk is unknown for a new type of vaccine.
Across all population groups, best estimates of fatality are currently around 0.4%, but those aren't evenly distributed. To my thinking the risk-benefit is very favourable for the very oldest groups where fatality might be as high as 10% and long term risk isn't a problem. The balance is probably still going to favour vaccination moving down ages to (say) 70. Hopefully by the time any vaccination programme completes that there will be (a) more data and (b) other approved vaccines without the same long term uncertainty.
(Again, apologies to @achilles for responding to a post on this thread. But actually I do want to read people's thoughts about whether any season might be salvaged).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| j b wrote: |
(. But actually I do want to read people's thoughts about whether any season might be salvaged). |
At the moment though those thoughts are just a triumph of hope/resignation rather than probability based on reality - maybe by Feb/Mar care home residents and over 80s will be free to hit the slopes in abundance - whoopee!
The vaccine might save 21/22 season (and possibly summer 21) but until then infection rates/travel restrictions and commercial open/close fly/no fly decisions will have more influence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@MorningGory, OK: the vaccine is all very exciting and so on. However this might become a new form of passport where you are forbidden to travel if you have not been vaccinated. It will be part of 'biosecurity'. This seems odd because not so long ago entry to the UK was denied to some of those who were HIV positive and after a great fuss from rights groups it was overturned. There is a chance we will now go backwards and bar those who are 'unclean' due to a lack of immunisation.
We will likely accept this as we are desperate to go back to normal. If and when another crisis comes along however politicians have realised that if the public are frightened they will obey. This has been used by Johnson and his ministers to seize gargantuan quantities of power which they have and will use in an authoritarian fashion. This will result in more and more layers of bureaucracy and more and more governmental control. This was seen after anti-terror laws were introduced by Blair and ended up being used by councils to spy on families they believed didn't live in the correct catchment area for a school.
This is bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| achilles wrote: |
| halfhand wrote: |
| achilles wrote: |
| halfhand wrote: |
| snowdave wrote: |
@richb67, the _provisional_ official ranking is, in order:
older adults’ resident in a care home and care home workers
all those 80 years of age and over and health and social care workers
all those 75 years of age and over
all those 70 years of age and over
all those 65 years of age and over
high-risk adults under 65 years of age
moderate-risk adults under 65 years of age
all those 60 years of age and over
all those 55 years of age and over
all those 50 years of age and over
rest of the population (priority to be determined) |
I'm sure I won't be popular (yeah big assumption) but I think Mr Egg had a kind of point. Other than Health and social care workers who should be first, shouldn't 65 and below (all ages below) be prioritised before the over 70s? Protect the NHS and get the economy moving? |
Perhaps further discussion on that could be in one of the already-running Apres threads? This thread is quite useful for updates on the latest thinking /news on when we are likely to table to ski in the Alps and further afield. |
Odd how you didn't chastise snowdave or others for posting and quoting but you're right however I wasn't discussing just responding . I've not seen that list posted anywhere else either |
Not chastising. Just finding it a bit of a wade to find the skiing stuff. |
I find it really frustrating. There's some great knowledge on vaccine development, manufacture, priorities being shared here and in other of places, such was the thread on the situation in Italy. I keep missing stuff as it's not in an obvious places (e.g. in a thread with "vaccine" in the title.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
It's snowheads - at best any solid data is going to be diluted at least 1:4#by bs ,opinion dressed as fact, wikiscience/law and general arrising around. If you want to start a sub edit everything to its proper place feel free but you won't get many takers.
# made up bs ratio dressed as fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Email this morning from Ski Total saying that they are cancelling all December ski holidays. Adieu St Anton  (well for December so A plus abw).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| under a new name wrote: |
| @rob@rar, good question ... I doubt most people have the capacity to establish a rational analysis of the probabilities, not even thinking about the damage done to herd immunity by not vaccinating those who can be. |
Putting aside the contribution that vaccines can have to wider societal protection, it's always perplexed me when people ignore the every real, well understood risks of whatever ailment the vaccine offers protection against, and focus on the poorly understood, significantly smaller risks of "side effects". |
Yes, I agree - the biggest frustration is that some people might choose not to take the vaccine knowing that we only need to hit 60/70% coverage to hit herd immunity, so they'll be safe not because they have had the vaccine, but because everyone else has. And if there are any side effects then they are fine. All feels a bit selfish!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Handy Turnip wrote: |
| All feels a bit selfish! |
Riding on the backs of others who do have the vaccine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| Handy Turnip wrote: |
| All feels a bit selfish! |
Riding on the backs of others who do have the vaccine. |
yep exactly!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| Handy Turnip wrote: |
| All feels a bit selfish! |
Riding on the backs of others who do have the vaccine. |
That wont stop them catching the virus just reduce their chances . If as it appears is happening the virus mutates people will need vaccinating every year like the flu one, young people dont bother with that and wont with covid once the initial rush has gone, it will be a yearly boost for us oldies just like the flu.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| Handy Turnip wrote: |
| All feels a bit selfish! |
Riding on the backs of others who do have the vaccine. |
Somehow I'm not too bothered by it. As pointed out by @robs1
| robs1 wrote: |
That wont stop them catching the virus just reduce their chances . |
I'm in the group that would be able to get the vaccine BEFORE half of the population gets it. So when it's my turn, it's either I get the vaccine which is >90% effective. Or being out and about in a "herd" that's less than 45% immunized. Or continue to self-isolate and not having much fun. I WILL take the vaccine!
| Quote: |
| Putting aside the contribution that vaccines can have to wider societal protection, it's always perplexed me when people ignore the every real, well understood risks of whatever ailment the vaccine offers protection against, and focus on the poorly understood, significantly smaller risks of "side effects". |
Well, some people won't wash their hands with soap because they're afraid of the "side effect" of the soap.
Did they rationally calculate the risk of the stuff on their dirty hands over the side effect of the soap? I highly doubt it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
The UK Government is really bringing to much early false hope...
Boris Johnson has a history of promising things and not delivering
Pfizer Vaccine reality check
It IS NOT 90% EFFECTIVE. It has shown 90% Efficacy, a very different thing altogether.
In a nutshell around 44,000 'dream patients' ie completely healthy (and specifically not including those most likely to be affected by covid 19 i.e. Hypertension, obese, Diabetic, elderly having co morbidities etc) were given either a placebo or the trial drug. 96 people caught Covid, 9 were in the vaccine group and 80 were in the placebo group.
That is where the Efficacy is suggested, but and its a big BUT, these dream patients are NOT indicative of the larger population.
Please get this right it is incorrect to say this drug 90% effective let alone even safe since it has only been tested in a carefully controlled situation not the real world, the trial excluded those who would really need to take it!
Wintersports season 2020/2021 is a Dream and only that ...
STAY AT HOME
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@stanton, no thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Better get a new calculator oldboy 80 plus 9 equals 89 not 96.
Also it's not Boris who is claiming this it's the company, the government is reporting it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UK Covid deaths are the highest in Europe. Over 50,000 with 532 deaths reported yesterday. The numbers would want to decrease massively before meeting EU's safe-travel criteria. I can't see any skiing happening this season. I've a booking for ValD at Christmas. Even if we could travel - I'd hate to be the guinea pig. Maybe spring skiing somewhere - but roll on the 21-22 season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
