Safety practices
Apr. 8th, 2022 11:08 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
blimixEdit: In the time since April 2022, some of the following has become charmingly anachronistic. I will perform an update at some point. The most important updates for 2023 are: A healthy, vaccinated person can wait five days after a potential exposure (not 12) to be pretty sure they're okay. The new variants are so virulent that the 90/10 rule should now, at the very least, consist of masking around any crowds (indoor or outside) for even brief visits; masking indoors in public always; and avoiding extended periods with indoor crowds (or wearing a P100 if you cannot avoid them). Rapid tests peak in sensitivity four or five days after symptom onset (in vaccinated people).
Deciding on personal COVID safety practices, in the absence of reliable guidance, is difficult. Often, individual circumstances must be judged on a case-by-case basis, and the felicific calculus (a tongue-in-cheek term for the vague but difficult math that goes into finding the best course of action) gets intricate. Actual risk management math involves making educated guesses for things about which we lack hard numbers.
That said, it is absolutely essential to work it out anyway. If my actions get me infected with COVID-19, and I pass it on to someone who passes it on to someone else, who gets disabled or killed by it: THAT'S ON ME. I will be morally culpable for that result. I will not destroy my fellow human beings' lives that way. That ought to go without saying, but, well, *gestures around*. It needs saying.
Even if one were perfectly selfish and "low risk," the mathematically illiterate public has confused a "greatly lowered personal risk" conferred by vaccination with a "negligible risk".
Put it this way: In terms of just personal risk, getting COVID-19 is like falling off a stoop onto the sidewalk. You might be sore for a week. You might break your arm. You might suffer a permanent, crippling injury. If you're particularly unlucky, you might hit your head and die. Getting vaccinated is like wearing a helmet. You've just made it much safer to fall off the stoop. Does that actually mean it's safe to fall off the stoop? Of course not! You can still break your arm or shatter your hip, and maybe die if you land particularly badly.
Getting vaccinated, and also taking really good precautions, is like walking down the steps from the stoop to the sidewalk. That changes the risk in both cases from "What the hell do you think you're doing?!?" to "Safer than my morning commute" (which is not to say, "perfectly safe").
Here's my set of general precautions. Your circumstances may alter these in either direction.
* No time spent in public, indoor places without a high quality mask. (N95 for me, but if your KN95 fits really well, cool. No cloth masks. I bought a box of 50 N95 masks for $40 including shipping, and rotate through eight of them, giving each one at least a week to dry out and let germs die. I gave out several to coworkers and the folks I support. Eighty cents each is a very small price for keeping people safer!)
* Yes, this means no eating inside restaurants. (If there is really good ventilation from windows/doors, and there is no crowd, and I have a further compelling reason ("I miss restaurants" doesn't count), I might consider making an exception. But I think the last time I did that was before Delta, in an empty restaurant, and I put my mask back on whenever the waitstaff approached.) Takeout and outdoor dining are vastly safer.
* No time spent indoors in a crowd. (I just nope out of there.)
* Minimize time spent indoors near coworkers, strangers, and anybody else whom I do not know to be practicing good safety measures.
* Use windows for ventilation whenever I am stuck inside with people outside of my household or social bubble for an extended period. No matter how good my mask is. (Some of my coworkers complain when I do this at staff meetings in the dead of winter. I give zero foxes, they suck it up, and the room warms up once everyone's there. I've also convinced the managers to follow my lead on this.)
* Confer with those in my social bubble about risky behavior. Avoid "unprotected" indoor time with them for twelve days if they did something I consider very risky. If they travel to visit people they know, I ask them to check in three days after returning: If none of their contacts are symptomatic, they're probably safe, and I resume contact. (The contagious period typically starts no more than 2.7 days before symptoms.)
* Keep my social bubble small. Violate it with unmasked indoor time only rarely, and only with people whom I know and trust, in the smallest possible groups. Prefer redundant connections (such as a recent contact of someone else in my bubble), as they represent less added risk than entirely fresh connections.
* Avoid touching high-touch surfaces (such as door handles) in public places. Wash or sanitize hands if I must touch them (as at an ATM or gas pump). Do not trust myself to remember not to stick a finger up my nose or rub my eye in the next half hour.
* When considering any exceptions to my rules, carefully weigh the expected risks and benefits. (e.g., I took a slight risk, by babysitting, to help loved ones in a crisis.) If I temporarily increase my own risk, work to decrease my risk of infecting others.
* Always respect and match the protocols of those who are practicing more caution than I. (e.g., If they mask outdoors, then I mask outdoors when with them.)
* Understand that other people have different needs, circumstances, and access to information.
* Amplify the voices of those vulnerable people who are begging everyone to behave more safely. Continue to listen to them.
* Express my displeasure with those who threaten the lives of my loved ones by not taking COVID-19 seriously.
To be clear, if you're already someone I trust to make good decisions, this is not me judging you. Your situation is your own to judge. This is me providing social proof, in a world where we go out and see mostly bad decisions, because often the best thing to do is to stay home.
Addendum 1: The sparse web.
"Social bubble" is an overly optimistic term, as I expect you understand. We don't have a better term in common use. To be more precise, I might call my social structure a "sparse web".
This sparse web still protects us! There are computer models demonstrating this, but it can also be shown easily here. Alice and Bob hang out. Alice later develops symptoms. Maybe she even tests positive. She immediately isolates from everyone, but as we all know, Bob may already be infected. Bob isolates too, just in case, and cancels his plans with Carol. Carol is now safe. Bob happened to hang out with Dave before Alice got symptomatic. There probably wasn't time for Alice to transmit to Bob and for Bob to become contagious enough to transmit to Dave before Alice became symptomatic, so Dave is probably okay, but just in case, he also isolates until he knows that he (or Bob) is okay. The chance that there was time for Dave to also become contagious and transmit the disease to anyone else, before Alice's symptoms started, is extremely low. (The low K value of COVID-19 makes that less likely still: To simplify, it spreads more in bursts than in chains.)
The chain of transmission is stopped. Nobody else is going to get infected by that group of people.
This is contact tracing! It is done quickly and competently, between people who trust and look out for each other, and who behave responsibly. This is yet another good reason to avoid exposure to people I don't trust: I can't rely on them to alert me if they or one of their contacts develops symptoms.
(To be precise, this describes forward contact tracing. Backward contact tracing would involve figuring out where Alice got infected, and warning everyone else who was there to isolate. This is even more effective on a large scale than forward contact tracing, because of that K value: Alice was more likely to be part of a group that got infected all at once than she is to pass on the disease herself.)
Addendum 2: Testing
COVID-19 tests, especially at-home tests, must be understood to be fallible. But they are still useful, if you are responsible in how you weigh them as data, taking into account the chance of false negatives.
There are two known main causes of false negative results.
One is the failure to swab the throat. My at-home test instructions say merely to swab the nose, but since Omicron became dominant, a COVID-19 infection has been more likely to settle in the throat than in the nose. Swab both the throat and the nose for your at-home test. (Instructions for throat swabbing are online.)
The second is that you could be infected, with a viral load that is too low for the test to detect. At-home tests and other rapid tests may fail to detect the virus until it has developed enough for you to have symptoms. (And possibly not until later!) If you have no symptoms, do not rely on a negative rapid test to mean that you aren't infected. You might test positive and/or show symptoms the very next day. However, there appears to be a good correlation between "enough viral load to test positive on a rapid test" and "enough viral load to be contagious," for obvious reasons. This means that venues that test on entry aren't wasting their time: People who test negative probably won't spread the virus right then, even if they are carrying it.
If you already have cold symptoms (and not COVID-19 specific symptoms like a loss of smell or taste), and you test negative, and you haven't had any COVID-19 exposures that you know of, it's relatively safe to assume that the negative test result is accurate. Please continue to isolate! Nobody needs that cold, or flu, or bacterial infection. (Both bacterial infections and omicron can look a lot like colds, but a cold is seven days. Call your doctor if it lasts longer. I have wasted a lot of time thinking that a cold was taking its time clearing up, when I really needed antibiotics. I know others who have done the same. Please learn from our mistake.)
If you need to test while you have no symptoms, consider using an ID Now test (which some pharmacies perform) or a PCR test. PCR is most sensitive, but results may take one to three days to receive. ID Now is significantly more sensitive than other rapid tests, and results may take one to three hours to receive. (If it's really important, make some effort to pick a reliable testing site. There are corrupt pop-up testing organizations out there. A regular pharmacy or a state-run facility should be fine.)
I do not know how to estimate the accuracy of a laboratory tested ID Now or PCR test that includes only a nasal swab: PCR is the gold standard, but it's fundamentally different from an antigen test, and I have found no post-omicron data regarding whether a throat swab would make a difference. I might be more confident if they used a throat swab, but most swabbing is now self-administered. Asking patients at a drive-through site to do their own throat swab sounds like a recipe for frequent hilarity and epic failure. I'm open to informed input.
On the subject of testing, we should also discuss false positives. Yes, absolutely isolate if you test positive. But if you have no symptoms and no known exposures, have not notably exposed yourself to the community, and live in an area without a high incidence of COVID-19, there's a good chance it was a false positive. Try testing again in a couple of days. Last year, some friends complained when they read on their at-home test's website that the false positive rate could be up to 75%, depending on the local case rate: It sounded like the test was worse than a coin toss. I wrote:
Addendum 3: The 90/10 rule.
Okay, look. I know I'm being more careful than most of y'all. (Props to some of my friends who are being even more careful than I. You freaking rock!) I also know that while my drive to do this correlates with a moral determination to protect my fellow human beings, my ability to do this correlates with privilege. You have a limited amount of energy, and if you spend it all on caution, what's left? I get it. I encourage you to do as much as you can, but I get it. So let's look at the "90/10 rule".
The 90/10 rule is thus: 10 percent of your activities will account for 90 percent of your results.
The 10 percent here, that will most greatly reduce risk to yourself and others, is this: Avoid superspreader events. (Potential superspreader events, that is, assuming you lack a time machine.)
Which are those? Any indoor place with inadequate ventilation, where a poorly masked crowd gathers for an extended period.* Church. Restaurants. Weddings. Auditoriums. Theaters. Funerals. Gyms. Concerts. Parties. Cruises. Bars. Choir practice.
If the wedding is outdoors, or the party is well masked, or the concert has Dutch doors wide open, or the restaurant is dead between lunch and dinner, or the cruise has strict safety protocols, then they may not be perfect, but they're not the superspreader events that we most desperately need to avoid.
Honestly, that's not 10 percent of what I ask of myself. It's less than 1 percent. But it's the part that makes the biggest difference. So if you can only do one thing, that's the one. You can probably do more than that, but at the very least, do that.
* Superspreader events do not include shopping. The single exception that I could find, in a massive database, involved the bathroom and elevator in an underground mall. All other shopping-related outbreaks were among employees, not customers.
I've left out superspreader events that people don't usually have a choice about, like prisons, classrooms, nursing homes, daycare, emergency departments, mass transit, and work. But anything you can do to be safer in those places (ventilation, shortening contact, masking, video conference) is good.
Deciding on personal COVID safety practices, in the absence of reliable guidance, is difficult. Often, individual circumstances must be judged on a case-by-case basis, and the felicific calculus (a tongue-in-cheek term for the vague but difficult math that goes into finding the best course of action) gets intricate. Actual risk management math involves making educated guesses for things about which we lack hard numbers.
That said, it is absolutely essential to work it out anyway. If my actions get me infected with COVID-19, and I pass it on to someone who passes it on to someone else, who gets disabled or killed by it: THAT'S ON ME. I will be morally culpable for that result. I will not destroy my fellow human beings' lives that way. That ought to go without saying, but, well, *gestures around*. It needs saying.
Even if one were perfectly selfish and "low risk," the mathematically illiterate public has confused a "greatly lowered personal risk" conferred by vaccination with a "negligible risk".
Put it this way: In terms of just personal risk, getting COVID-19 is like falling off a stoop onto the sidewalk. You might be sore for a week. You might break your arm. You might suffer a permanent, crippling injury. If you're particularly unlucky, you might hit your head and die. Getting vaccinated is like wearing a helmet. You've just made it much safer to fall off the stoop. Does that actually mean it's safe to fall off the stoop? Of course not! You can still break your arm or shatter your hip, and maybe die if you land particularly badly.
Getting vaccinated, and also taking really good precautions, is like walking down the steps from the stoop to the sidewalk. That changes the risk in both cases from "What the hell do you think you're doing?!?" to "Safer than my morning commute" (which is not to say, "perfectly safe").
Here's my set of general precautions. Your circumstances may alter these in either direction.
* No time spent in public, indoor places without a high quality mask. (N95 for me, but if your KN95 fits really well, cool. No cloth masks. I bought a box of 50 N95 masks for $40 including shipping, and rotate through eight of them, giving each one at least a week to dry out and let germs die. I gave out several to coworkers and the folks I support. Eighty cents each is a very small price for keeping people safer!)
* Yes, this means no eating inside restaurants. (If there is really good ventilation from windows/doors, and there is no crowd, and I have a further compelling reason ("I miss restaurants" doesn't count), I might consider making an exception. But I think the last time I did that was before Delta, in an empty restaurant, and I put my mask back on whenever the waitstaff approached.) Takeout and outdoor dining are vastly safer.
* No time spent indoors in a crowd. (I just nope out of there.)
* Minimize time spent indoors near coworkers, strangers, and anybody else whom I do not know to be practicing good safety measures.
* Use windows for ventilation whenever I am stuck inside with people outside of my household or social bubble for an extended period. No matter how good my mask is. (Some of my coworkers complain when I do this at staff meetings in the dead of winter. I give zero foxes, they suck it up, and the room warms up once everyone's there. I've also convinced the managers to follow my lead on this.)
* Confer with those in my social bubble about risky behavior. Avoid "unprotected" indoor time with them for twelve days if they did something I consider very risky. If they travel to visit people they know, I ask them to check in three days after returning: If none of their contacts are symptomatic, they're probably safe, and I resume contact. (The contagious period typically starts no more than 2.7 days before symptoms.)
* Keep my social bubble small. Violate it with unmasked indoor time only rarely, and only with people whom I know and trust, in the smallest possible groups. Prefer redundant connections (such as a recent contact of someone else in my bubble), as they represent less added risk than entirely fresh connections.
* Avoid touching high-touch surfaces (such as door handles) in public places. Wash or sanitize hands if I must touch them (as at an ATM or gas pump). Do not trust myself to remember not to stick a finger up my nose or rub my eye in the next half hour.
* When considering any exceptions to my rules, carefully weigh the expected risks and benefits. (e.g., I took a slight risk, by babysitting, to help loved ones in a crisis.) If I temporarily increase my own risk, work to decrease my risk of infecting others.
* Always respect and match the protocols of those who are practicing more caution than I. (e.g., If they mask outdoors, then I mask outdoors when with them.)
* Understand that other people have different needs, circumstances, and access to information.
* Amplify the voices of those vulnerable people who are begging everyone to behave more safely. Continue to listen to them.
* Express my displeasure with those who threaten the lives of my loved ones by not taking COVID-19 seriously.
To be clear, if you're already someone I trust to make good decisions, this is not me judging you. Your situation is your own to judge. This is me providing social proof, in a world where we go out and see mostly bad decisions, because often the best thing to do is to stay home.
"Social bubble" is an overly optimistic term, as I expect you understand. We don't have a better term in common use. To be more precise, I might call my social structure a "sparse web".
This sparse web still protects us! There are computer models demonstrating this, but it can also be shown easily here. Alice and Bob hang out. Alice later develops symptoms. Maybe she even tests positive. She immediately isolates from everyone, but as we all know, Bob may already be infected. Bob isolates too, just in case, and cancels his plans with Carol. Carol is now safe. Bob happened to hang out with Dave before Alice got symptomatic. There probably wasn't time for Alice to transmit to Bob and for Bob to become contagious enough to transmit to Dave before Alice became symptomatic, so Dave is probably okay, but just in case, he also isolates until he knows that he (or Bob) is okay. The chance that there was time for Dave to also become contagious and transmit the disease to anyone else, before Alice's symptoms started, is extremely low. (The low K value of COVID-19 makes that less likely still: To simplify, it spreads more in bursts than in chains.)
The chain of transmission is stopped. Nobody else is going to get infected by that group of people.
This is contact tracing! It is done quickly and competently, between people who trust and look out for each other, and who behave responsibly. This is yet another good reason to avoid exposure to people I don't trust: I can't rely on them to alert me if they or one of their contacts develops symptoms.
(To be precise, this describes forward contact tracing. Backward contact tracing would involve figuring out where Alice got infected, and warning everyone else who was there to isolate. This is even more effective on a large scale than forward contact tracing, because of that K value: Alice was more likely to be part of a group that got infected all at once than she is to pass on the disease herself.)
COVID-19 tests, especially at-home tests, must be understood to be fallible. But they are still useful, if you are responsible in how you weigh them as data, taking into account the chance of false negatives.
There are two known main causes of false negative results.
One is the failure to swab the throat. My at-home test instructions say merely to swab the nose, but since Omicron became dominant, a COVID-19 infection has been more likely to settle in the throat than in the nose. Swab both the throat and the nose for your at-home test. (Instructions for throat swabbing are online.)
The second is that you could be infected, with a viral load that is too low for the test to detect. At-home tests and other rapid tests may fail to detect the virus until it has developed enough for you to have symptoms. (And possibly not until later!) If you have no symptoms, do not rely on a negative rapid test to mean that you aren't infected. You might test positive and/or show symptoms the very next day. However, there appears to be a good correlation between "enough viral load to test positive on a rapid test" and "enough viral load to be contagious," for obvious reasons. This means that venues that test on entry aren't wasting their time: People who test negative probably won't spread the virus right then, even if they are carrying it.
If you already have cold symptoms (and not COVID-19 specific symptoms like a loss of smell or taste), and you test negative, and you haven't had any COVID-19 exposures that you know of, it's relatively safe to assume that the negative test result is accurate. Please continue to isolate! Nobody needs that cold, or flu, or bacterial infection. (Both bacterial infections and omicron can look a lot like colds, but a cold is seven days. Call your doctor if it lasts longer. I have wasted a lot of time thinking that a cold was taking its time clearing up, when I really needed antibiotics. I know others who have done the same. Please learn from our mistake.)
If you need to test while you have no symptoms, consider using an ID Now test (which some pharmacies perform) or a PCR test. PCR is most sensitive, but results may take one to three days to receive. ID Now is significantly more sensitive than other rapid tests, and results may take one to three hours to receive. (If it's really important, make some effort to pick a reliable testing site. There are corrupt pop-up testing organizations out there. A regular pharmacy or a state-run facility should be fine.)
I do not know how to estimate the accuracy of a laboratory tested ID Now or PCR test that includes only a nasal swab: PCR is the gold standard, but it's fundamentally different from an antigen test, and I have found no post-omicron data regarding whether a throat swab would make a difference. I might be more confident if they used a throat swab, but most swabbing is now self-administered. Asking patients at a drive-through site to do their own throat swab sounds like a recipe for frequent hilarity and epic failure. I'm open to informed input.
On the subject of testing, we should also discuss false positives. Yes, absolutely isolate if you test positive. But if you have no symptoms and no known exposures, have not notably exposed yourself to the community, and live in an area without a high incidence of COVID-19, there's a good chance it was a false positive. Try testing again in a couple of days. Last year, some friends complained when they read on their at-home test's website that the false positive rate could be up to 75%, depending on the local case rate: It sounded like the test was worse than a coin toss. I wrote:
The base rate affects the false positives, so that "75%" figure doesn't mean the test is a coin toss.
From the FAQ: "The Ellume COVID-19 Home Test correctly identified 96% of positive samples and 100% of negative samples in individuals with symptoms. In people without symptoms the test correctly identified 91% of positive samples and 96% of negative samples."
So it's a way more sensitive test than flipping a coin. The problem comes because an actual positive for an asymptomatic person can be less likely than the test being wrong, even if the test is pretty okay. Let's say the rate of infection in your area among asymptomatic people is 1%. Let's say you have no symptoms, you are part of a perfectly average group of 100 people, and you take the test. Well, you might be the one infected person, and the test will probably (91%) tell you that. And if you're not infected, then test will probably (96%) tell you that too! Go enjoy your trip! But if 4% of uninfected people get a false positive, that's about four people in your group of 100!
So if you get a positive test result, are you the one infected person, or are you one of the four false positives?
Even with a fairly accurate test, the five positive results consisted of 80% false positives.
(Or you could do it without rounding to the nearest person, and get...
0.04*99/(0.04*99+0.91)
... 81.31% false positives. But that's sigfig abuse.)
Clearly, even though the test works pretty well, when the base rate of infection is low, you're going to want a much more accurate test if a false positive could cause a big problem.
Okay, look. I know I'm being more careful than most of y'all. (Props to some of my friends who are being even more careful than I. You freaking rock!) I also know that while my drive to do this correlates with a moral determination to protect my fellow human beings, my ability to do this correlates with privilege. You have a limited amount of energy, and if you spend it all on caution, what's left? I get it. I encourage you to do as much as you can, but I get it. So let's look at the "90/10 rule".
The 90/10 rule is thus: 10 percent of your activities will account for 90 percent of your results.
The 10 percent here, that will most greatly reduce risk to yourself and others, is this: Avoid superspreader events. (Potential superspreader events, that is, assuming you lack a time machine.)
Which are those? Any indoor place with inadequate ventilation, where a poorly masked crowd gathers for an extended period.* Church. Restaurants. Weddings. Auditoriums. Theaters. Funerals. Gyms. Concerts. Parties. Cruises. Bars. Choir practice.
If the wedding is outdoors, or the party is well masked, or the concert has Dutch doors wide open, or the restaurant is dead between lunch and dinner, or the cruise has strict safety protocols, then they may not be perfect, but they're not the superspreader events that we most desperately need to avoid.
Honestly, that's not 10 percent of what I ask of myself. It's less than 1 percent. But it's the part that makes the biggest difference. So if you can only do one thing, that's the one. You can probably do more than that, but at the very least, do that.
* Superspreader events do not include shopping. The single exception that I could find, in a massive database, involved the bathroom and elevator in an underground mall. All other shopping-related outbreaks were among employees, not customers.
I've left out superspreader events that people don't usually have a choice about, like prisons, classrooms, nursing homes, daycare, emergency departments, mass transit, and work. But anything you can do to be safer in those places (ventilation, shortening contact, masking, video conference) is good.
(no subject)
Date: 2022-04-09 03:30 pm (UTC)A few things I've found difficult in this period. The big one is my parents, who are in decline. Looked at dispassionately, it's pretty clear that their best health outcome by far is for me to visit frequently, despite the COVID risk it adds, and I have a lot of complicated, ugly feelings about that. The conflict between filial obligations, parental obligations, societal obligations, and my own personal desires is very difficult for me. (If you ever need to short circuit my brain for some reason, set up some puzzle like this and you'll be all set.)
The other big thing that's been difficult is that I have a lot of anger about America's changed strategy on COVID over the last several months, and that anger is making it difficult to respond strategically. I don't think that my desire to stay conservative (e.g. by continuing to mask in public places) is a mental health issue, but having it treated like one is becoming something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why does that work so well? How do I step out of it? I think of you as someone who has a good handle on managing difficult feelings, and I'd really like to hear your take on this. I've done a year of DBT so I know some practical in-the-moment strategies (work out, ice water to the face, meditation). I think what I'm looking for is spiritual encouragement, sort of. Not taking the bait, first and foremost -- maintaining mastery of myself in conversation. Choosing not to stew in the anger, so that I can instead remember that the people in my life who are frustrating me are people I love and respect. Redirecting the conversation to where it needs to be. Finding a way to channel anger at public figures and at policies into some productive contribution. That sort of thing. I've gotten much better at this in the last year (this was in fact the reason I hired a therapist; I'm still riding high on my neighborhood's victory on lead paint) but I'm still finding it very challenging.
(no subject)
Date: 2022-04-09 05:36 pm (UTC)(I'm also stewing on three addenda that I meant to add to this post. I thought of them while showering, and now I remember two of them, and am trying to recapture the third.)
(no subject)
Date: 2023-03-14 04:50 am (UTC)Now that I reread your request, I have a few directions to explore. One is: Who is treating your masking like a mental health issue? I would think that your reaction to it should depend on how much attention and empathy you feel you owe them. Understanding their reason for their choice may make it easier to stay comfortable in your convictions.
Another is that your familiarity with statistics and research puts you in a position to make far better risk assessments than anybody who chooses not to mask. I am confident of this for myself, and for you. But then, I have the confidence of an abled, straight, white male. If anyone has you questioning yourself, perhaps you could seek affirmation from people who actually know what they're talking about.
Third, look to people's motives for belittling you for wearing a mask. That doesn't reflect their opinion of you. It reflects their defensiveness, born of the fear that you are right. Or call it confirmation bias. Either way, their expressed opinion carries no actual weight. You know what's right here.
(Apparently, "a while" was eleven months.)
(no subject)
Date: 2022-04-12 12:55 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2022-04-12 01:16 am (UTC)