 Just a second. Good afternoon. I'm Peter Sharoschi, and this is Stories from the Frontlines, a live video series at Drug Reporter. The aim of this series is to give voice to those activists, professionals, and peers who are working in the Frontlines of harm reduction and see how programs respond to this crisis. Today, I have three guests with me from Portugal. Adriana Curado from GATS, a harm reduction organization based in Lisbon, José Keros from ABDESH, an organization based in Porto, and Huí Corinda Moraí from CASO, the Portuguese group of people who use drugs, and he's joining us from Vizio. So we have three people from three organizations, three cities, and hope three different perspectives on things. Good afternoon. Bon dia. Bon dia. Hi, bon dia. So the media reported that Portugal has been performing better than most of its neighbors in this crisis or managing this epidemic, let's say. So the story was much better than, for example, in Spain. So and now you are starting what you call, sorry for my Portuguese pronunciation, this confinamento, right? So it's like easing the lockdown measures. So do you agree that in Portugal, in general, it was a better management of this epidemic than in neighboring countries? I don't know. Can I start in a general way? It's OK. Thank you. So it's only to say that from my perspective, I think that in general, the health of the Portuguese system has proven and shown that we have very capable professionals and that they are able and they were capable to sacrifice themselves and to work in the front line. And we can consider the front line, I think in these particular cases, the hospitals, the streets, the health unit, everywhere where medical doctors and nurses and psychologists and social workers and peers were facing the COVID and they were facing this pandemic. And this is quite interesting. And then I will shut up myself because we are seeing that a health system that was being attacked, I'm honestly, that was being under pressure in the last, I would say, 10 years by the neoliberal economical approach. And that was being withdrawing, withdrawing of money and resources and not being properly a campaign by the Portuguese government and by the politicians in general. I think that it has shown to all of us, to society in general, that this is one of the main pillars of a democratic society, to have a public health system that can reach everyone and that can be the last support that can still sustain people's lives. So for me, that was a very important thing that we could learn and can learn with this COVID crisis in general. OK. The others, do you have anything to add to this, the general picture? Well, I could say that on the more micro level on the streets, I feel that civil society moved pretty quickly and mobilized. And I saw this kind of energy beyond the limits because especially our reduction was under a lot of pressure and chronically disinvested. And so I saw kind of real people giving the best to keep services and OST programs running and people assessing at least a minimum care. And so globally, I think it was great to see this mobilizing and seeing all teams and all projects coming together. It was energizing. But at the same time, I think that the state is still very slow moving and is in fact asking some of their own things they should do. They are asking civil society that they have chronically not invested. And on top, they are asking civil society to continue to be like superheroes and we count with you on the front line. And this, I think, is not a good way to prepare for a second wave, for instance. So I'm a bit, globally, I think it was nice to see all the channels of communication appearing and people mobilizing. But I'm a bit afraid of a second wave. I want to say that it was never so clear that arm reduction services are essential services. And this was very clear during the pandemics. And of course, as Keroz said, the role of the national health services were reinforced, of course. And we all know that we should invest more in the health system. But nevertheless, we saw some difficulties in accessing conventional health and social services during the pandemics. And here, I think the arm reduction services were even more important in ensuring continuity of care and in linking people to the services. So this was very, very clear. And I agree that we rapidly reorganized the services. And we were able to keep the services open. And even in some cases, to expand the services and have new services coming, like naloxone in the community, for the first time in Portugal, became available in arm reduction teams. Here in Lisbon, for example, the city opened four emergency centers for homeless people. But of course, including a very inclusive approach, including people who use trucks and staff and volunteers from these emergency shelters were trained to overdose prevention with naloxone, with nasal naloxone. So this was new. And I think there are a lot of positive aspects in the integration of arm reduction services in other, for example, shelters that was done very, very quickly and I think with the very positive outcomes. And even, I think, outcomes in terms of stigma were positive in the sense that we reduced some stigma of people who use trucks during this crisis, because it was very, very, very easy to integrate these services and to recognize that some people are still using drugs or are using drugs. And we need to have very pragmatic responses in place. And this was amazing. So to stress that arm reduction played a very important role, not only providing arm reduction services, but in linking people to other services in a time that is even more difficult for people to use drugs to access the conventional health services or social services. So can I add something, Peter, sorry for this, because I want to, let's say, to underline that I see and I perceive arm reduction services as a part of the public health system. So I think there is no distinction for me between the traditional and classic health provider services and those one that were provided by us in the real context outside on the street. So for me, it belongs to the same system. But of course, arm reduction, as you were saying, was always and still is the poor relative of the family. And of course, people from arm reduction were capable to resist. And I agree with you and the other one that they were saying that we were capable to rebuild ourselves, to renovate ourselves. And why is that? From my perspective, because we are used to live in hard conditions, used to work in very stressed conditions. So let's say that pandemic, it was nothing completely new for professionals and for peers working on the street. And of course, because we are this extreme important pillar of health public services, I think that, and I want to underline that Adriana was now saying, that we were showing that we are the ones that still remain with the people using drugs, with the people suffering, with the people having HIV, with the homeless people. We are still remaining there side by side with them when it's possible. And the second thing, and I think that that's quite interesting and underlining once again the animal giving a different perspective that we are bringing inside the traditional system, the low threshold approach that we spend all the time defending. And that means, of course, fighting stigma. That means respecting the patterns of use of drugs that people have. That means to have a more humanistic approach. And I think that we can gain and this can be an opportunity to us to, let's say, to change a little bit the classic system to work with people using drugs. It's always interesting to speak about harm reduction in Portugal because that is an image shown in the international press about Portugal, which is like a model country. It's very successful drug policy. Drug use is decriminalized. So looking from other countries, it sometimes looks like an ideal country with ideal drug policies. But when you are speaking, you were saying that you are not very much satisfied with the situation before the crisis. So we could not say that that was a kind of normal situation that you would go back to, right? So it's like, can you just explain it? So what were the main problems with harm reduction in the first place? So even before this crisis happened. I don't know. Shall I start? Do you start? So you know, it's a huge fight. You know it quite better or quite well. But I would say a part of it and then I will pass to the world to other colleagues so they can have different perspectives. So but one of them, it was always, I think, one of them it was a structural problem. It was connected with funding. As you know, the Portuguese state and the other key actors that wanted to buy, let's say, harm reduction services to provide them to the vulnerable population, the population living in vulnerable situations, they were funding this only at 80%. So there was always a lack of 20% that could help us to sustain these services that could help us to pay a proper salary to the professionals. So and this is still there. We still have the problem with the funding and we want to use once again these, let's say so-called opportunity to reinforce the importance of sustainability of our services. That's one. And the second one, and I hope that Michaelis could complement this part, is about a structured dialogue with the state. So there was always a kind of opportunity to create channels, to debate and to establish a dialogue with the Portuguese state, especially with some health authorities, but was never in a very structured and continuous way. And I think that now we can have once again the opportunity to establish this continuous channel that could leave the opportunity to exchange back practices, to exchange different visions and to exchange different perception coming from civil society and community and the key actors of the state. But I'm pretty sure that maybe Adriana can tell us a little bit about the new development. Yeah. So I completely agree. So what we saw during these pandemics and it was that the National Army Reduction Network was moved into a more important role at national level. It was reinforced this role. And there is a new environment, let's say, and a new dialogue with the governmental agency. And this is very interesting because we were already there. And now there is a more, there is a more ongoing dialogue and conversation. And some of the old claims of our organizations in terms of the armed action response, some of the old claims and some of the new claims related to the crisis were finally taken into consideration. And we think these can speed up some changes. I already talked about Naloxone, but there are also crack pipe distribution that it was never funded by the state and other changes that we need to make, not only during the pandemics, but we think that some changes were already needed. So there is this conversation. It's that now it's more easy to propose and to be heard, to have a voice. Of course, we are a little bit worried with the post-pandemic, if we are going to keep this dialogue and if we will be able to sustain and to these type of changes. And I also give an example. I think it's not only important. We need to change the way opioid substitution treatment programs work because usually it's very punitive on a very restrictive approach. And we need to change the rules to make it more low threshold approach and more accessible. And during the pandemic, some of these rules were changed, but we need really to change a lot of things. It's not only during the pandemic. So we need to ensure that this dialogue and these negotiations and we need to be more recognized as a response, as professionals, of course. So we are a bit afraid to go back after the pandemic to the same place that we were before. So it's a concern of our mediation people, let's say. So I don't know if who wants to ask. Well, yeah. Well, I totally agree with both of you on the sustainability issue and on the this accomplishment of having a structured channel of communication. I think this is... But again, I think that for a country that had decriminalized, I think that there is a more profound structural way of working that doesn't mean meaningfully involve the actors on the field. Not only our reductionists, but also community. There's maybe because of having the longest leadership in Western Europe. But I think that civil society is gaining day by day much more influence. But still we have a lack of real participation and nevertheless, in this pandemic, revealed this fragilities, but at the same time, revealed the energy that our reductionists and the community can have when a thing like this happens. So I'm not only worried with the post pandemic, but I'm still a bit worried on the second wave, on the probable second wave, because I think that there are still a lot of differences from city to city. And Lisbon, I guess, found a very nice way of shelter, of different levels of security of shelters and of specific public centers, shelters for trans, for people using drugs, the different kinds of solutions, but this doesn't happen across the country. And I feel that other cities will still have a lot of difficulties if a second wave with the same or more intensity comes. Then I feel, I think that if we're planning for the decade for the sustainable development goals, so many things we're planning for the decade, I think that there would be now a really good chance because of what the pandemic revealed to really unite and build a public national system that really addresses these more pragmatic and humanistic fields. So I hope things will go that way. I'm also afraid that in some way the second wave and we'll bring another lockdown and the second lockdown for users on the streets will be total genocide or something like that. Can you also talk a bit about how this crisis affected people who use drugs, so what was the effect and maybe also what changes you see in the market on the streets, drug prices or availability? Okay, so there had been already a shortage on cannabis then it appeared before the pandemic and then now with the pandemic there's, it's very difficult to find cannabis. There's lots of laced products, but good cannabis, it's very expensive. You can find a grant for 20 euros or something, in some places, for instance, if you go to the interior where I live because of the risk of traveling with the drugs, dealers will put an extra money, so in the interior, drugs cost almost always the double but on the major cities, things kept accessible and the prices didn't go up and strangely in the first moment, there was a feeling among users that the quality even had gotten better. It's not the case anymore, the quality is not so good now and the prices are the same and it's accessible, but during the lockdown it was very hard because of people traveling, you had to have a friend in Uber, motorbike or something, lots of schemes had to be invented, people had to have a dog or a pet to go to the streets and so it was not so easy and the informal economy stopped, so people that lived parking cars, begging on the streets, they got completely isolated and alone, people saying, well, I hope Corona got me and I go to a shelter or I go to a hospital because my life like this, I don't want to live, so there were very desperate situations, also there was places where people kept gathering, places with no ventilation, but as we still don't have a dry consumption room, lots of places became overcrowded very quickly, so I guess that we need to put our mid-action answers in these places, on the places where people are really using on the backs of the cities and I guess that peers and frontline our mid-actions can be, are the only ones that are capable of doing this properly in the short term. Yeah, thanks. Yeah, go ahead there. Yeah, so that's why I was thinking that we really need to create this alliance between peers or the community of people using drugs and professionals of harm reduction. I think that once again, we have the opportunity to learn with the past experience that we had in some countries like France, Italy, the Netherlands, even Portugal and so on, where peers were working side by side with professionals delivering the services, learning with each other, exchanging practices and knowledge and that we have a project called peer to peer when we try to map this kind of experience and we try to translate this in new opportunities and new pilots to be developed, for example, in Eastern countries. But I think that even now in Portugal, we need to come back once again to these old stories, to these old lessons and try to implement new projects where the peers and the community could and should have a major role addressing their own community. And I think that, for example, what we have learned about pipes in the last months with people from cows and the community, it was amazing. Because, for example, it was once again, showing us how the Portuguese model, the so-called equalization model and even the harm reduction model in Portugal are totally based in this heroin model approach. So everyone is talking and it was writing and it was preparing the kids only for people that were shooting heroin, basically. And there was always a kind of demanding and a complaint from community and even from professionals from harm reduction say we need to improve and to enlarge our kids. We need to, for example, include pipes and include other kind of paraphernalia so that you can address and cover all kinds of using that we have seen here in Portugal. And now finally, with COVID, we start to talk about the introduction and the new definition, let's say, the rearrangement of the kids, the kids that we are delivering to the people. And of course, peers and community, they have a major role helping us to talking about and to choose and to define what are the best pipes to buy and to introduce in this case. But I don't know if Michael, if they want to add something to that, because it was, I think, a very interesting experience. Yeah, yeah, I agree totally. And peer-to-peer is a good example. I have to say on how this combination can be quicker, safer, and very pragmatic to reach to where our reduction is needed. And on the kids, I agree that injectors have decreased a lot. And in fact, we have lots of crack smokers. And we have no kids specific for other drugs. So this pandemic, I think revealed, for instance, we say to people, wash your hands. But people that are on the streets don't have where to wash their hands. So why not develop IGNIC and kids and for the place of use and for sex workers? So I guess this pandemic also revealed that this model of a unique kid for all that doesn't address, you know, we should have mouth pieces for cannabis users, different kinds of models. And because people still share the joints. So I think that the channel that has been opened can help us to put this grassroots questions, these questions that we feel on the streets and finally try to inform the ciders. So this was very, very interesting to see. I think it's very important that you mention peer-to-peer and peer involvement because it's coming up from each episode stories from the front lines that in countries where there is a strong peer involvement, there are like now breakthroughs in harm reduction and treatment during the epidemic. So some of the barriers are broken down and really in those countries where the peer community is strong, these changes are happening in a much better level and faster level. So you mentioned that there are regional differences in Portugal about access to treatment. And as far as I know, you only have one drug consumption facility right now in Lisbon, is that still the case? Yes, it's the case. It's the mobile unit. It started last year and it's planned in Lisbon, we will have two fixed location drug consumption rooms coming probably this year, but this was already planned before. So let me say something about the peers, of course. Here in our teams in GATT, of course, we have peer workers and we are always advocating for the participation of peers at all levels, not only at service provision, of course, but of course we need to, because of course we need to strength the ability of peers to organize, we need a stronger movement from the community, of course. But just to say that this is, our services are involved in peers and the drug consumption room is also have peer workers. And during the pandemics, we managed to expand the service, as I said, we are in new locations of the city, also because there are some new locations that need the drug consumption room, but also because these new shelters, so the mobile drug consumption room is also supporting the activity of these new shelters. And this is very important because this type of response is being more and more accepted by other professionals, but also by the community, by the neighborhoods. And this is very, very important. In Lisbon, it has been a very positive experience of implementing the drug consumption room. And we have been, but of course this was made in a participatory approach in negotiating with all types of partners, including neighbors and local associations. And we are having a very, very positive experience and a lot of support from all kinds of partners. And it's even more clear during the pandemics that we need to continue to operate and to expand to new locations. And that's it. Let me say a bit about the life of people who use drugs in the streets, what we have seen here in Lisbon. It's not clear yet the drug pattern, how these impact the drug use patterns. We have different people saying different things. For example, we saw some people managed to stop using drugs during the pandemic, but they had difficulty in accessing treatment services. So treatment services were at least in Lisbon not accepting new clients. And this is very problematic. And even for old clients, let's say, they were not having only online or telephonic appointments. And they reduced a lot their activity, the treatment centers. And we saw more people asking to enter methadone programs and this was mainly done in arm reduction services. So people entered low threshold methadone programs in arm reduction services. But treatment services were really hard to reach for people who use drugs. We saw also, and we already mentioned, the informal economy was shut down and a lot of support for people who use drugs in the streets disappeared. So people have less money. And in that sense, we think that we might have a reduction in drug use because people don't have less money to buy drugs, but it's not clear. If this also implies some riskier patterns, for example, injecting more changes in the route of administration, we don't know also if people are using other substances. We see some benzodiazepine injection, some increase in the benzodiazepine injection because it's easier to get the pill and the shipper. We also see that prices of crack cocaine and heroin remain more or less the same. Prices are more or less stable, but it's unclear if quality is the same. Some people refer and report less quality in crack cocaine, for example, but for heroin, people say that the quality is more or less the same, but we are not sure about this. There are a lot of studies going on, surveys and other studies. So I think we will know more in the coming month. One other aspect is that drug use is more, especially during the lockdown, it is more visible in the streets and for users and for dealers. People are reporting more police harassment, so more action from the police because these are the only people in the street in the middle of the night, for example, so it's easier to spot the selling and drug use in the street. We are also seeing more tension and more violence affecting people who use drugs in the streets because there is less money. Some people are also not accessing some other essential services, food, housing, et cetera, so there is more tension and more violence in the street. I think women again are among the most affected by these women who use drugs and women who are in the street are even more affected by all these environments. We know that during the lockdown, less sex work, but riskier sex work was happening and women were exposed to violence in this context also. But we still don't know all the impact of the pandemic, but we are seeing, and now with the easing of the lockdown measures, let's see what is going to happen. So, Peter, can I add something to this sex work issue? Because there was a movement of people having sex work or professionals of sex that are reclaiming, particularly in these periods, or reinforcing the need to have this work, this acknowledgement as professionals of sex, let's say. And because it remains as an informal, not acknowledged profession by society, so it gets impossible to them to achieve and to reach grants or grants in particular, public grants from the state. So they don't have any kind of support, any kind of money subsidy, so they can face this crisis in particular face the decrease of sex activity or the decrease of the clients that are not looking for them anymore because they want to protect because they have afraid and so on. So that once again, this show has our importance, this movement, this political fights that we have, that reclaim sex work as a profession, as a work, once again as a pillar and an importance that could save people lives in the future because they can be protected or not being protected by the state in crisis times. So I think it's very important, the second one and the kind of derivation is the fact that we are also seeing that teams that are delivering methadone for two, three, four days, so people can take this methadone in a self-regulated way at home, most of them they are capable to have this adjust and self-regulated behavior. So most of them are capable to be autonomous and to be competent in the way they administrate methadone to themselves. And this is quite interesting once again because it shows us that a great large, or yes, a great large of the people that are being providing of methadone by the teams that can do self-regulation at home and their own places. There is no need to force them, to oblige them to come to the ban or to come to the health structures to make this methadone use by medical observation. There is no need, there is no meaning on that, honestly. So once again, it shows that we can and we should rely on people that they are capable, most of them they are capable to cope with their own lives and to cope with their own medicines, even if that medicine is called methadone. So that's something that we are learning and I hope that this could be, let's say, be reinforced and could change the mind setting of some of our health professionals in Portugal. We got three quite interesting questions from those people who are watching us in the comments. So one is that whether you know if people from the drug user community get infected with COVID, so do you have any information about that? And then if CASO or other organizations that prepare any materials or informational leaflets for people who use drugs. And the third one is also interesting like because we were speaking about the peer opinions and peer views and does the policy makers hear the voice of peer? So are there any ways how you can make sure that they hear the voice of the people who use drugs? Thank you. Well, there's indirect evidence of the impact of COVID. We don't really know people, some people disappear. We don't know if this is, because population is very flexible, mobile. But we are sure, for instance, just to go back to this methadone issue that I think it's also very important because traditionally it has been used as a way of control, a punitive approach. And I guess that some professionals even with the changing of the law kept in their mindsets, this kind of approach. And indeed there are several, most people can be supported to manage their own self use. And at the same time, the services didn't provided enough risk management on, I have some friends that inject methadone and taking two weeks methadone to home, this can bring a high risk of being or a risk of using the methadone in two days and then not having methadone for the rest of the two weeks. So the services clearly weren't ready to give this accompaniment to the beneficiaries of the treatments. I guess that harm reductionists, teams and peers kind of did these parts that the services didn't and harm reductionists try to complement and do that part. We did the, in fact, the campaign, a European EuroInput campaign with leaflets on information reviewed by a university. And then we translated into all languages and we were giving, and also some drug reporter, the first ones I think it was drug reporter leaflets that we printed and went to the places of use and take some information. But for a small organization that is not invested by the government and that is not invested properly on a sustainable way to have a continuous voice of users, we also are very dependent on these allies, on our reduction teams that can go with us, they're where we can bring the leaflets, so lots of difficulties. And again, going a little back on what Adriana was saying on the, there was an expansion of where harm reduction is useful, so low-treasured thinking and harm reduction proved to be very useful on shelters in different contexts, but at the same time, I think that as it was an area under invested for so many years in the second wave, maybe Lisbon is already very ready, but I think that most of Portuguese cities are not ready for the second wave, we are better prepared in terms of information and we will not do some mistakes we did on the first wave even when we had already the good information, still some organizations were doing some not so good practice, but now we have the good information, but I'm not sure that all teams have the proper investment to get ready for the second wave, to have a mirror team, to have all the important things that can keep the teams on the front line because when the teams stopped working seven days and went to contingency plans and working two, three days a week, we could see in some parts of Porto, for instance, users being beaten by the local neighborhood people and events that wouldn't happen if there were more eyes on the streets and if arm reduction teams were there. Thank you. The others maybe want to add something also on this issue of how we can make sure that the peer voice is better heard. So I think of course some of the structural problems of arm reduction and arm reduction in the larger, not only service, but people who use drugs remain and one of the structural problems in Portugal is participation. I think we must keep advocating for more participation of the arm reduction movement, not only service providers, but people who use drugs as well and peer workers and we must continue this fight, let's say. Let me say that the National Arm Reduction Network also includes CASU, also includes CASU. So we are all together fighting for better services, better policies and also for the recognition of peer work, for example, or the recognition of the arm reduction professionals because they are not recognized as well. So I think we must continue. So let me say that we are also very much concerned, not only a second wave, but the huge social and the economic crisis that is coming. This is very relevant also because we have a fresh memory from the crisis, the economic crisis some years ago. It's still fresh. And we know that the way the national governments and European at European level as well, the way the last crisis was, it was not good for the most vulnerable people. So we see that unemployment, access to social benefits, access to health, this was all impacted by the social and economic crisis. So we are afraid of what is coming and what will be the response of national governments and also European commission and all this. So it can be worse than the pandemics, in terms of lives. So we are a bit concerned. Yeah, I think that Adriana, she said that this social and economic crisis is coming and I said she's already here. And so and we can see the way that the money is not the money that should come from social protection that the Portuguese state is saying that is delivering to the people is not reaching in fact the people, it's not reaching the enterprises, it's not reaching the people that are losing their work, it's not reaching families and so on. And of course, the last ones of the chain and I would say a little bit about them, I'm not a reduction professionals and I'm not being, I'm not victimizing myself. And then we have, of course, the most vulnerable ones or people living in the most vulnerable situations. So the people living in homeless situations, sex workers, people that are releasing from prisons, the people using drugs, the foster childs and so on. They will be always the last ones in the chain. And of course, they will be always the last one, you know, receiving any kind of social protection coming from society in general. And you can see, for example, that the way that the European Union was designing before the crisis, was designing the support to the social cohesion and in particular to people living in these deprived conditions was not even considered, for example, people suffering and living with HIV was not considered in drug users related problems, was not considered homeless people. And that was already a main concern for all of us. So I think that now, you know, with that, with this idea that, with this fact that Adriana was underlining that the social and economical crisis is coming, that it's already here, I would say that we have another one that came to my mind now. It's, you know, about nationalism. It's about, you know, the idea that we can lose our international connections, that we can lose our international movement, that it can lose, you know, our international community interconnect, interconnection. I think that one of the things that we have learned with the harm reduction movement and with peer movement, so on, it was that when we were capable to surpass and to across our frontiers, our borders, and we were, you know, open to learn with each other experience from other countries, we were reinforcing ourselves as a community and we will reinforce ourselves as an international community with a proper identity that was capable to defend themselves, you know, from the most, let's say, conservative and authoritarian governments, as for example, you are facing in Hungary. And I'm really afraid that, you know, we can forget that and we can, you know, stay day by day in our national concerns and, you know, not realizing that when we are together, you know, this kind of international movement, we are stronger. So one of the things that I really hope is that COVID and pandemic situation and economical crisis will not, you know, push us to the interior of our frontiers and to the fear and to the oppression that comes with nationalism. So I really hope that we can fight that and we will not forget to stay with each other and stay together. So that's one of the lessons, not a lesson, but kind of a warning that I would say, you know, that I would like to underline once again. That's actually a nice kind of closing remark also, but we are approaching the end of our one hour. You know, as a historian, I often wonder actually if we can speak about crises in history or maybe, you know, crisis is just the normal state of our society and it is just interrupted by short periods of peaceful times or stable periods. So yeah, do you have any other like closing remarks, recommendations which you would maybe don't want to miss the opportunity to tell to other harm reduction people in other countries or policymakers? If any of you have, just please go ahead. Well, I would recommend to read the letter open letter of Ariel from Norway. He was one of the first guys to claim attention and alerts to peers and to users. And in fact, the most vulnerable people are not very well connected to the systems. So I guess crisis can mean also this opportunity to build the channels of communication, to include the peers in these platforms of harm reduction teams and so that the step by step we keep together because what Keros was saying, I feel it's very important that this togetherness keeps driving our movement. Okay, thank you very much, Adriana Jose and Hui for being with us and thanks to those who were watching us from home on Facebook. And this was stories from the front lines of Drug Reporter and I hope next week we also have a video session and this time about French harm reduction. Please follow us on Facebook and Twitter to find out more about the next episodes of this show. Stay informed and stay safe. Goodbye. Bye. Bye. Thank you.