Some academics suggest rapid relaxation back to Covid Level 2 restrictions

While the Government and the Ministry of Health seem to be still taking a cautious approach to relaxing Covid-19 Level 4 restrictions on movements, business and schools and universities, some academics are suggesting a quick return to Level 2 which would allow business and schools to start to return to as near normal as is possible in the current situation.

The official line could change as the situation keeps evolving quickly, more data is gathered and a better understanding of the risks emerges.

There are risks with seeing the success in limiting spread and deaths so far as meaning restrictions were too stringent and relaxing things too quickly. Whatever changes are made to restrictions things will need to be carefully monitored.

Looking at different expert views is important in informing the decision makers.

Stuff: Lockdown rules should be relaxed, health experts say

A group of public health experts has broken ranks on the Government’s lockdown strategy, calling for a return to near-normal life in two weeks.

As the number of new coronavirus cases continue to drop, the group of academics told Stuff the Government’s lockdown plan is out of proportion with the health risks posed by the virus.

The group said that from 22 April, when the current lockdown period is due to end, New Zealand should drop to “level two” alert.

This would leave Kiwis free to return to work, most schools and universities and businesses would re-open, and leisure activities and domestic travel would resume.

Restrictions on overseas travel restrictions and gathering on more than 100 people would remain under their plan, titled “plan b”.

Jacinda Ardern has advised the Government will be announcing a revision of Level 4 and Level 3 rules and guidelines on Thursday (sounds a bit like a revised plan ‘a’ at least if not Plan B), and will announce if we will drop from Level 4 next Monday. She and the MoH will be (or at least should be) informed by a range of expert opinions, so this is the time to be discussing the options.

In response to the the group’s proposed plan, a Government spokesman said “the Prime Minister has been clear the best way to protect New Zealanders’ health and economy is to stamp out the virus.

“Modelling undertaken in NZ and the evidence we see daily in the news from overseas tells us that significant loosening of restrictions before the virus is under control, as suggested by this group, can lead to our health system being completely overrun, many people dying and doing even greater damage to our economy.

“Those countries that have followed the sort of prescription set out by this group have generally seen surges in cases and enormous pressure placed on their health systems as well as a far greater number of deaths. In contrast our strategy is seeing a reduction in cases.

The early success of the lockdown should not be used as a reason to move too quickly.”

It sounds like a cautious approach is still favoured but Ardern said they were delaying decisions as long as possible to get as much information as possible to base their decisions on. This should include consideration of a variety of opinions.

The alternative plan was developed by Auckland University’s Senior Lecturer of Epidemiology Simon Thornley.

Others to back the plan include Grant Schofield, Professor of Public Health at AUT, Gerhard Sundborn, senior lecturer of population and pacific health at Victoria University, Grant Morris, Associate Professor of Law, Victoria University,  Ananish Chaudhuri, Professor of experimental economics, University of Auckland, and Michael Jackson, postdoctoral researcher in biostatistics and biodiscovery, Victoria University.

Thornley said the evidence thus far showed eradication of the virus in New Zealand, the Government’s stated aim, was not necessary.

“Lockdown was appropriate when there was so little data…but the data is now clear, this is not the disaster we feared and prepared for.

I don’t know how he can state that with any certainty. In part at least we haven’t suffered the disaster ‘we feared and planned for’ because of the level of actions taken. If nothing was done to prevent the spread of Covid-19 it almost certainly would have been a major disaster, as Italy, Spain, Belgium, New York and other places found the hard way.

Elimination of this virus is likely not achievable and is not necessary.”

Elimination probably isn’t achievable, especially as borders open again, but we should be able to stay near to no spread for some time.

I think it’s still debatable whether virtual elimination is a goal worth targeting or not.

Thornley said the risk to most working people was low and likened it, for most people, to a seasonal influenza virus.

That’s right, and fortunate for most people, although some younger (under 70) victims have become very sick here (and for example Boris Johnson who could easily have died without the best possible hospital care).

He said the plan was developed amid concern the Government’s strategy was over-the-top and likely to “substantially harm the nation’s long term health and well being, social fabric, economy and education”.

Thornley had already said it wasn’t over the top. The debate now is what to do from here, and obviously economic and social health are important considerations.

No deaths had occurred in New Zealanders under 70 and much of the modelling related to the mortality associated with Covid-19 was overestimated, the group said in a statement.

The real threat posed by the virus was it would overwhelm the health system but New Zealand’s risk was lower than in other countries with higher population density, and our health system currently has spare capacity.

That capacity is only due to cutting back on normal health care, and that will have to ramp back up again.

“Data shows a large majority of Covid-19 fatalities have occurred in people due to their comorbidities rather than directly from the virus. Even in Italy only 12 per cent of cases were directly due to Covid.

Many illnesses become more serious due to comorbidities, that’s normal.

“If you catch Covid-19 your likelihood of dying is the same as your average likelihood of dying that year anyway. It has been described as squeezing your years mortality risk into two weeks.”

This looks a bit callous. The difference between dying some time in the next 12 months versus substantially raising the risk of dying within the next 2 weeks is going to be a big deal for nearly everyone of given the choice.

But it may be an indirect choice – what all of us do and are allowed to do can affect the risks for the most vulnerable age and comorbidity group.

The group’s plan would see the majority of schools and universities reopen, most businesses continue to operate, and allow domestic travel to resume.

Other parts of the plan would include people over 60 or with medical conditions continuing to self-isolate and receive state funded support and priority care.

There’s some merit in these suggestions but I don’t think it’s that simple. Freeing things up for people under 60 and accepting some persistence and ongoing spread of Covid-19  will be quite difficult to keep separate from those over 60, whose isolation from the virus would become even harder – and riskier – than it is now.

Thornley et al raise some important alternative considerations, but their proposals could be relaxing restrictions too quick too soon for the decision makers – and possible for people over 60 too. I wonder which way Winston Peters would want things to go?

Leave a comment

83 Comments

  1. Duker

     /  14th April 2020

    There is some merit in their ideas, but they are done with hindsight. We easily could be like Ireland with over 330 dead by now.
    The other concern, and this happened in 1919 epidemic , the first wave was milder and the second wave was the deadly one.
    The other main point about stricter quarantine especially for those say over 70 so that the rest of the population has looser restrictions has merit too, which I suggested a few days ago.

    Reply
    • As long as the old people are not in what amounts to solitary confinement, I am inclined to agree, but the consequences of ‘solitary’ are severe, I have a friend who was a bank robber in his youth and did some time in solitary confinement after an escape attempt, and he took some time to recover from it.

      Reply
    • Pink David

       /  14th April 2020

      “There is some merit in their ideas, but they are done with hindsight.”

      Total bullshit. The lockdown has been a catastrophe from day one and anyone with the slightest understanding saw what it was going to do.

      The computer models showing thousands dying are just made up numbers to scare people and had no basis in reality. You have sacrificed billions running from a shadow.

      Reply
      • The 80,000 deaths quoted by the PM would have meant that more people had it than live here, given the survival rate.

        Reply
      • Duker

         /  14th April 2020

        “computer models showing thousands dying are just made up numbers”

        ask Belgium with a little over twice our population dead 3900
        Ask Ireland with similar population to us 365 dead with 34 more overnight
        These are not numbers from models,.
        I have adjusted my thinking with the new facts, you still seem to think 1000s dying , almost 2000 if we went the way of Belgium wasnt a very real possibility.

        The 1919 pandemic was models either , the second wave of deaths much bigger then the small early one , the total 9000 dead

        Reply
  2. Griff.

     /  14th April 2020

    It is Simon Thornley again.

    So let’s look at a couple of examples where more comprehensive testing has been completed. The Diamond Princess ship is one of the few examples of a closed population who were all tested for the disease. Seven deaths occurred in 700 test-positive patients, giving us a case-fatality rate of 1 per cent.

    At the time he wrote that the real numbers for deaths from the diamond princess was 12 .
    with 10 cases still listed as critical. Around half listed as critical will die.
    For an epidemiologist he has no fuckin idea about how death rates progress.
    One mans opinion is not “health experts” and the man is already proven to be a total Muppet in his use of statistics.

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  14th April 2020

      Stanford University did the DP study not Thornely…

      Sure a few more died but the numbers tested rose as well to cover all those on board
      Doesnt change the conclusions as they had largish error bands anyway – the death numbers were so small and difficult to fit to the general population at large But might be a good way to look at effects on elderly from Covid who based on UK numbers can be 92% of the deaths ( 9000 in sample)

      Im sure Thornley knows a hell of lot more than you how to understand and interpret epidemiology studies and probably that lab rat lady- whos not an epidemiologist at all.

      Reply
      • Griff.

         /  15th April 2020

        Yes the experts know more than me .
        Even when I point out the expert is wrong with facts.
        You know what I think of that ?
        The Stanford University failed as did Thornely and others who used the incorrect numbers Reality rules not degrees.
        Thornely should have .
        1 Checked his data before publishing. If I can find more up to date data so can he.
        2 Known that deaths are delayed by weeks.
        3 Include a cravat pointing out as such in his opinion piece .
        He failed to do all three .
        His expertise is worthless.
        You do know there was almost as many younger crew on that liner as passengers and no effort was made to trace them once they were repatriated from the ship?

        Reply
  3. Blazer

     /  14th April 2020

    Interested to know what Bridges definitive plan to handle this situation is.
    Anyone….

    Reply
    • David

       /  14th April 2020

      Well he got her to quarantine at the border, he got her to improve the testing but generally he has been very supportive of the governments actions and has not played politics but run what seems to be an effective oversight of the executive seeing as parliament is not sitting.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  14th April 2020

        So this will not be an election issue then.

        Reply
        • How we deal with Covid-19 in the next year, and especially how we deal with our business, jobs and the economy, are likely to be big election issues.

          Reply
        • David

           /  14th April 2020

          Not sure Blazer, bit early to tell really but the recovery will be.
          Ardern has slotted in policies with an eye to the election in terms of the minimum wage increase, the winter fuel allowance upgrade, extra money for beneficiaries, money for the charitable sector, money for Maori. Not saying any of it is wrong per se but were clearly done for political purposes and she will vigorously campaign on them.

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  14th April 2020

            You omitted money for everyone ,including big business and even the Taxpayers Union.

            Reply
  4. David

     /  14th April 2020

    We had 735 active cases a week ago and 518 now its pretty clear there should be some easing of the restrictions now. Forestry, construction, lawn mowing and pretty much anyone who works outdoors who can keep distances. Butchers, green grocers et al should be allowed to operate with the same restrictions as supermarkets.
    Its all very well for the professional classes who work from home but someone needs to look after the working classes especially the ones under 65 who are at very little risk from this virus.
    We dont have time to wait for coloured graphs and soaring rhetoric and media opportunities.

    Reply
    • Except that if the virus is allowed to spread amongst the under 65s it puts the over 65s either at greater risk or confines then to isolation and not even able to do basics like go to the supermarket, getting home deliveries is a greater risk, and going to the doctor or hospital becomes a greater risk.

      Decision makers have to find a reasonable balance.

      Reply
      • David

         /  14th April 2020

        Shutting the economy down at the cost of a new Dunedin Hospital or doubling Pharmacs budget each week is not sustainable. If we look at NY, Spain and Italy all announcing they are opening or moving to opening it indicates these left wing government places have done the maths, the sacrifice is too high given the life expectancy of the average person who succumbs to the virus.
        Its like the road toll, we could save lives if we drove everywhere at 30kmh but its absurd. We could quadruple the health budget but we dont because we have to accept that there is an opportunity cost to each life saved. There seems to be little concern about the employment and well being of “working class” people which if we dont start opening up could be years and years before recovering.

        Reply
        • Our economy runs on the exploitation of hundreds of thousands of people whose work, according to the “market”, is worth little more income than necessary to keep them alive.

          Suddenly even the most aggressive neoliberals are forced to acknowledge that all of us depend on these people, who feed us, provide us with deliveries, pick up our garbage, clean our streets, cook for us, clean our houses, pick our produce, kill animals and cut them up for our dinners, haul the trailers that bring us our food, and tend to our elderly.

          Suddenly we hear about these people. Suddenly they are our frontline troops, our new heroes. Suddenly we hear stories about medical workers being applauded on their way to work. We notice the people putting toilet paper on the shelves. We think about the people putting food on our tables, delivery people, Uber drivers, couriers.

          It suddenly seems perfectly obvious that we are dependent of these people in a way that we are not dependent on the financial thugs at the banks and the private equity companies.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  14th April 2020

            News flash for Ishmael:
            Businesses are well aware how valuable their employees are. It used to cost us at least $20k to replace one. That is why they despair at being forced to lose them now.

            On the other hand, Lefty politicians have no idea …

            Reply
            • Blazer

               /  14th April 2020

              why would it cost 20k to replace one?

            • Duker

               /  14th April 2020

              Recruits from overseas …..not cheap consultants want a big whack of the income

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  14th April 2020

              That was the going rate of recruitment costs, B. Doesn’t count the costs of retraining and lost productivity. No business is under any illusion about the value of retaining good staff.

          • Pink David

             /  14th April 2020

            “Our economy runs on the exploitation of hundreds of thousands of people whose work, according to the “market”, is worth little more income than necessary to keep them alive.”

            Just wait until those hundreds of thousands are no longer being exploited by the market. Then lets see how good life is.

            Reply
            • Duker

               /  14th April 2020

              For the last few years the employees had the upper hand, good staff always hard to find was very difficult especially at the wages most business had to offer…..its a kiwi business characteristic that being generous in pay was a cardinal sin.
              I once came back from Australia , major metro city, and got a pay boost here for the same job…of course decades ago.
              So many employers think minimum pay plus a bit is all they need .

  5. Lock downs not entirely bad. I don’t mind seeing the winter out from the comfort of home. Of course govts got to keep paying my salary. And groceries will need to be delivered because I can’t wait in line in the rain. But otherwise I can manage.

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  14th April 2020

      Wonderful…give you some time to bone up on how the real world works and gain a knowledge of economics and the social sciences.
      Prior to the lockdown…did you ever go out in the rain…..apparently you can get …wet.

      Reply
      • artcroft

         /  14th April 2020

        My understanding is the the real world does work Blazer. Work for a living that is. Unlike some who simply moan and bitch every day about how the world owes them a living.

        Reply
    • Corky

       /  14th April 2020

      You ain’t the man you used to be, Arty. Saddle-back and slow hands have turned you into a
      trail tramp. Sadly, I think many will be joining you after lockdown is lifted. Many will find, comparative to what they were earning…the benefit (plus perks) is quite acceptable ,especially as many have found a new appreciation for life that doesn’t involve money or the Joneses.

      Reply
  6. Alan Wilkinson

     /  14th April 2020

    My model shows the number of infectious people loose in the community plummeting.

    If this week’s data reinforces that reduction to zero then it is time to remove internal constraints and secure the borders.

    Reply
    • David

       /  14th April 2020

      We had estimates on 10s of thousands of deaths form the government but we havent heard if they have now been updated. I guess they are funded by the state and will have all sorts of restrictions on making their reports or updates public.
      Much like the probable statistic being used to control the narrative.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  14th April 2020

        Exactly. If I can publish my model for examination and critique why can’t these publicly funded “experts”?

        Reply
        • David

           /  14th April 2020

          Privacy agreements so the state can control the flow of information. Note the release of the reports was at Arderns behest and they ALL confirmed her narrative. If you want that state funding you better do the states bidding.

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  14th April 2020

            You sound like Reti and Ngaro.

            Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  14th April 2020

            Yes, David. Even worse, if you need state funding you are probably second rate.

            Reply
            • Blazer

               /  14th April 2020

              That statement begs so much irony its…delicious.

            • Blazer

               /  14th April 2020

              ‘Fletcher Building reported a profit after-tax of $164m last year.’

              ‘Fletcher Building has received $66.3 million from the Government’s wage subsidy scheme’-Stuff.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  14th April 2020

              Well, I don’t want to support Fletchers who have always had their hand in the taxpayers’ pocket but when the Government terminates the economy morality ends with it. We now have Government by decree dictatorship.

            • Duker

               /  14th April 2020

              Fletchers Profit means nothing, most of is accounting book movements
              Actual free cash for Dec 2019 half year was more like $50 mill
              They have a $300 mill share buyback as well.

      • Blazer

         /  14th April 2020

        to be disappointed that there are not 10’s of thousands of deaths would qualify one as !!!!

        Reply
  7. Zedd

     /  14th April 2020

    If the infection rates are actually declining, as it appears, then maybe it is time to go back to level 3 & allow other businesses to reopen. The queues at supermarkets have declined, after some decided to PANIC buy.. they did not run out of food etc. BUT supermarkets do not provide everything. With winter approaching, I would like to go to the warehouse & buy some new clothes/socks & a hot water bottle (my old one, sprung a leak) etc. etc.

    IF the infection rates start climbing again, then reassess it. :/

    Reply
    • You can buy those things online now, Zedd, as well as 12g bags of feathers and sticky notes which are also considered to be essential.

      The queue on the Wednesday before Easter was the longest yet, I was lucky enough to miss the worst of it, Another woman agreed that everyone had had the same idea; avoiding the Thursday one.

      Reply
      • Why not buy an electric blanket ? Dearer to buy but cheaper to run for its lifetime. Bliss to dive into a bed warmed by one, unless the dog gets there first. I had to buy a wider one to avoid the nightly scuffles.

        Reply
  8. And not surprisingly:

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  14th April 2020

      Siouxie Wiles has never published a paper in the epidemiology field , her expertise is in
      micro- biology of infectious diseases in lab rats including bio-luminescence.
      Any way the talk now is about moving to a lower levels of lock downs …because the cases ARENT expanding exponentially any more.
      Im sure shes smarter than that to be stuck in 2 weeks ago but seems to obsessed with her academic feud at the expense of her scientific credibility

      Reply
  9. David

     /  14th April 2020

    OK what is the point of Treasury. 26% unemployment if we have level 4 for 6 months and level 3 for another 6, why even run crap figures like that. Once again when this doesnt happen Robertson can pat himself on the back for doing a stirling job, its very very frustrating that we cant even get the one crowd who should be neutral and not apocalyptic to sacrifice their credibility for keeping their boss happy. Disgraceful manipulation.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/120995116/coronavirus-treasury-models-paint-dire-economic-picture-mass-unemployment

    Reply
    • Griff.

       /  14th April 2020

      OK what is the point of Treasury. 26% unemployment if we have level 4 for 6 months and level 3 for another 6,

      We will not
      That is just your over active imagination talking AKA gibbering .
      If the present decline in new cases holds we will see some relaxation at the end of the original four weeks lock down. Having a small number of cases will allow effective track ,trace and test to keep the new infections low .
      Once not that long ago we had a near total lock down of the economy for four weeks every Christmas here . It did not kill the economy then and it will not now.
      Most economic effects will be felt in the tourism and entertainment sectors or result from economic contraction out side of NZ borders and have nothing to do with our governments actions .
      Many will choose not to expose them self’s to large crowds or sit in confined space in an aircraft for 24 hours to get to NZ anyway and nothing we can do here will help with the offshore economic effects of the virus.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  14th April 2020

        You obviously haven’t been in Russell for four weeks every Christmas, Duker, if you think the economy is in lockdown then.

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  14th April 2020

          Making up comments for me Wilco?

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  14th April 2020

            Sorry Duker! Had scrolled the “gibbering” line off the top or obviously couldn’t have mistaken ..

            Reply
            • Griff.

               /  14th April 2020

              Alan Russel is not NZ and I did say in the past .
              I was at the Duke in Russel for new years back around the
              early to mid 80″s yes it was pumping as were all the holiday spots .
              Auckland the power house of our economy was an empty waste land at the same time with almost no traffic and no one working .
              Camp grounds, beer and sausages as economy does not make ….

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  14th April 2020

              The point is that the economy is a complex live animal, Griff, with lots of moving parts and seasonal activities. People’s R&R, travel, entertainment, exploration and relationships are all part of that. Lockdown has killed it all.

            • Duker

               /  14th April 2020

              You just chose the one sector that has shut down all over Wilco.
              Not just level 4
              “People should avoid non-essential travel within NSW and remain at their primary place of residence.”
              “Non-essential domestic travel should be postponed, where possible, or cancelled. A number of Australian states have closed their borders including Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland.”

              Western Australia has gone one further , its divided the state into regions and you cant travel between regions , unless essential.
              Even Sweden has locked down some regions from Stockholm

            • Griff.

               /  14th April 2020

              People’s R&R, travel, entertainment, exploration and relationships are all part of that. Lockdown has killed it all.

              Dow Jones futures powered higher early Tuesday, along with S&P 500 futures and Nasdaq futures, after Monday’s mixed stock market action. Six top stocks at or near buy points in the coronavirus stock market rally are Amazon stock, Domino’s Pizza stock, Inphi stock, Netflix stock, Nvidia stock and Vertex stock. Meanwhile, Tesla stock surged 13% Monday.

              Guess what most of those stocks are Alan?
              Netflix and Nvidia and Inphi reflect entertainment dollars going to different sectors…..Amazon and Domino’s reflect remote purchasing rather than stores .
              Once lock down is relaxed trade me courier and dial a meal services will boom. As have internet and phone providers had a boost now .
              The economy is just people doing shite.
              It is not the zombie apocalypse we are still all here eating and breeding

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  14th April 2020

              Yes, there are winners amongst all the losers, Griff. That’s what happens when Governments intervene. Don’t forget the amount of money being thrown to fund their customers.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  14th April 2020

              As Jones says and I did previously there is no good reason to prevent internal travel where social isolation is maintained.

      • Pink David

         /  14th April 2020

        “Most economic effects will be felt in the tourism and entertainment sectors or result from economic contraction out side of NZ borders and have nothing to do with our governments actions .”

        Totally and utterly unhinged. The economic carnage this shutdown will create will impact every single NZ’er. Those in incomes provided from the government will largely come out better off, and those who do not will be a lot poorer.

        Reply
  10. Duker

     /  14th April 2020

    Social isolation isnt the goal…. staying where you are is .
    Social isolation can only occur as a second best back up ‘when essential” – eating , medication is required.
    Holiday cottages arent essential as of course you need to eat , to buy food , you pass others by doing the same.
    Im sure with full data coming from contact tracing – not released for privacy reasons- we are finding people travelling and not staying in one place even in their town or suburb creating new clusters.
    beware the second wave of infection . UK had a 3rd wave in 1919

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  14th April 2020

      Rubbish. The goal is stopping the virus. Social isolation is the method. Staying at home is simply one of many ways to achieve it. Wherever you are you need to eat. People going to their bach or holiday place take their food with them. If they need to go to a supermarket the transmission risks are the same everywhere as are the measures to control it.

      Reply
    • Pink David

       /  14th April 2020

      “beware the second wave of infection”

      The second wave is an inevitable result of an isolation policy.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  14th April 2020

        That assumes you can’t eliminate it and then control the borders. But that is what we have done with animal diseases and some human ones. I think we just don’t know about this one yet.

        Reply
    • Pink David

       /  14th April 2020

      “Holiday cottages arent essential as of course you need to eat , to buy food , you pass others by doing the same”

      What a wonderful tool for tyranny. Just declare it ‘non-essential’, and it’s illegal.

      Reply
  11. Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  14th April 2020

      So is Bob Jones. He’s not proposing to end anyone let alone himself. This stuff is stupid.

      Reply
    • Pink David

       /  14th April 2020

      I imagine she will be murdering the entire staff at Pharmac on this measure. There entire purpose is to judge how much we should spend to keep her stepdad on his medication.

      Given Pharmac will from now have far less money to buy drugs because Frances has spent billions on Covid, how many will die? Will Frances take the responsibility for this?

      Should the families of those people who die end Frances?

      Reply
    • Gezza

       /  14th April 2020

      Making a “death threat” on Twitter ?
      What a bloody twit.

      Reply
  12. Blazer

     /  14th April 2020

    ‘Money columnist for OneRoof. Author. Like cats a bit much.’….says it all…really.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s