 That brings me to the fact that we're now opening the discussion. Please post your questions. And here I have one question by Stanislas Couson. Let me read the question. The question is I have read references to common good, public good, possibly also common goods. Could you please elaborate on how you define these and how to avoid being naive about governance? Let me just say to me here, a public good is a collective good as opposed to a private good. And the global good is global as opposed to being national, just to make it simple. And the common good is a good that we all need to sustain. And we all need to collectively sustain. And this is why we need it to be regulated. For example, access to clean water or non-polluted air. That is a common good for us. But if we do not collectively regulate that common good, it won't be a common good. It can turn into what us would call a global bad. But let me turn to you as would you like to comment on the last part of the question, which is how do you define, how do you avoid being naive about global governance? Well, so naivety is a subjective feeling. And so how do you avoid to do that? Well, for me, I belong to the naive. And I assume that because you have to be naive to be optimistic, you have to be naive to not only think out of the box, but maybe get rid of the box altogether. You have to be naive to also engage in what seems to be impossible today and then putting the action to shape the future that you want. So someone I think was back in 1968 who said there's no revolution without utopia. And I don't think we won't have the future we want if we don't have certain doses of naivety. The lack of that will just be to accept the status quo to call it to be realistic and be realistic to that meaning and not taking any action to change or to do what we have to do today to have the future we want tomorrow. Thank you. Switching gears somehow. There's a question from Daniel Andler that Chris crosses with a number of points that were raised by several of the panelists. Daniel Andler, would you like to ask your question? Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It wasn't really a question. It was just emphasizing especially what Mr. Kamach was saying how important it is to be able to nudge behaviors in the right direction and what we think is the right direction without somehow committing paternalism or other ethical sins. And I was just pointing out that these topics, how do you make norms, new norms emerge? How do you make old norms which are toxic vanish or be seduced somehow? How do you create an atmospheric trust on social networks? All of this has become the focus of the scientific research program that isn't often mentioned. I mean, all of you are obviously aware of the importance of this topic, but I don't hear very much, very often in such circles, mention of cognitive science, social psychology, behavioral economics that are all conducting extremely interesting empirical research and conceptual research on these topics. And for example, anti-vax. There's lots of excellent, excellent insights on the deeper reasons of this anti-vax movement that could, profitably, I think, be exploited by people such as yourself. So I just wanted to say that there's an ongoing research program on these topics that doesn't cost very much and would be well worth investing in. Thank you. I ask the panelists to sort of comment on Mr. Handler's remarks, be it from a vaccine confidence perspective, maybe Antoine being from referring to what Jean Camarque had said or other panelists. And may I bring in something I tried to bring in earlier in the conversation, which is it isn't that there are just, you know, it isn't just about nudging behaviors into the right directions. It's also about fighting the structural inequities, the structural determinants that actually will shape and the capacity of an individual to change behavior. We've been hearing anecdotes here or there of people who fearing to lose their fragile work would hide their COVID infection rather than, you know, reporting and going to contact tracing. So when you have no choice, not easy to change behavior. So comments would like to go, Jean, maybe. My point is about social networks and behaviors. We have talked about Ebola. Ebola, I would say nobody would have criticized the fact that Ebola was a very dangerous disease. COVID, we discovered that you could have one million different opinions. Some people telling you COVID is not dangerous at all. It's a joke. It is a small flu. Some others, of course, explaining that it is very dangerous for some people. And as Antoine has shown on the slides, both are true. It is not dangerous for rather young people, very dangerous for old people. One example. Social networks, we saw also doctors not trusting doctors. Governments not trusting some doctors and some doctors not trusting some governments. It is a huge mess. How can we expect the general population to trust public messages when doctors do not trust the other doctors? It is a blunt way to say it, but this is what was very visible on the social networks when in the past it existed, but it was hidden. And suddenly distrust has become the new normal. I'm sorry to say that as bluntly as that, but any government efforts, any prevention efforts will not work if distrust is a new normal. And as we all know, people abiding by some rules, people doing some things and not doing other things will be key in avoiding massive economic impact of this disease. Whether it is pandemic andemic, we will know. But if we wanted to be manageable, we need trust. We need people to follow some rules. And I must say that governmental bodies, international health bodies are very junior in managing social networks, in communicating on social networks. The first impressive thing that I saw was more than 10 years ago, the Center for Disease Control of Atlanta communicating on Twitter. Super smart, super easy, super efficient, it took a few years for other governments to follow that trend. But we live in a new world and public communication on Twitter, public communication on Facebook, public communication on YouTube is, let's say, conflicting public communication by one million people who don't trust them. If we don't hack it, if we don't collectively find ways to be efficient on the social networks, many things will not work. And this touches the point about data. Data, I hope, will bring more confidence. And today there is not enough confidence in each little bit of data which is published. So this is maybe the way we can work together, data, social networks, building trust. This is my overall comment. Thank you. It certainly echoes parts of the interventions of every single panelist today. So may I call on the other panelists for a brief comment around this issue of trust which, you know, us also mentioned as a key element of building order. So maybe a few comments because of course the trust on vaccines is. Yes, thank you for taking, please take a bit of this topic that was also a question from, sorry, anyway, there was a question that I neglected to put to the panel on this. So please elaborate. So yeah, of course the trust on vaccines is of course high on the media today. An increased feeling of challenges on the trust, trust on the quality of the data. In a way, we have to remember that normally it takes 10 years to do the vaccine. So it takes 10 years to do the vaccine. Today we have sequenced the virus and we found the antigen and actually found the way to manufacture this antigen in less than 10 months. So obviously the question around safety and efficacy associated with these vaccines is it's okay that people are wondering what are the facts behind the development of those vaccines and that's why the health authorities are actually digging into it. But I just want to say that vaccines, vaccines has always been in the center of polymix. But at the same time, we see that year to date in the U.S., the numbers of vaccines have increased by 50% for the flu. So yes, you will always hear a lot about the septic around the utilization of vaccines. But at the same time, you see that this type of crisis increased the willingness of actually getting access to vaccines. So to your point, the question is who is getting the voice in social media and who is representing the majority in terms of behavior. And as we know, to actually take on the point of the intervention of someone previously, we know that negative news is twice more tweeted or retweeted than a positive. It's just because they create the buzz. So that's the problem. So on social media and on the network of influence that you will generate, you will see higher influence on the negative and lower influence on the positive. But we also know that there are ways to actually address those questions in bringing more or in sharing more positive news also through influencers. And influencers in this category, that is also something that we know are not the classic key opinion leader that sits in a hospital university that knows the subject very well, but often a general practitioner that just happened to be followed by millions or hundreds of thousands of doctors and individuals that just get the point across. So we need to structure that better than this community of influence and ensure that what is also positive facts are also shared because it's incredible. Let's put it that way. I never thought, honestly, in March that we will have a vaccine ready in December. It takes 10 years. It's incredible. We just sequenced this vaccine virus in January. It's amazing what has been done. Thank you. Antoine, Juliette, can I call on comments from you around this issue of vaccine and confidence? Yeah, maybe Juliette, you want to start? Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Oh, good. Sorry. I got disconnected accidentally. Yeah, the whole issue of misinformation around vaccines has been one of the most unfortunate aspects of I think the whole COVID experience over the past nine months. But I think that the reality has, there had been a building up of misinformation on prominent social networks such as Facebook to a lesser extent Twitter. I think Twitter was better controlled, but certainly Facebook was relatively uncontrolled. And I think that this, I think certain unscrupulous leaders unfortunately took advantage of this to promote a lot of the anti-vax messaging because when I think it was Alexander, I think, who mentioned that we know where it's coming from. The research is there. We know how this has evolved. Lack of trust has been an important issue. Yes. However, it has collated. It has collided, if you will, with the whole sense of needing to be protected and needing to be governed because everything has become such a mess on account of the facts of COVID-19 being this strange thing that has taken over the world. And people's belief in sound structures no longer holding them up any longer. But I think there has to be some more regulatory activity on the major social media networks because that's where a lot of this comes from. I can't tell you how many of my patients here in Ghana ask me about some of these ridiculous comments. And I find that I try to break it down, the scientific details down into a communicative style that they can understand what exactly is going on. And I find that that is usually enough because they're smart enough to put one plus one together and come up with two. But it does show me that irrespective of the socioeconomic scale, because we do see people at the top level all the way down, it's really the social media that have been driving this and I really have been most discerned by this particular aspect. Thank you, Antoine. If I can say, I would think that we could use as an opportunity this anti-vax movement surprisingly because we need a vaccine for the at-risk groups for the whole world population. What we need to avoid is that the richest countries are vaccinated at the entire level. And if we can use the anti-vax movement to protect the at-risk group and the elderly, we will have in fact secured the fact that the most important thing is to share the vaccine with the whole population. So if some people don't want it, let's not fight against that. We are very happy to refrain more than 20, maybe 40% of the richest countries' populations to take the vaccine. And I am rather confident that the elderly people, that those who would like to travel, because it will be probably mandatory to travel from a country to another country to be vaccinated, they will get the vaccine. And those who do want to refrain to be vaccinated, we can let them for the moment. It's not our priority. The priority is to protect the elderly, to protect the at-risk groups and the healthcare workers. If they don't want it and if they don't want to travel, if they don't want to be accepted in some settings, in some healthcare facilities and nursing homes and so on, they will not. That's their responsibility. Thank you, Antoine. I'm now seeing it's 11.28 Geneva time, so we are at the end of this very interesting session. I would like to warmly thank the panelists for an extraordinary wealth of ideas, concepts, questions that were raised. Thank all those who asked the question and sort of triggered the discussion. We touched on many topics, data prevention, information, misinformation. But let me just focus on three things that I think came out of the discussion. One, again, as an echo to what Tedros said on health is an investment, health is a strategic asset. The second, the fact that it is more and more unacceptable to the global citizenship to see the chaos, the lack of equity, the lack of inclusion in what we do in responding to a pandemic. A lesson learned from this pandemic is that we can't repeat the cacophony of the response of the first months where every country went on its own way and without a clear failure of global regulation and governance. And the third point is, of course, from all of you a call for some sort of regulation in order to build, I'll be, again, I'll call here a collective good that is public health that just as other common and collective goods requires regulation and governance be, of course, at national level, but also regional and global. And that is why, Thierry, I truly believe and I'm sure all my fellow panelists believe that it is a great initiative to move WPC also in this area of health and health governance. So thank you again to everyone and back to you in Paris. Well, thank you very much, Michel, and thank you very much all the panelists. I think it was a fascinating session and a very good start. So before switching to session number two, let me react very briefly on this question of public goods and also naiveness. First and issue of common public goods, global health as such, if you take global health as an entity. Yes, it is public good or a collective good that can be discussed, but particular health products, medicine instruments, drugs are private goods and there is a confusion very often between the two levels. But whatever the word is, the concept is clear, the concept is global governance because if you name global health a public good or a collective good, the main issue is how to implement it concretely. And this is exactly what we are talking about. And indeed, Dr. Ted Rose is right when he speaks of investment versus immediate consumption and so forth and so on. So that's my first point, but I cannot react on the question of being naïve or not. Let me tell you that I am naïve. I am very naïve because just launching the WPC would have been impossible if I were not naïve. And I am sure that Mr. S.C. is naïve and I admire him for being naïve. Now the question is that to succeed, you have to have a long-term objective. You have to be an idealist, a long-term objective. It has to be naïve in that sense. But in order to have a chance to move from where you are to the utopia if you use the word, you have to be realistic in the short term. So there is no contradiction. One has to be naïve in the long term and a realist in the short term. And if we agree on that, I think we are all, all of us, we are both naïve and realistic.