 Hello and welcome. I am John McAuthwaite, the editor-in-chief at Bloomberg, but also I should disclose for this session at least the author of a book on the challenge that COVID has posed to the West called The Wake Up Call. As you know, we are getting close to 100 million cases of COVID, nearly two million deaths, and this panel is here to look at solutions in a way, to look at the future of what lies ahead, both for governments and businesses, and what we can do to improve the collaboration and the efforts both to deal with this particular disease and to deal with other potential ones. And it fits into a pattern where there are other panels coming at the web for many different parts of this. And we will look forward at issues like when exactly, how exactly vaccines will work, what changes, what we need to do with multilateral organisations. As I said, this is a very forward-looking panel, but I think it's worth recording that we have an exception, a panel which has already proved itself in what has happened to the extent that COVID has been a war. All four of our panelists have had a very good war. We begin with Kiriakis Mitsutakis, who's the Prime Minister of Greece. I think it's worth reminding people just how well Greece has done in this. If the West has generally been rather lousy at dealing with COVID, Greece has sadly lost 5,600 people, but that as a population of 10.4 million means a death rate per million of just over 500. By contrast, Germany, which not that long ago used to rather look down on the Greeks, has a death rate of over 651. The US is up around 1,300 deaths per million, and the UK from where I am at the moment is 1,500. So the Prime Minister has done well. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, probably needs no instruction at all. America's numbers may be lousy, as I've just said, but in the chaos of the Trump administration, he has been a voice of science and reason. I think it's fair to say that he has reacted to the arrival, the new president, a little bit like a hostage being released. But throughout this, I think it's worth noting the enthusiasm with which the Biden administration has turned to him. Nancy Brown is the Chief Executive Officer of the American Heart Association, and she has also been a voice of reason in this particular drama, particularly on the idea of the cost of COVID to the wider healthcare system and what that matters to the wider world. Heart disease like cancer has kept on going, whilst these other resources have been detected, have been concentrated on one thing. Franz Van Houten, the Chief Executive Officer of Royal Philips, is credited with having transformed Philips, as we used to know it, into a company which used to do many, many things, but is now focused on healthcare technology. It has reacted extremely quickly to corona, for instance, quadrupling the supply of ventilators and delivering a lot of PPE, changing supply chains, and things like this. So all of you have done well in this, but our focus is on the future. And so may I begin with you, Prime Minister? What have you learned that is relevant to the rest of the world? First of all, John, thank you for your kind words, although when we talk about deaths, you know, any statistic involving deaths is problematic in its own right. What I learned personally, in my mind, is very obvious. We need to trust the experts. We need to trust the scientists. That's what we did from the very beginning. We let them do the talking. We took decisions early. We recognized that there is never such a thing as a perfect data set that there will always be some degrees of uncertainty when dealing with such an epidemic. That is why I think we were successful. Overall, we've managed this crisis well. We've had a second wave that hit us hard in November. We went into a hard lockdown, suffered the economic pain, but we fully understood that you cannot return to any sort of economic normality unless you bring the epidemic under control. So what we learned is to trust the scientists, but also trust the people. If you communicate clearly with the people, and Greeks have this reputation, we're not being particularly disciplined. Once we told them exactly what was happening and asked for their support, most of them, if not all of them, complied. We have very few anti-vaxxers, very few anti-maskers, even now, national mandatory about everybody worth them. We understand that if we are to return to any sort of degree of normality before we vaccinate more than 50% of the population, we need to stick to the basic measures. We know work, and the scientists have told us that they do work. So no rocket science really involves you. Just go with what the expert tell us and make sure if you have to take a bold decision, especially if it is a painful one economically, make sure you take it early and use the time to build your healthcare system. We inherited the healthcare system that was very, very problematic with double the ICU beds, but even that is not enough unless you proactively manage the epidemic. Dr Fauci, the Prime Minister correctly said we should listen to the scientists. I wonder if I could ask you about America. As I said, the deaths per million people is up around 1,300, which compares, say, with China, which claims a number of free, and even if we don't believe that entirely, there are plenty of Asian countries who have around 50. These are enormous differences. America has done 20, 30 times worse than some countries in Asia. Is this, in your judgment, all to do with the leadership, with Donald Trump? Or is there something more fundamental wrong with American healthcare that you would like to fix? Well, John, there are a few things that are really complicated and overlapping that explain almost the unimaginable that a very, very rich country, which before the outbreak was judged by a number of evaluating organizations to be the best prepared for a pandemic, actually got hit the worst. And I think what it reflects is I hope things that we could learn lessons for the future. First of all, something that the Prime Minister mentioned, we had the opposite. We had a situation where instead of concentrating from the top on the science and realizing that we must make decisions based on data and based on evidence, there was a considerable amount of mixed messaging about what needed to be done from the top down. And that really cost us dearly. The other thing that may involve things that are going on in other countries, but certainly intensively going on in the United States, it makes it extremely problematic to adequately address a public health crisis when you're in the middle of a profound degree of divisiveness in the country. When public health issues become politically charged, like wearing a mask or not becomes a political statement, it is you cannot imagine how destructive that is to any unified public health message. The other thing that we learned is that some of the things about the United States specifically that under different circumstances work well, namely the Federalist approach where you have 50 states and territories, each of which are given a degree of flexibility of doing things their own way. The Federal Government doesn't want to tell the states what to do. So we had a situation where the states were sort of left on their own. So we had a disparate, inconsistent response from one state to the other, which is antithetical to the fact that the virus is the same. It doesn't know the difference between New York and Pennsylvania, between Louisiana and Mississippi. It's all the same. Yet, there was such a very, very strong differences the way different states handle it. So the lesson there was we needed to have a good cooperation between the Federal Government and the individual locals, which we did not have. Can I ask you one very quick thing which leads into the other ones is do you think that in the end the biggest weakness of America is a healthcare system that is designed to look after the old and especially the rich, that any pandemic was bound to expose something given the fact that America does not have a public health system on the same level as the other countries represented here? You know, John, a pandemic, as you alluding to, I think, and hinting sheds a very bright light on a lot of the weaknesses in a society. For us, it did one of the things that you are alluding to, the deficiencies of our healthcare system, which really needs to be strengthened at multiple different levels for the reasons that you're hinting at. The other thing that it shed a bright, embarrassing light on is the extraordinary disparities we have in health. We're in our country, similar to other disease, a vastly disproportionate amount of suffering among our brown and black people, our minority population, in which the incidence of their getting infected is much higher, their degree of hospitalizations, intensive care and death is significantly higher than the general population related to the social determinants of health that have been ingrained in our society, essentially from the very beginning. Nancy Brown, you know, you have, the American Heart Association, you've been very outspoken about the need to focus on the wider well-being of society, which Dr. Fauci just sort of hinted at, especially looking forward, do you think that there is need for a broader healthcare rethink in the American healthcare system? Absolutely, there's no question that we need to rethink how healthcare is delivered in America, and I would just re-emphasize the points that Dr. Fauci made, you know, the epidemic absolutely shed a light on the vulnerabilities related to not just the healthcare system, but the public health infrastructure and the supply chain of healthcare in America, but I do want to say something positive, and I want to give a call to the incredible healthcare workers in America and the people who lead our healthcare institutions who have worked tirelessly, sometimes with their hands behind their back to try to serve the people in their communities, but as Dr. Fauci said, we are seeing this incredible disparity, not only of treatment for COVID, but you have to back it up, you know, prior to the COVID pandemic, you know, these same populations were having much higher levels of high blood pressure, elevated cholesterol, obesity, type 2 diabetes. We have found through studies in our own COVID registry that we have at the American Heart Association, you know, of hundreds of hospitals in this country that those individuals are suffering more greatly, and we also are seeing delays in care. That goes back to the word trust, which we have alluded to, but we haven't called out directly yet, and I think trust in what people are hearing, trust in the healthcare system, all of that matters if we're going to get on the other side of this. Franz Van Houten, you know, you have sat there, you've listened to, you've certainly seen this at first hand, the government struggling to deal with these things. From the private sectors point of view, you know, if I gave you power over Europe, or indeed over the Netherlands, what would you do to change the way that? Well, John, to evaluate the lessons, we do have to briefly look back, right? So I noted five points for myself, and that is, first of all, there wasn't enough capacity to deal with the spike of the pandemic, and then, of course, there was shortage of beds and so on. So both providers as well as industry, we all had to scramble to expand capacity. So in a way, if SARS would have taught us a lesson, then we could have planned ahead and created more capacity and have the scenarios available about what is needed in terms of capacity. Second point is that I think, and Dr. Fauci, you'll refer to it, but you need coordinated care between primary care and emergency response and your tertiary centers. And in many countries, that coordination of care was absent or very difficult. And for example, in the Netherlands, we built, as Phillips, a national COVID data cloud to enable the transfers of patients from one hospital to the next. That infrastructure just didn't exist. So that's my second point. You've got to think about how do you organize care among states, among countries, between hospitals, between primary care and secondary care, et cetera, so that your response is orchestrated and efficient and effective. That would be my second point. The third point then is that as you build capacity, you've got to have a supply chain that works. Now, we all know that we were in lockdown, but there was also a lot of nationalism countries, including in the U.S. and Germany, where countries said, you know, what you produce is for us only. You're not allowed to export it. But in a way, that stops everything because, you know, every product that we make have components from all over the world. And to put it together in Pennsylvania to make a ventilator, I need stuff from the Philippines and China. So that's the third insight, is that when a crisis hits, we should not have the path of reaction to say, well, me first, you know, we need to collaborate in order to scale the response. And then I have a fourth point. And Nancy, you referred to the incredible heroism of the caregivers, right? But there are ways to deliver care that is more productive, but also better for staff and patient if you use technology. For example, remote patient monitoring reduces the exposure to individual patients. Remote patient monitoring also can support chronic patients while at home. We saw and we were quickly able to scale tele-radiology, telepathology, so that pathologists and radiologists at home could still contribute, you know, to the whole care process. So I think we are going to see looking forward a much better usage of data, of data infrastructure, of cloud technologies that enable teleworking between healthcare professionals, but also the doctor-patient relationship. We will have to overcome privacy concerns. In many countries in the world, privacy was a showstopper for all that infrastructure that you need. And you need data when fighting a pandemic and to make care available to everybody that needs it. So I think there's about these five lessons that I wanted to bring to the table. Now, that doesn't mean it's solved, right? Because we have then just identified what needs to be done. I would plead for a much better coordinated effort between private and public and a standing kind of forum where we look at how are you prepared? Because there will be other variants of virus and we need to be prepared for the next wave. Let me jump on that. We will come back to talk about telehealth. But just to jump at the immediate question, which I think is dominating many countries the moment I'm going to come to Dr Fauci on this, because it is basically a scientific one, is we now have these new variants. We have one, the British variant, which we're responsible. We also have the South African one. And at that moment, there seems to be a race between people developing vaccines, which is a good thing. And then there's issue about these new variants. Dr Fauci, how seriously from a scientific point of view, from the point of view of the next few months, should we take these new variants? How do you look at them? Yeah, we take them very seriously, John, for a number of reasons. One, the situation, for example, of the variant that is dominant in the UK right now clearly has an increased capability of transmitting in recent data from the UK indicates that, although at first it was felt to not really have an increase in virulence, which means it is more likely to make you seriously ill or kill you wish. So we're finding that that's not the case, that it is, that it does have the inherent capability of making you more sick. The thing that we pay a lot of attention to is what is the impact of the variant, which is now in more than 22 states in the United States, as well as in other places throughout the world, on the efficacy of both the vaccines that are now being distributed throughout the world, as well as monoclonal antibodies. The UK that's done, the UK, I don't want to say the UK variant or the, or the, or the, I think I'll allow you actually. The reason is because we really got to get away from it because there tends to be some stigma associated with that. It's not the UK's fault. It just happens to be prevalent there, same way with the Republic of South Africa. But the issue is it does not appear to have a substantial effect at all on the efficacy of the vaccine. So we're pretty good there, but you've got to pay attention to it because it's evolving. Mike Mouse, you want really quick question on that. Some people say that the people have been delaying the second dose of the vaccine. Does that worry you at all? You're one of the people who's? Yeah, it does. It does. I mean, I could understand the reason why that is being done, but I would be concerned about that because you don't get full efficacy until you get that second dose. And if you allow suboptimal efficacy, you could actually immunologically select more for mutations when you do that. So that's the reason why, you know, it may not be the case, but it gets risky. And that's the reason why we prefer to keep it on the time that the clinical trials said for the two that are in the, that we deal with in the United States, Moderna and Pfizer. The second dose for Moderna is 28 days. For Pfizer, it's 21 days. But let me get back to the variant that's now dominant in the Republic of South South Africa. That's a bit more problematic, John, because when we've looked at it and a number of papers are coming out on the preprint journals that are showing that when it comes to the monoclonal antibodies, several of them are completely negated in their efficacy by the mutation. And there seems to be a considerable more threat to vaccine efficacy, even though the cushion of efficacy is sound enough that the vaccines that we're using now will be good against both the mutant in South Africa as well as in the UK. Having said that, this is an evolving situation. So what we need to do and are doing are already looking at making upgraded versions of the vaccine that could address both the South African mutant as well as the one in the UK. So even though right now, the vaccines seem to be able to work against them, we need to be prepared to upgrade and maybe even as a boost later on, or as a bivalent vaccine that goes against both the wild type and the evolving mutants. That's incredibly clear. Prime Minister Mr. Takis, I mean, from Greece's point of view, I think you're one of these countries which has been talking about life returning to normal spring. Do you now feel as if that level is being put back? When can we expect, when do you expect kind of normal activity to come? Well, a lot will depend on the pace of vaccination. All European countries have built their infrastructure. We could deliver many more vaccines. We just don't have access to them having said that. And in spite of the delays in terms of approving that level, I still think that the European cooperation in terms of purchasing vaccines has been overall a success story. Of course, we will push companies to honour the contracts and deliver vaccines faster. But I'm a little skeptical about this daily counts of how many we have vaccinated. We have taken the conscious decision of making sure that we will always stockpile the second dose so that there is going to be no delay whatsoever because we know that these vaccines have been approved based on very specific clinical trials. We don't want to take the risk to run out of doses and not administer the second dose on time according to the protocols that these vaccines have been approved. So if we assume that Q2, we will have a big breakthrough in terms of the number of available vaccines. I do expect real mass vaccination to start at some point in March, April, May if we also assume that there is a degree of seasonality, which we saw last year. One could envision a return to normal by late spring, early summer. Certainly very important for us, given that we want people to travel and that we want people to come to Greece, but we want people to come to Greece safely. That is why we also launched this initiative at the European level regarding some sort of vaccine certification. Obviously now we vaccinated close to 2% of the population. It's not a relevant discussion, but it will become relevant at some point sooner rather than later. So the conditions making it easier for people to travel, assuming they have been vaccinated, that is going to be an important topic for Europe as a whole. Until then, it's going to be stop and go. Again, as I've told you, we've opened up our retail activity a few days ago. We're very carefully monitoring cases, but all this is taking a big economic hit. We've supported jobs through aggressive furlough schemes, but we know we cannot do that forever. So a lot is really dependent A, on the vaccination availability and B, on people complying with the basic rules that we know actually do work. I'm cautiously optimistic on both fronts. Just very quickly, and this leads. I'll ask you first and then I'll come on to Annecy Brown on this. On this issue about redesigning public health systems, I would imagine at the moment that your entire focus is just purely on trying to keep as many people alive as possible and trying to restart the economy. Have you got a thought about how you would try to redesign healthcare after this? I think COVID has been an accelerator. This is a tremendous opportunity to take a hard look at a public healthcare system, which has worked reasonably well, but we can significantly improve it. What is the one thing you would really try to change? Our focus is on prevention and public health, the points that Nancy made, all the underlying diseases that make people sicker. Once you have a pandemic, they end up in hospital with greater frequency. We've launched a very successful anti-smoking campaign. We've managed to convince Greeks that they should not smoke in cafes and restaurants, and you know, John, how difficult that was. We implemented a smoking ban. It does work. You can do that. My focus is on primary care and technology. That is where I think the real breakthrough is going to come from. That's where I think the new frontier for a public health system really is that's where most of my focus at least is going to be post-COVID. Nancy, can I come to you on that? I was going to read you a quote you had together with global and local collaborators. We will equitably increase worldwide healthy life expectancy from 64 to at least 67 by 2030. I don't know when you say that, but do you think we still hasn't COVID messed with that and all your message of prevention and all the things Kirakos is just talking about. These are now much more difficult to achieve. How do you look at that? Well, I would say they're much more difficult to achieve, but I think the light has been shined on why they're much more critical to achieve. I might just say that for us to help people live longer, healthier lives in a pandemic or not, it starts with every person having access to high quality, affordable, accessible healthcare. In the United States, that is not the reality. This is why this is the main priority of our advocacy function in the U.S. is every person must have access to healthcare. Until that happens, we can redesign systems all we want, but we have to be sure people can access them. You would be firmly on the level that you need a universal healthcare system in the same way as not necessarily European one, but Canada, Singapore, Germany, most of the countries which have better health levels in America. I'm not talking about how the program would be designed, i.e., a universal system versus other systems. I'm talking about people being able to access care when they need it no matter what system is in place. In the United States, we have a system that has been built for people who have health insurance, and there's a lot of people who don't have health insurance. I'm not speaking about the model of payment. I'm speaking about the ability of people to access a system through things like the Affordable Care Act and enhancements to that program, which we strongly, strongly support. But I do want to say that the system does need to be redesigned. And friends and I work a lot off to the side on models of redesigning primary care using technology. When you look at the numbers of people that have not accessed routine medical care during the pandemic and how quickly things like telemedicine became a standard of care in the United States, we see real promise in that providing an opportunity for care to be delivered more quickly of higher quality, but we have to really close that last mile and help that become a reality in the U.S. and around the world. We don't need to put band-aids on old systems, we need to build new systems. Does that mean a fundamental rethink about what exactly a doctor is? Because you know as well as anybody that there is a degree of restrictive practice in this. If I just want to get telemedicine, some doctors want to see you in person, it means probably giving more power to kind of nurses and people like that to be able to make basic decisions. Is that the kind of thing you're hinting at? What I'm hinting at is that our physician community in the U.S. and around the world play a valuable role in designing and directing care for individual patients. And by the way, when we speak about the word trust in the U.S., 81% of people who might not trust anything they hear on TV trust their doctor. So we're not speaking about replacing physicians, we're talking about making care more accessible to people where care is not as easily accessible and allowing all healthcare providers to operate at the top of their license. And that's really the goal that we have. In places like in rural America, you don't often hear about healthcare in rural America where hospitals are shutting down and it's hard to access care. People have to be flown to get, if they're having a heart attack or a stroke to get care in the nearest city, we have to find new models and new ways. And when those models are built effectively, care does not suffer. We've seen that as an example during the pandemic with stroke care in the United States. At the American Heart Association, we've spent 20 years building stroke systems of care, building primary stroke centers, comprehensive centers where appropriate care can be delivered thrombectomies and TPA administration, changing laws and communities so people can be transferred to the right hospital. And during the pandemic, in papers that we will soon publish, you will see that the stroke system of care was there to support people who had a stroke during the pandemic. All of these things matter when we get back to the individual patient. Mr. Manusian, you look at Phillips, you mentioned telemedicine. Do you think governments understand the fool to focus on telemedicine because we haven't got a huge amount of time? No, I'm telling you, Manusian, do you think that the promise is there? What should governments do to enable that? And rather than a wholesale change of system, John, that you refer to between US and UK, I don't think that that's necessary, but we got to put in place the incentives that the system can change. So I agree with the Prime Minister. We need to enable the first line primary care to be involved in that community, backed up by the specialists of the hospitals. This is exactly where telehealth can be effective between care professionals. We are working, for example, with the Department of Defense on algorithms to much earlier detect infection. This can aid a first line health worker in their diagnosis. And we got to make traditional health care more cost effective because if you want to bring more money to new technologies and to enable the first line, then productivity in the tertiary centers needs to improve. The remote patient engagement and wearables will help very much to avoid that people need to come to the hospital so that a teleconsult can also be effective. I'm an optimist. I believe that COVID is an accelerator in this and that the acceptance of these new care models is going to accelerate. What we need from governments is the courage to shift policies and to enable primary care physicians to do what they need to do and also to encourage the collaboration, which may need changes in the incentive systems and a reimbursement so that it actually becomes a requirement. And then we move to the world of value-based care that Nancy and I are very much involved with. So the technology is available. We just need to accelerate the adoption. Can we look at the multilateral approach? You've all talked a lot about things that happen within countries, as Dr. Fauci said at the beginning. This is a disease that does not respect borders. Two things, maybe I'll come to you first on this, two things on multilateralism. Firstly, a broad one. How great a gain is that? Do we need to set up some kind of multinational organization that deals with disease preparedness specifically on that subject? Absolutely, yes, John. We had a situation which was very unfortunate where the United States withdrew out of the WHO. And as you might recall, just a few days ago, President Biden asked me to address the World Health Organization Executive Board and announce that we are going back into the WHO as well as with our support. I think this is absolutely critical. The world needs an organization like the WHO. I believe that with the reforms that we hope the WHO will enact that it will serve as that multilateral organization that is absolutely critical. We need global health security. You might recall there's a global health security agenda. We need transparency, communication, coordination, collaboration, and the solidarity that we all talk about. If we don't have that, it becomes maybe not impossible but extremely problematic to address an emerging outbreak. Not only the initial aspects of it when you start to see that there is something going on in some country, somewhere that is alarming, but is even when we're at the stage where we are right now, when we have the emergence of mutants in countries as far away as the Republic of South Africa and California just came out with their own variant, which is different from all of the above. If we don't have health people who are in California communicating with the people in the UK who are communicating with the people in the Republic of South Africa, we're going to be in a very difficult situation, even more problematic than we are right now. Isn't there one example, and I want your view as a scientist on this rather than the political point of view, that obvious example that's around the world is China at the moment. You mentioned the WHO, you mentioned the origin of the virus. The WHO is sitting there and the Chinese seem unwilling to share the data. Regardless of the politics, Xi Jinping is coming to address the WEF as well, but what scientifically is China denying the world by not letting people see about the origin of the virus? A substantial negative impact on us, and it began a long time ago, John, when it was clear among the scientists who are my colleagues, who I know, who I speak to, was saying, this is really different. It's not a virus that just jumps from an animal reservoir to a human and is very ineffective in going from human to human. It goes very effectively from human to human. And the critical issue that we didn't realize first, that if there had been transparency, it would have profoundly influenced policies. And that is that at least half of the infections are transmitted by somebody who has no symptoms at all. Right now, Dr. Fauci, what is the cost of China not opening the books on this? Well, I think it's very important because there are still things that we don't know right now about the origin. Understanding the origin would really be important, and we don't know it now. It's a big black box, which is awful. We're over a year into it, and we still don't appreciate it. Prime Minister, this is obviously a somewhat more political issue for you. Do you think that the rest of the world has a responsibility to put pressure on China about this? I absolutely agree with what Dr. Fauci said. First of all, on China's responsibility to be transparent on this issue, on the role of the WHO. That's what it was designed to do, and it is clear that it has a very important role to play. And of course, at the European level, because we're also a super national organization that is looking to serve the well-being of European citizens, I think there is more we can do to coordinate policies of the big debate regarding our dependence on supply chains and not being dependent on... Do you think the European Union is now... I mean, to begin with, it was not the European Union's finest hour. Certainly it wasn't the American Administration's finest hour, but it was not the European Union's either. Do you think now the European Union has got its act together? Well, I think at the beginning it was a race, a very national race. It was a Wild West when we were trying to procure PPE during April and May. But I would still argue, John, that in spite of the delays, the fact that the European Union decided to purchase vaccines centrally and allocate them per capita without making any distinction between rich and poor countries within the European Union was a moment of European solidarity. I certainly feel better that the European Union is negotiating on our behalf and having to negotiate as a medium-sized country on my own with with Big Pharma on this issue. Could we have done it better and faster? Certainly, but let's not forget that we all have access to vaccines. Hopefully, the pace is going to be accelerated because we managed to purchase them at the European level. And of course, we also need approval at the European level. You know that with approved two vaccines, there's a question of approving the AstraZeneca vaccine. Hopefully, if the European authorities decide to approve it, we will also have access to that. But I think the crisis has taught us a lot about how we can better cooperate at the European level. Transplantation, can I come to you particularly on that point? What would you like to see the European Union do differently? Look, in a crisis, you need a general, right? And unity of command. And I would like very much the solidarity and the clarity of policy. I've had phone calls to about every politician in the world to keep the supply chains open. In this multilateral arrangement, we need to make that as a standard and not debatable and so that we don't regress to old behavior. These things can all be discussed and put into policy. And then I think we are better prepared for the future. Same to some of the other points that I mentioned, like having data transparency, exchanging data on a regular basis will all help for a better healthcare system. And I hope that those will be the lessons learned once the dust settled that will be put into policy. Nancy Brown, you've seen this, especially on the multilateral level, this element of beyond America, which I know you look at a lot. Now, what is the one thing you'd like to see between governments, between nations at the moment? You know, I think the coordination that we've heard about is really critical. And Dr. Fauci mentioned the word solidarity. There's a really good model in science and research. There's an international consortium of researchers working together across countries on COVID therapeutics in a solidarity trial being conducted in more than a dozen countries. This can be done supported by governments. And we think it's very important. And I will say that I also, in addition to the WHO, the WEF has a very important role to play because here the WEF is convening leaders of governments, leaders of industry, leaders of non-government organizations. And back to this important word, trust. People around the world really trust when they see that level of cooperation and collaboration coming together. And so all of these pieces together can give us promise for a different future than what we've been experiencing this past year. Would you like to see a particular thing targeted at this issue of dealing with infectious diseases on a kind of global level that you see some people calling for a need for people to do the equivalent of the Manhattan Project of looking at this in a much bigger way? Well, as has been said by my colleagues, you know, these viruses show no boundary. So we need things like global registries, global data sharing, commitments and agreements for transparent, immediate communication. You can't solve a problem when you're guessing at what the problem is. You can solve it eventually, but when you have to take time to guess what the problem is, that doesn't put anyone in the advantage. And we clearly would call for that level of global support and collaboration, especially in data and science always first. That seems a very appropriate place in which to end our discussion. I would or particularly the issue of science. I will thank all of you. We are ending on time. Thank Dr. Fauci, Franz van Houten, Nancy Brown and Prime Minister, Ms. Gakis. Thank you very much for a very interesting discussion, which has varied across everything. And thank you all very much to the questions of which we have tried to answer some indirectly. Thank you very much.