 Let's move to the second speaker of the panel who is Jean Tramart, Head of Business Line Health at AXA Partners. Thank you, Mr. Tramart. Good morning to all the panelists and to the audience. As you know, insurance is about covering for unexpected events in a predictable, measurable environment. And COVID taught us in a hard way that the health environment unfortunately is less predictable and measurable than we all thought. And as we know the impact on health, of course, the impact on the global economy is of a very large magnitude. We have discovered that we were less prepared and more vulnerable than we would have liked. In other words, COVID reminded us that health is strategic. Health is not a commodity. And as a result, poor management of health in sufficient anticipation, wrong decisions, can turn into a disaster for individuals, of course, but also for the global economy. So what could it mean to manage health more like a strategic asset and less like a commodity? I would insist on three factors, three areas where personally I anticipate a change in the future. The first one is prevention, not at an individual level as Mr. De Germay told previously, more at a sociality level or a nation level. The second one is data. Thanks to Antoine Flau, we saw that there is a lot of data which fortunately is available. But there is also probably a lot of data which is not available or not exploited in the right way. And lastly, we touched the point a bit. It is about behaviours. How can we handle this pandemic better? How can we influence better behaviours? And there is a huge question in my opinion about social networks. It is in my opinion the first time that social networks have such an impact on health issues. First of all, prevention, vulnerabilities which were detected in the supply chain of countries. I will not go into the details conscious of time, but you have all in mind the debate about the masks, the stocks. Should they be managed like a strategic stock like oil, for instance? And then you have the coming debate about the supply chain of a vaccine, the supply chain tomorrow of basic drugs. I can say that health products, health goods, drugs have been managed somewhere in between a pure commodity and something which must be a bit regulated. My guess is that it will be more regulated and that public opinions will no more accept or will accept less that health goods are managed on the basis of free trade. On the basis that if you are a rich country, if you have money, then no problem, you will get what you need in terms of health. And we have discovered it was a little bit more complex. Shall we have less free trade, more health nationalism to protect the supply chain? Or shall we have more international regulation, international cooperation? I don't know. But if it was a bet, I would bet for less free trade and much more nationalism and health protectionism. This is for me the first lesson, the first guess. The second one is about data. For the layman, for the man in the street, it is a bit frustrating to see that at the same time, we have a pandemic where everybody is collecting data, everybody is working, everybody is doing guesses. As we have just seen on is smoking protective, are the people who die essentially the older ones? Like for any disease, I would say, is there something about genetic or not? Are such and such drug effective? Is it effective in the first days of the contamination? Is this more effective when you are in the hospital? There are a lot of data. There are still a lot of questions for doctors in the room. Probably there is an answer, which is to say it is the first time in history that such an amount of knowledge is collected in such a little number of months. But also there is a feeling, and maybe the panelist will correct me if I am wrong, is that data is not yet managed as big data? Many hospitals, many countries, many companies are working their data on a very individual basis. And probably much more could be shared, much more could be analyzed, but we don't have the infrastructure for that. Antoine Flau has quoted a list of drugs which are used. I must say that it is not completely clear which drug is efficient and why and for whom. Could we do better? I don't know, but my guess is that in the future, part of the response, part of the efficiency of the response, will be about working better on the data and maybe creating more international, more trustworthy, most more bulletproof data systems. Lastly, I would like to come to behaviors, and I will just focus on the vaccine. They are coming, they are coming like a relief, like the solution. And at the same time, in many countries, you can have more than 50% of the population who says, no, I don't want a vaccine. I'm afraid of it for some good and some bad reasons. And this will not be managed with, let's say, coercion. This will not be managed with curfews. This will not be managed with lockdowns. This will be managed with conviction. How do we better manage the public opinions without being accused of manipulation? How do we handle better communication on the social networks? And this will not be only with control for biting some messages. This will be, in my opinion, a key lesson of COVID and a key issue for the future. How do we convince? How do we communicate better? Because this will be part of the solution. Mr. Chairman, this is what I wanted to say. Thank you very, very much. You raised a number of very interesting points for the discussion. You called health a strategic asset. And I hear this as an echo to Tedros' statement that health should be seen as an investment rather than an expenditure. You raised a very interesting discussion, I thought, on the fact that the public, let's call it the global public opinion, if there is such a thing. Health is not accepting any more that medicines, vaccines would be only managed on the basis of liberal free trade. And that, of course, echoes to the question of common goods and regulation. I'm saying common goods, not public goods here. And you also made an interesting set of comments on behaviors and the fact that they cannot be imposed. I come from the HIV world and, of course, we've seen in the 80s and 90s, we learned that prevention needs a responsible citizen to own the preventative behavior. Using condoms cannot be imposed on people. It goes on their personal responsible behavior. And we succeeded with regard to HIV and condoms in most part of the world. It takes time, but we have to keep those examples as we think of prevention. And one more last point that is implicitly raised in your remarks, and I'd like to come back to that in the discussion, is behaviors and determinants. Our behaviors are what we do, what we decide, but they're also shaped by the environment, the social, the economic, the political, the cultural environment in which we are. And we're not equal in making, in our ability to make good decisions, if I may call them that way, because of the structural determinants that can be constrained to us. If you live in the streets, your behavior, your capacity to control your behavior is much different from a socially inserted person.