 Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the first so as director lecture series. It's really something that we've begun to think about it so as in part to enable the kind of conversations that need to happen in our world. The title of this lecture series is really going to be the disc on the discontents of our time. And to think through solutions to the big discontents of our time. And it seems to me that they can't be a bigger discontent in this historical moment than the issue of the global vaccination campaign. In this conversation evolved a number of impetus for this conversation. First it emerged in a conversation with second it. Some weeks ago, when she and I were talking about what's playing out in South Africa and the vaccination campaign and she brought to my attention. Some of the challenges that we're playing out both in the center and in other parts of the continent around simply the provision of not even vaccines, but normal medical equipment, things like needles and, and other kinds of clinical equipment that would be needed in hospitals and laboratories, etc. And it seemed that global supply chains that have not only been disrupted by the covert 19 pandemic and the its impact on the production apparatus but also because rich countries have begun to buy out supplies without thinking through the consequences for the world. I mean, in a sense I came across an op-ed by Martin in the Financial Times, where he made the case for why it was important that we think about a global vaccination campaign. And he made the case I thought, in a powerful way because what he implied is this is not a charity. You're not doing a favor to Africa or Asia or Latin America or the Middle East, you're not doing a favor to the marginalized communities of our world by enabling the vaccination, simply because London can never be safe. New York can never be safe. Beijing can never be safe so long as be societies, Johannesburg Mumbai, and this above in the Philippines. Because what this pandemic has shown and demonstrated is viruses do not respect national boundaries or continental boundaries. And frankly, it's very much like the other discontents of our time climate change renewable energy, inequality, global and social polar polarization. And if we're going to address the challenges of our time. We need to cohere as a human community. And we never going to do so. Unless we figure out a way to teach each other as brothers and sisters, as a collective humanity, where each one of our futures is assured by assuring the future of others. What is in that conversation in that kind of philosophical and conceptual logic that this lecture series was born. And in a sense, we thought that we'd kick off with this conversation and addressing vaccination in inequality in an interconnected world. We've got some incredible speakers we've got. If you like, somebody who is in the hot seat, or as close to the host seat as is possible, Peter single from the World Health Organization. He has dedicated the last decade to bringing innovation to tackling the health challenges of the world's poorest people. He's well known around the world for creative solutions to some of the most pressing global health challenges is the former chief executive of Grand Challenges Canada. He's also a professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, direct at the Sandra Rotman Center at University Health Network and foreign secretary of the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences. There's many other accolades of Peter but I'm going to force. I'm not going to go through all of them Peter, just simply because I want to give more dedication to all of you to speak more time to all of you to speak through the issues that you would like to. The second speaker is Dr second at Calem, who is the director general and CEO of the International Center of Insect Physiology and Ecology in Nairobi, Kenya, which is a United Nations University Center. She's the fourth chief executive and the first woman to lead the Institute. And after more than 25 years in the US and Latin America applying cutting edge science that saw her gone numerous professional and state honors for an exceptional career scientists, second it returned to contribute to Africa's development in Nairobi itself. And then the third speaker is of course Martin Wolf, who's associate editor and chief economics commentator at the Financial Times in London. He was awarded the commander of the British Empire, quite a mouthful Martin in 2000 for services to financial journalism. And he was a member of the UK governments independent commission and banking between June 2010 and September 2011. Perhaps I would say one of the most thoughtful financial journalists across the world and so I don't think we can have a better panel to speak on the issues at hand. And so colleagues friends. I have a one to welcome you again to this event. Many of you have said questions. I will pose these questions to our speakers after they've spoken. And obviously, if you have further questions, please do write them on the padlet, and we will pick them up and I will direct them to our colleagues in that regard so we're going to roll with you Peter and then immediately following that. I'll put it in the Martin, and then I'll come to moderate the kind of conversation at that. So I'll stop there and allow Peter to come in Peter the flow is yours. Thank you so much, Adam and it's wonderful to be here with second that with Martin. And it is a privilege for me to serve as Dr Tedros special advisor and I offer greetings from the World Health Organization in these brief remarks I'm going to focus on our topic today which is vaccine equity. I'm going to talk about what it is why it's important and how we might address it. In terms of what it is. First I'd like to say that equity is not new in the global health horizon it's not new in, in, in public discourse and, and one way to situate vaccine equity is you could think about 2020 as the year that we're in which is really, I think the worst global health crisis in 50 years maybe the worst global crisis in 70 years, sorry in 100 years, worst, worst global health crisis in 100 years since the pandemic flu, worst global crisis in 70 years or so. I think about 2020 as the year where COVID shown a very harsh light on the pre existing social and economic inequities were racialized communities where, where others really bore the burden of of COVID. You can think about 2021 as the year of vaccine equity, and you can think of 2022 hopefully as the year of a primary health care oriented equitable recovery. To situate equity is a more general issue in COVID now zeroing in on vaccine equity. We know that about 150 million people in the world have been fully vaccinated, and there have been about 350 million vaccine doses given, but these this vaccination has been highly inequitable. So look at pandemic.com their vaccine equity tracker in high income countries about the rate of vaccine doses per hundred of population is about 15%, just over 15%. Now you'd have to get to 200 to be fully vaccinated since most need to doses but by comparison in non high income countries. It's just under 2% of vaccine doses per hundred population. There's essentially a seven fold difference between high income and non high income countries. And that's certainly a nice snapshot not so nice but certainly snapshot of vaccine inequity. Now when we ask ourselves how much vaccination is needed. We have to consider three scenarios. One is the scenario where you just want to vaccinate everybody. And there there's about 7.2 billion people just over 7 billion people so maybe just under 14 billion doses of vaccine not everyone may want one. Not every vaccine is to dose but those are some rough numbers, but that's not the only scenario to consider because the cloud on the horizon is the variance. So if we get into a situation of boosters, then that starts to look like antiviral software in the real world, and depending on how frequent the boosters are. That can be a much greater number of doses. And then finally, pandemics are a perpetual threat and there has been historically a cycle of panic and neglect. So there's also an issue of even if COVID is finished, even if the variants are addressed, protecting ourselves against future pandemics. So in summary, in terms of what is vaccine equity. It's situated within a spectrum of equity or inequity related to COVID and of course more generally. And I've given you some statistics on the seven full difference, and I've sketched some scenarios because depending on which of those scenarios were actually in and to be honest, it's not 100% clear which of those scenarios we're in. Certainly the first and the third battle determine the number of doses and the context so that's a little bit about what let's now talk about the why. In particular, I think it's obvious for anybody why you would want to end the pandemic in your own country, but why would you want to end it in every country. In other words, what are the reasons underlying global vaccine equity what are the justifications why should we all want it. I think there's three sets of reasons, ethics reasons economics reasons and national security reasons. In terms of the ethics reasons equity itself, of course, is a ethical value. There's theories of justice that undergird that. And so on. But writing about 15 years ago, Sally Benatar Abdeladar and I when we were surveying global health ethics values. We identified a cascade of values where equity was at the top solidarity and interdependence undergirded equity and empathy undergirded solidarity and interdependence. If you don't have a feeling of empathy for as you put you said Adam in the introduction your brothers and sisters, then you don't care about solidarity. And if you don't care about solidarity, then you don't care about equity. So I think it's probably more. And understand a cascade of values and not equity alone, because it's too easy to ignore issues of global equity. Anyway, so one set of reasons is ethical reasons and other set of reasons is the economic reasons and I won't belabor these sharing a panel with with me. But just to say, you know the ICC, for example, has put a price tag I think of nine plus trillion dollars on on on the pandemic and just to say that these numbers are very very high relative to the actual cost of funding some of the mechanisms to help resolve the crisis like the covax facility which I'll come to. I don't think there's any higher value for money in the world than funding the roll out of vaccines. The third set of reasons which I think we've heard less about our national security reasons. And I do think that the pandemic has some. It has some real resonance with national security threats and we're not always used to thinking about national security in this way. Certainly in the US, it was part of the first national security directive of the incoming administration. But some of the features that I think also make this a national security issue or its transact transnational features, and also the fact that it deals with critical infrastructure, if you think about hospitals, medical facilities and especially health personnel. It deals with critical infrastructure and by the way, health workers are about 3% of a general population and about 14% of COVID cases. So they've really born a disproportionate burden. So the second part of this talk has been to try to sketch some of the underlying reasons the why of global vaccine equity. Having talked about the what and the various scenarios we might be looking at having talked about the why, I'd now like to turn to the how, how can we achieve global vaccine equity. And just say that I think the starting point for that question is a focus on what it is exactly that we're sharing. And here you can think about 3Ds. We could be sharing dollars. We could be sharing doses, vaccine doses, or we could be sharing domestic production, manufacturing and know how let's focus first on dollars and doses. This was really the initial focus of the of the COVAX facility, which is a partnership among WHO and the Global Alliance for Vaccines, NAVI, and CEPI, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness and Innovation, and UNICEF. And this is a terrific thing. In the first two weeks of March, COVAX, and you've probably seen on social media, the airplanes arriving in different countries, will have distributed around 35 million doses of vaccines in 51 countries. So this is really terrific. And by the way, the limiting factor is probably not dollars at this point, it's probably the vaccine doses. But in any event, dollars and doses, this massive operation may be the biggest logistical operation since the, since the Marshall Plan is one way to deal with the immediate needs of vaccine equity and especially moving towards the first of the scenarios I mentioned in the pandemic. But if we're in the late stages of that, or if we're in the booster scenario, the antiviral software coming into real life, not quite in your Nespresso machine every morning, but maybe that's an analogy. Or if we're interested in avoiding the future cycle of panic and neglect, and we're really going to be serious about future pandemic preparedness, then I think we need more. And that's where domestic manufacturing comes in. Tedros, my colleague and friend was very clear last Friday in the press conference that he gives he's been meeting the world media twice a week, more than 150 times during the pandemic with his colleagues. He sketched four approaches that the World Health Organization is taking to increasing domestic production. First, he talked about partnerships on fill and finish for vaccines. And an example of that would be the Merck Pfizer partnership announced a couple of weeks ago. Then he talked about bilateral technology transfer second approach and an example of that would be the Oxford Astrazeneca serum Institute technology transfer. Then he talked about a coordinated or perhaps you think about it as a multilateral approach to technology transfer. And the defining example here is what WHO did with influenza vaccine technology transfer between 2005 and 2015, where the technology for making influenza vaccine was transferred I think to 14 countries. And that's actually a very important and interesting model to apply to COVID vaccine. And then finally, he talked about the trips waiver that's very much before the World Trade Organization this week and he's come out and WHO has come out in favor of the India South Africa proposal to waive and electoral property rights as Dr Tedros says if not now, then when. If we're on a temporary basis to facilitate this to increase in domestic production. So, where you go on that dollars doses domestic manufacturing or production continuum depends on which scenario, you are targeting. And one thing that I think is clear from this current pandemic is that self reliance, maybe even sovereignty, maybe of nations but definitely of regions is something that's at stake when you're thinking about global supply chains and that's become very, very clear in this pandemic. So, you know, economists might tell you that it would actually costs more to do domestic production and vaccine, but that's where some of the national security arguments and some of the issues of regional security, I think come into play. So having talked about what we might consider to be vaccine equity, why it's important, the ethical economic and national security reasons, how we might address it dollars doses and domestic production. I'd now like to close with just a few simple things that you can do that everybody listening can do. And the first thing I'd like to mention is WHO's movement for vaccine equity, and Dr Tedros and WHO have called for the vaccination of health workers and older people and others at high risk to begin in the first 100 days of this year. And the culmination of that is April 7, which is World Health Day, which will be focused on the theme of equity. This definitely puts a human face on the campaign. And it also raises the question about, you know, why are we clapping for health workers if we're not willing to protect them. And why is it that Harriet, the midwife in Uganda, who puts her own life at risk to care for her patients and her community is less deserving of a vaccine than someone in the UK or someone in Canada. These are fundamental issues in the solidarity empathy cascade that I was talking about. And obviously I'm using the counterfactual to suggest that Harriet is no less deserving. She is equally deserving because as you said, Adam in your introduction because of our collective humanity and the equal dignity and worth of humans around the world. Anyway, so there's a declaration you can sign just look up vaccine equity declaration WHO and please sign on please join the movement, because this will actually help in terms of the dollars and the doses and the domestic manufacturing such as social movement. But the last point I want to make is the other thing that each person listening here can do and I'm particularly speaking to the young people here I know there are many students is to lead. I was remarking with with panelists before the call about how the soft infrastructure around equity around solidarity around leadership have really proven to be key factors in in the pandemic to go alongside the science and unprecedented success of the vaccine effort scientifically and and and the public health measures. The shocking statistic is there's probably a difference in cumulative mortality rate if you go for example to the Oxford our world in data, a data set 50 fold difference in cumulative mortality rate across G 20 countries. Now, some of that is luck when when you got the pandemic etc, but surely some of it has to do with has to do with leadership. So, leadership doesn't just apply to national leaders, it applies to each and every student young person every person on this webinar. So in closing, what I just want to say is it's actually leadership that's the ultimate vaccine to address not only coven but the conjoint global challenges of racism, climate, economic inequality, leadership, and that equity is in your hands. Really look forward to the discussion period Adam thank you very much and back to you, and of course the comments of the other panelists. Thank you, I think that gives us a lovely overview of the global situation. There are some interesting questions that come to it will come back to it in a short while. But let's quickly go to second it second it. Thank you Peter that was fantastic. And so I took a lot of my points but perfect I don't have to repeat them. So, for I see 265 participants, I think I'm sure there are a lot of young women there also happy women's day. And I think, let me start from where Peter stopped about leadership. And when we talk about women also at the start of the pandemic, the nations that are led by women actually did a much better job in taking their countries out of this pandemic, and reducing their economies, better than the guys. So, I salute them. But let me talk a little bit also from the African angle. So, as at the start of the pandemic, there were a lot of predictions, saying that Africa is going to collapse from this pandemic. Some predicted 10 million people are going to die. The cities of major cities and the streets of cities of Africa countries are going to be littered with bodies of course all that those predictions were not based on the scientific data they were not based on anything but I think based on my suspicion is on deeply embedded bigotry, undermining the capability of Africa. So, but I think Africa has done extremely well. It drew countries first they acted very quickly. It drew also from its example. It is a lesson from handling as epidemics like Ebola, like HIV, like tuberculosis and the myriad of diseases so a number of countries actually have converted their infrastructure that were for Ebola testing for HIV, for tuberculosis, adjusted it to their platform to cold testing of Coronavirus. And so, and they have done well. And when there was acute shortage of masks and PPEs and the developed nations were fighting over this shortage. African countries had shown the flexibility in converting their textile some of their textile industries factories into PPE and production and mask production and so on. And countries like South Africa converted for example their factories that produce household appliances into manufacturing of ventilators and so on so Africa has done extremely well drawing from this lessons and so on. So, I think the scramble for for vaccine. This is not surprising to me, especially as I watched to have a number of rich countries have fought among themselves for supplies for masks for other PPEs. So it was expected to this when a vaccine comes, this to happen. Of course, the global vaccine, global healthcare access has been profoundly skewed profoundly unfair. And so this is not unusual. So, to me, also, I, I somehow understand it's understandable that the priorities of countries would be to protect their citizens first. So I think I really understood that I understood that part. But what is really deplorable is countries preordering vaccines, five, six times their needs. And so the question is why. So why do you need that that money thing so it is of course this may be good politics, maybe good nationalism, but it's not good science. And so, I think the, the, the knowledge we have at the moment is to vaccinate as many people as the vulnerable in many countries, rather than vaccinating everybody in few countries. And so I think this is where the problem comes. And so this leaves a number of billions of people in the global house, unprotected. So this is, this is a problem. And the, to me, also, this equitable vaccine distribution is not a question of fairness or it is not a question of humanitarian action, it is really good science, because if we quickly vaccinate as many people globally as possible, then we can put a break on this virus. So the, the way RNA viruses evolve is basically a numbers game. So the more virus the RNA viruses circulate the more they replicate the more mutation. So my concern is that if this goes on, there will be mutations coming there will be then selection pressure there will be more potent and more deadly variants that are capable of evading or nullifying the existing virus vaccine can come. Then what so we have to go back then it means to the drawing back drawing board again. So the best way to reduce this pandemic to reduce the variants is to, to quickly manage and vaccinate as many people as possible globally. I have a few I think points concerns I want to share. And so one is variants that evolve rapidly. And then people cannot look themselves indefinitely people move around so as people move around new variants that evolve in, in Nairobi or in Guinea or in whatever Mumbai would move. So, and so this variant is that are capable of evading. The other I think evading existing vaccines, but the other really big puzzle in this whole COVID pandemic is that we don't know yet how long these vaccines last. Are they protected for six months are they protected for a year. We don't know that. So, as that knowledge comes then are the rich countries going to continue to keep these vaccines to to vaccinate their citizens every six months or every year whenever it is needed so this is I think a big puzzle that we don't know. There is also currently there are there is there are some trials in some places that are testing a whether three doses of a vaccine would be more effective than two doses. So there is so if the results come that this are better three doses are better. So there's no question that I think rich countries are going to to go to you to the root of vaccinating their citizens a certain time. And so that means, again, let's let's vaccine supply to the rest of the world. There is also other types of experiments that are going on testing that are going on. And that is a mixing of vaccines. So what happens if we mix the mRNA based vaccines with some other vaccines and vaccinate so would they give more protection against variants and so on. So if this happens then what would be the impact on the vaccine supply for the rest of the world and this is also a big unknown. Peter has, I think clarified a lot on on developing countries, you know, potentially producing generic vaccines, but I think, and that is going on in some some cases but there are some vaccine producers or sources that are not willing to share their know how so waving the IP enforcement of these vaccines is not enough. So the issue of I think IP is the main issue is the knowledge sharing in the technology transfer is not the waving of the the legal legal patent issue so unless this knowledge sharing and technology transfers happens then the genetic vaccine production in developing countries where there is quite a bit of capacity in vaccine manufacturing is not going to happen. Then the other I think really major issue is also a shortage of supplies I think Adam has mentioned this. So there is a lot of shortage of supply of gloves supply of needle supply of syringe and so on. So this I am concerned this may have effect on the less affluent countries, poor countries having heavy burden on other diseases with other diseases and other other impacts on their people. So this is an issue the other day I read that even Japan is facing tremendous shortage of syringe. Then it is slowing down their roll out of vaccine vaccine roll out so this shortage is if vaccines are supplies are available then I think all the supplies have also to come together the syringes and then it is and so on. So it can't come one or the other. So I'm also with all this also I have just to conclude also that one thing which really surprises me is that all these countries put priority list of healthcare workers and elderly people and so on as a priority or essential people to be vaccinated. So how about farmers, farmers who produce our food and people who are involved in the food supply chain. So how comes I'm not also in the priority list. So I think that there should be some thought in that. And finally, I just want also to emphasize about the power of science and the investment in research and the global partnership how all this came together to generate vaccines in record time in a very very short time. Period and developing all this testing the protocols and kids and all kinds of things so I urge a society to prioritize and to invest in science and in research and to attract the best and the brightest young people to go into the profession of science because our lives literally depend on it. Thank you. Thank you second it. I think that that's that's useful and it gives a completely perspective that flows out of from an experiential basis in the developing world so thank you very much. Martin I'm just quickly move to you give you the opportunity to come in for another 1012 minutes and then we can take the conversation as we go forward. Okay. I think it will only be interesting if I take a slightly different perspective. So I will define first of all I look at this as an economist. And, and, and I will not take a philosophical stroke idealistic view I will take what I consider to be a relatively realistic view and that will maybe get us into a to see where the disagreements and where the agreements will emerge from that. I'll just start before I go into the details of the vaccinations. Obviously the pandemic is, as Pete has mentioned an extraordinary event. It's been a devastating global event economically. One of the biggest economic shocks. We know of, and not the biggest but enormous with devastating fiscal costs. And I think in many ways that's been a surprise to a lot of people. I just stress one point which is perhaps worth thinking about because it bears on how we're going to, we should think about the world in future, according to my rough estimates. On the basis of what we don't know, as it were about the Spanish flu, obviously the death rate then is very uncertain, but it seems plausible that in relative to human population. The death rate of COVID-19 will be two orders of magnitude smaller than the Spanish flu, which is a very large difference. But it's economic facts pretty clearly going to be bigger. We're not certain about that. There was a lot about our world in a way rather good things about our world, which is we really care about human life. That's something we all our societies share, and we are really prepared to bear very, very large economic costs to protect human life. And that's a transformation. And don't even begin to compare it with the Black Death or the other. So that's the first, I think, really big point. And it's a point of fact. We care about lives. And that has another consequence which I think we just have to recognize. And this is a point goes back to my book on globalization a long time ago. We are humanities in a very strange place, it seems to me again, I've just seen how it is, which is that we recognize, and I'll come to this in a second, our global responsibilities, ethical and practical. But we are divided politically into 200 odd countries with regimes, be they democratic or less so, which feel accountable for their domestic population. And, and in countries which have vastly different resources at their disposal for all sorts of reasons historical which we will know. So when confronted with what their people regard as a first class crisis, and they do, as I've already indicated, economically and socially, these governments are under staggering pressure to respond to the demands of the domestic population. And as has been rightly pointed out, we can see the squabbles and I'm putting them gently among developed countries, between Britain, for example, in the EU over this, before we even get to the global level. So it's not only a matter of national securities Peter said, this is high politics. This is really high politics. So that's the second big point I would make. And it's for this reason that in my own article, since it's obvious it was addressed to my readership, which is overwhelming, either not exclusively a developed country or readership. I wish to stress, and I think this point has been made, I'll stress it again, the massive prudential case from the point of view of the developed countries to creating an effective global response to the pandemic, including the vaccine program. It is massively in their interest to do so. And I suppose I think that people respond, but politicians mostly respond more to that than they do. Even if we would like it to be otherwise to their sense of global moral responsibility and why should they care about this. Well, as you've already mentioned, a pandemic is a global event. A mutation in the virus will be a global event. We have been made clear beyond all doubt by the speed with which this virus crossed the world, and how globally exposed we are. Therefore, we must know that if the pandemic if the disease continues unbated and unchecked in any part of the world, it will affect every part of the world. The costs of the pandemic were, I can give you many different figures, simply staggering. The GDP foregone over the last year and this year is probably going to be in the neighborhood of 11 trillion dollars. There are many other dimensions of this. And there's some pretty good research which suggests that if there were a successful vaccine program. We're bringing all the other countries of the world to open up and and trade and movement of people to return that perhaps half of the gain from such a program would go back to the high income countries simply because of improved economic conditions. We've been stressed with a global vaccine program. We have a better chance of reducing the rate of mutation and therefore bringing the virus fully under control globally. And furthermore, the opportunity created I think this next we've got Peter said the opportunity created by a global vaccination program and the resources needed to make it work will allow us to build up health systems and health system technology across the world. And as I stressed in my columns, the sort of figures we're getting from covax on how much this would cost to shoot to do are in the neighborhood of, well, they are less than two orders of magnitude smaller than the economic costs of the pandemic. So in essence a global vaccine program is a fantastically good deal. I simply looked at from the prudential point of view of developed countries. And this is quite apart from the moral case, which is clearly, we would all accept the lives of all people should be of some significance to everybody. And there are quite a few developing countries, not in fact in Africa or South Asia, which is why I personally never thought they would be going to be terribly affected by this. But in South America, where age profiles of populations are such that the disease is devastating, it has been devastating in important parts of South America to so that there's a clearly a very powerful moral grace. So the really big question, which is if you accept that it's fantastically desirable to have a successful global vaccine program, what are the obstacles. And I'd like to stress one point which has come out in this discussion but I don't think has been given enough emphasis, which is, because it's true not just for vaccines but also it appears for almost everything else associated with this big is we went into this unexpected disaster or at least unplug inadequately plan for disaster. We've grossly inadequate global capacity to produce almost everything. And of course by definition we couldn't produce any vaccines because we didn't have the science necessary to do so. So we have globally been racing to catch up on the straight supply side in the case of vaccine that's obviously to create the vaccines produce the vaccines distribute the vaccines and get them into people. That's only a massive global truly massive global supply challenge and ideally we want to do this very very quickly. So what is the biggest single constraint here obviously the biggest single constraint is our ability to multiply very very quickly production capacity. And it seems to me that the most important single thing that has to happen is to increase the scale of the resources available to production, wherever necessary. To the extent that intellectual property is an obstacle to that and I must say I'm not persuaded or dissuaded on that point I talked to a lot of people about this experts and none of them seem to feel it was an immediate obstacle but to the extent it is I'm happy to wave it. But the crucial point, obviously, is that new factories have to be made, which allow the production of vaccines on a massively multiplied scale, because at the rate we're going at the moment, we will only done a fraction of the people all the people we will need to vaccinate this year and it will go on for years, which is far too slow. And my core argument in my piece was the rich countries it will be cheap for the rich countries to provide the resources, mostly from taxpayers to wherever they could be usefully used, not probably in every country in the world but quite a few countries to expand production so that, ideally, at least by the end of next year, we're making enough vaccine to cover the human population, and quite possibly somebody been suggested. Well on the way to making the new variants of those vaccines that may be needed if the mutations require it. So I see this, once we accept these overwhelming prudential case for building up a global vaccine system which by the way can of course be used for other diseases and other, but to do this quickly as a an obvious investment that the world needs to make in the interests of everybody. We don't have no objection to appealing to people's idealism. Fine. We can make an incredibly prudential reason for doing so, because the vaccine they've the virus is the absolutely classic example, the definitive example of a global public bad that we should all want to fight right now. And the resources we need to fight it now that we've been vented vaccines are really quite trivial compared to the simply staggering cost of this pandemic. And that's all that I want to say. Thank you Martin. So colleagues we've got about 4045 minutes and I do want to end this on time. There's some fascinating questions that have come up. I'm going to pose them in five rounds. I'm hoping that your answers can be pointed. And if somebody's answered it and you feel free then we can go on to the other I'd like to go through the five big issues. So the first that comes up in all of you is that I want to end with what Martin suggested is a kind of realism. In a sense I suspect that all of us are not being entirely realistic. So Peter you're right. And you speak about values and empathy, equity and solidarity and all of that is important. But in a sense to move things quickly in the world. They don't work work simply on social values like I give you conscientization is important. The second it raises the issue of science and saying science is important, and we need to understand it and she's right. And Martin is trying to explain, look it's in your economic logic, and he's right in that. But here's the problem. Politicians in the short term, they look after their short term interest lines in the long term. They can in a rational conversation understand and say all of this. They've got to shake them up and make them feel that they are consequences if they don't act in the ways that every one of you suggest. Now when I recall in an earlier case Peter use this early on the treatment action campaign in South Africa when with the provision on the anti retrovirals. What they did is they simply took the vaccine, the actual anti retrovirals and broke the law and entered the country and said, arrest us see what you can do. Until that happened, the pharmaceutical companies realized that this could spin out of hand, and the government realized that this could spin out of hand, and it prompted all of them to start thinking it. The question I want to pay is realism requires not making the scientific case that's important to the economic case, or the moral case, but is to stop thinking about how you make the cost so dramatically high for the politicians that if they, it's in their interest to act in this regard. And I want to force all of you to think on that question. If I can force you so let me start this time around with second and then Martin and then Peter. Yeah. So I think a lot of points that you have you have raised. So, I think even politicians really can understand my long term I think long term if it is, if it is, if they understand it, even for a long term process. What I want to add to that also is that there should be also governments, politicians, countries leaders should really open the possibilities to give scientists a full freedom to report and publish any, any discovery. I think I have this feeling that if, for example, when this virus appeared in Wuhan back I think October or so, or so if they were free to report it early on with this disaster have happened in globally. So there was I think a tardiness in reporting the, the appearance of this, the occurrence of this virus. So that type of thing should be also worked on for future pandemics. This is not going to be the, the last pandemic, the last virus would see there are over 30 or so described corona viruses circulating have been circulating around. So, this is not going to be the last. So I hope that we learn a lot from the science from the political point of view from the economical point of view infrastructure from this so that we prevent not only maintain this but also prevent the future. Thank you. Martin. Let's make one point. I think yours is a very good question which is, how do politicians think. Maybe the think is in scare quotes. But anyway, I will put forward a more, a not more optimistic view. I think what struck me and I think what second it says very interesting what I struck me increasingly in thinking about social reactions. That one of the most powerful reasons for social and therefore political reactions, they are really quite close together is experience. The striking feature of the East Asians is, you know, countries which are similar to Western countries, Korea, Taiwan, Japan, obviously New Zealand Australia, the act responded differently, because they'd had experience. And that experience had shaped the public and the government's responses. The simple truth is that, and I remember this very well because I was myself guilty of this in early February. The Western leaders book and the Western public simply didn't take this seriously. They couldn't imagine what this could do. They didn't have the experience in a way that made them think, this is really dangerous, which is why I actually think, even if we known all about will honey would have made no difference to us. I'm not saying wouldn't made some difference somewhere but it would make no difference to us. And then they the government's got buried and made endless bad decisions because they didn't have a clue I won't go into all that. This is all about completely obvious if you look at the US UK, Italy, Spain, many other countries. That's not true anymore for a quite a long time. We know what this could mean. And the society knows and they know. And that means they are inevitably going to be I think more sensitive to the risks. That creates a context. I'm not guaranteeing it in which people are more likely to see. Well if we create a global infrastructure, a global system to monitor, to distinguish and fight pandemics of this kind. We're going to be much better off and by the way it doesn't cost us anything I mean basically let the whole point of it make covax it's so such a tiny, I mean it should be quadrupled of course, but it's such trivial amounts of money. The media would, you know, the UK has just increased its public sector debt as a result of this crisis by 25% of GDP. That's 500 billion pounds in one medium sized developed country against this. This is trivial so I do think it is possible with sensible leadership. We can quite practically recognize what we have to do now and build up better global systems and if not now when it is possible they're too stupid to do this, but I think the chances are much better for the reasons I've given than they were three years ago. Well first of all I was very disappointed in Martin's speech because I was waiting for him to get to the part that I disagreed with. And there was absolutely nothing he said that I disagreed with it was a brilliant oration and I fully agree with absolutely everything you said. I would like to clarify that these three arguments the ethical arguments the economic arguments the national security arguments. Let's look at them as a three legged stool. I wasn't arguing, idealistically the moral arguments would carry the day I was arguing together the three sets of arguments going to different people who resonate with them differently would carry the day. That's point one point two who are those people. Well, the thing about COVID is it's actually not about development ministers alone, and it's not about health ministers alone. It's not even about finance and foreign ministers alone this is a head of state problem. This is a problem, a challenge for heads of state. And let's just be clear about that. And by the way, the reason those three arguments are all worth making is that this is an issue for development budgets but not development budgets alone. It's an issue for domestic health budgets, but not health budgets alone. It's probably an issue for national security budgets, but not national, and the size of those budgets increase as you go and of course it's an issue for industrial policy and the economic parts of the budgetary portfolio. Part of the reason I'm making those arguments is to appeal to beyond development aid if you will. This is not a problem in development aid alone. It's a problem that affects heads of state and then finally, last point I want to say is I completely agree with, you know, what what motivates heads of state there was a reason that I spoke to young people and I said vaccine equity is in your hands. You are the leaders. Those are the domestic social constituencies that will make up their own minds about how they would like their leaders to act. And only through those movements will leaders actually have the freedom to act I believe most leaders want to do the right thing, but they're such strong domestic pressures to look only domestically. And economic argument like what Martin did alone, I don't think will will will will move a leader. Now I'm talking about the political leaders so to all the young people there start tweeting, sign the declaration, join the movement, and that is what's going to send the signal to heads of state and other ministers around the world about what their domestic constituencies want to do. And by the way it's not just young people, religious communities. There's such a resonance normatively for example between tithing and Zakat and vaccine sharing that hasn't fully been developed and there's all kinds of motivation. And I think it's important for a wide range of domestic constituencies to send the message of what they want to their, to their, to their leaders so thank you Martin and you weren't really disappointing you were brilliant but I did fully agree with everything that you said and I also fully agreed with you about being at being a fantastic role model for female leadership on the day after International Women's Day and I just want to recognize that my friend. I want to colleagues we've got about 30 minutes I do want to go for another round of generic questions and then I'm going to target three questions to each of you. The second question I want to pose is to attend turn my attention to the, to the developing world. Peter, much of what you say is important but you didn't highlight the fundamental issue of delivery capacities in developing world government capacities. There is an issue of corruption I mean in my own country. God forbid we've had people stealing food parcels that were intended for victims of COVID-19. And so both those issues I wanted to pose to you and to second it but I wanted to also ask the second part of that question should we mobilize private sector capacities that do exist in those countries. The private sector has some logistical capacities to be mobilized for the public purpose of the delivery. So a two-part question what is the public sector inadequacies both corruption, but delivery, and then how do we mobilize the private sector logistical capacities in the delivery mechanisms. So around this and this time around I'm going to start with Martin Peter and then come to set Martin. Well, I would actually say I have the least to say on this because obviously I'm not in what I call developing countries and I did work on development many decades ago I never worked on health problems but my general reactions what you said is go something like this. A responsible government needs to find the most effective delivery mechanism possible. That's obvious. It needs to be part of a durable system. Ideally it needs to leave a legacy and which will be the best mechanism or mechanisms will I'm sure it seems to me vary by country will depend on the capacities of countries to do so. You mentioned I think the question to me specifically India. India has obviously a very large private sector and a fairly undeveloped government health system it's one of the weaknesses surprising me this is of India how little they spend on public health. So it may well be the case but I don't know enough that using the private sectors capacities to deliver vaccines might help. But I do think the absolute final point, looking at contrast with what I read is happening in the US with UK, which is, there are there tend to be quite significant internal equity problems, which are also politically very salient domestic equity problems if you don't have a national system in charge. And I think we have been helped in this case at least by the existence of our national health service. So I will I am a, I would need to know a lot about a country before I could say with confidence. Yeah, okay, let the private sector do a significant part of it. I'm the issue of public private I agree with Martin this is an all hands on deck moment. At the same time, I agree with point for it's a career has made, which is coven has really shown the importance of government. I mean, his point was actually Ronald Reagan was wrong when he said government is problem. So this is very important and there's a very interesting point to be had about the consequences going forward of debt and deficit spending as a result of the stimulus, and the potential role of social finance and innovative finance in in bridging that gap but I won't go there in detail now. So that's on the public and private, including impact investing in social finance on the issue of capacity to deliver let me just focus on vaccines. The public health facts is part of the access to covert tools accelerator which has four channels, diagnostics treatments vaccines and health systems. And now is a good time to say that you need all those things and please everybody continue the public health measures of physical distancing wearing masks and washing your hands and staying at home when you're sick and avoiding poorly ventilated indoor places. The pillar of health systems is where WHO and partners did extensive work with countries backstopping ministries of health to look at the detailed issues of supply chain of refrigeration chain, etc. So that type of work surveying preparedness and supplementing preparedness is was very much the case and very much done by the acting access to covert tools accelerator WHO and its partners. Most people don't realize that one of the key issues in WHO is 150 country offices, and incredible footprint of support to health ministries around the world so that's a narrow take on the capacity issues. On the corruption issues let me focus on the matter at hand which is counterfeit vaccines. We have seen some media reports. And I think there are some of the new digital tools digital innovation barcodes etc can be of great help. And you can believe that there's a very intensive effort on digital innovations around that, and around something we'll probably talk about later about vaccination of standards for certification of vaccination and, and so on so some of these digital tools I think can really help us with at least the counterfeit vaccine, and maybe counterfeit vaccine passport issues and I wanted to limit my answer narrowly to be Chris on the matter at hand vaccine equity on those latter two issues. Thank you. Okay, I agree with both Peter and Martin on what has been said, just I want to add that I think that a number of developing countries have a lot of experience in vaccine delivery actually, because we have been vaccinated against the mirad of different diseases and also a number of countries have also community health care system. I think they can do through that. There are also lessons to be learned we are watching also how the rest of the world is doing there are lessons I think we can learn from Israel, for example, Israel is I think that has mobilized a lot of this. I think they have done well in terms of vaccine rollouts there are lessons to be learned from there. The one major concern I have, which Peter touched is the refrigeration issues and vaccines needing minus 20 to minus 70 centigrade that could be a challenge but there are vaccines that are coming in the pipeline that that don't require that high, high or very low temperature refrigeration. And so that is the only concern I have I think the rest of the world, I think there is a lot enough experience Okay, so what this does is I'm going to direct more pointed because we don't have much time we have about 20 minutes I want to ask more pointed questions and then if colleagues want to come in. To you Peter, and forgive me I'm going to now start asking difficult questions and I'm going to put you in a bit of the limelight on this one. What do you think should happen with the surplus and holding of vaccines that are sitting in the developer in many parts. I mean the question that came here is about the UK but I mean the same can be said of Canada. And many, many other countries that have got three, four, five times it's a point that second made and I want to put you on. What is your view or the World Health Organization view on what Britain Canada and others were sitting on vaccines should they be distributing to who through what system through the what mechanism through covax or whatever I just want to get your thoughts on that. And somebody in a related question asked a question about how do we fund you've been struggling as who to get governments to fund it appropriately so you can deal with global health. Do you think this pandemic raises the issue of the financing of who and how that should be done. Thank you, Adam. So, just very personally, my wife and I had COVID a year ago. Thankfully, we had a mild case. I signed up for the vaccine about two months ago three months ago. I got an appointment faster than I thought I would, and I canceled it. And the reason I canceled it is I didn't think it was right this was about a month ago. We need to be getting vaccinated at a time when health workers were in the line of duty were risking their lives and not being vaccinated, for example in many African countries and I know full well that my vaccine will go to someone else in Switzerland, and not someone but I do think that these kind of reflective risks are possible. That's the first point. You know, having said that, I think what we would say is, it would not be wonderful to see low risk young people in rich countries, being vaccinated, when Harriet the midwife in Uganda is putting her life at risk, caring for people in the and not getting vaccinated. So that's an actual issue. It's like the expenditure part of the budget, not the budget part of the budget on the on the multiple vaccines. You know, many countries. Yes, they've ordered a lot of vaccines and they still have production and they still have scarcity. And I think the real metric on the actual side and I'm just being realistic is when you see low risk young people being vaccinated in some countries, when high risk health workers older people etc are not being at vaccinated in other countries. And we ask ourselves about those ethical those economic and those national security questions and then we come right back into the recursive loop of how do we get people to really understand that which takes us to your second question about funding. Very easy answer to that just put Martin on the phone. What an incredible case. I'm going to give the G seven and the G 20 Martin's phone number and let him go. I mean, to joking but what, maybe I'm not joking because what a compelling argument this is the best buy in the world. I mean you said fantastic value for money. And there personally I'll just say, I did WHO's first investment case. It's a return on investment based on some data from the National Academies before COVID of preparedness and it was 5.8 X. Well, damn it, it's not 5.8 X it's like 1000 X, or at least 100 X. And so, if there isn't a time that it's I'm just fully agreeing with Martin, but putting it in the context of our own investment case. If there if it's just so clear that the return on investment of pandemic preparedness in COVID, and in the future is enormous. And hopefully we'll learn that lesson and not fall into what my friend and colleague and really I think a wonderful global leader Tedros calls the cycle of panic and neglect, because that's the risk. Can I add one tiny point. I'm sorry. Yes, I was going to pose a question to you and then you can answer the tiny point and the question. The question that I was going to come to you Martin is you spoke about the importance of distributing productive capacity around the world. You spoke about that, and I just wanted to extrapolate on what you know how could we do this part of it is you said if IP is a problem then wait as you can wave it. Part of it is about investment but part of it it seems to me is about regulation and regulatory power you know if you want to access to. And I'm just using an example if you want to send a cell antiretroviral in South Africa, you need to create vaccine productive capacity in South Africa in exchange for the contract you write that into regulation in a way that allows that to happen. I wonder if you could speak a bit more about how we can create the impetus for productive distribution around the world because it seems to me we don't do that. We are always remaining victim to vaccine nationalist. This is really how many hours have we got to discuss this. Anyway, the point I was going to make, which I hope will stir things up a little I was failed last time. I think I'm going to make a defense of UK and US ordering policy. I suppose the argument they would make. I mean I know it's the argument they would make was that they didn't know when they were making all these orders which would succeed. By providing hard cash orders for lots of producers, they basically assumed a large part of the risk in the system to solve of governments. And of course the same was true in Germany and there are lots of, and as a result, an incredible number of new vaccines were created and believable number and produced and credibly quickly. And I'm not sure in realistically, it could have been done through GoVax, but this is surely the quickest way. So the real issue is not I think how we got to five or six times, but the real issue is what we do with it now. And the issue, the answer to that pretty clearly is Peter's given it is that from now on, as the vaccine program is going to be finished in the UK effectively by the summer, all the excess of vaccines have to go somewhere else. And we should be planning for that and that's part of the supply buildup that I stressed. Now you're the big point question you asked is how do we build up supply capacity. And here I think I just make any. There's a, there's a medium term problem which is the problem of COVID-19 over the next couple of years building this up. My view would be, but this is subject based on the conversations I've had, is that the simplest and quickest way of doing that is likely to be to build on capacity that already exists, which includes, of course, capacity in some very important developing countries. For example, has significant capacity, India of course has the biggest producer of vaccines in the world. And if I'm going to be asked how do we produce a hell of a lot more in the next year. I would have thought building capacity where there are lots of people who are familiar with it, where there's lots of know how in constructing this. There are enormous number of scientists experience in this is the way to go, because as I said the time is of the essence. There's a medium to long term problem and that's where I think the IP and other issues all rise. That's how I've seen them, which is, as you know, we need capacity to create produce vaccines across the world. And that involves, I think, not just the production capacity, though it's clearly part of generics. It's also I think to some extent the capacity to create them, but that may be longer term. The, there are a number of countries which already have substantial capacity which are large countries with very significant scientific capacities. I've mentioned them. I think the much to me and I believe this is perhaps a segment. I'm not going to be discussing cases, because there are so many countries involved it's so important is Africa. I can't imagine that you will want to have very substantial production capacity in every African country. Presumably, you will want to concentrate, because there are economies of scale here pretty clearly. And there are some questions that Africans will have to answer them for themselves and where they want this to go and how they coordinate it. In other regions, it's easier because there are obvious dominant producers already there, but I see that as a longer, not 10 year longer term, two or three year longer term question, but short term question is we just use everything we have now to maximize production and if I were going to talk about that I would go to SII and say, how do you triple your production. Tomorrow, that's going to be a bigger light and what that's more likely it seems to me to succeed them building from scratch all over the world. It's useful. Second, I want to come back and you can come back to some other things but what I want you to focus on is there's some debate that's emerging globally around vaccination passports and vaccination passports and how some people can get vaccinated get passports and then they can travel while other people can't if they don't have vaccination passports. Does this worry you? Does this worry you given the kind of class inequity, racial implications that can flow from this and how do you see that? Absolutely, it worries me. So it's another question of inequity. I saw two, three days ago now the new CDC guidance guidelines saying, okay, the people who have received now two doses of the vaccine, you can go together with vaccinated people, you can go and have, go to any restaurant indoors without any mask or anything, you can eat, you can socialize and so on. So it's already creating that. So yeah, it worries me. But back also to the vaccine supply, I think pledging countries pledging to COVAX money, billions of dollars or millions of dollars, millions, I think not billion, is not going to solve this problem because the supplies are not there. So COVAX gets money from rich countries, but then it goes around and competes with the donors, donor countries for the limited supply. So instead of giving until supplies are up and available, and instead of pledging a dollar, maybe they should donate the vaccines themselves to COVAX. And the other thing I think I would like to see is also I think Martin indicated that the UK US, they did not know when they were ordering, they were taking risk and so on. I would like to see them, they should disclose the agreements they signed with all these vaccine manufacturers. So why are they keeping it confidential also. So I would like to see that maybe. But I think at the end of the day, I absolutely agree with Martin that the way to really tackle this issue, the passport issue, this iniquity and so on is really to revamp production, to make a vaccine available for everybody who needs it. In a short period of time as possible. Otherwise, I think this is going to continue. I don't believe also that that. Okay, for example, UK gets vaccinated all its population by the summer and then it will release the others. What if then the vaccine is not valid after a year. So they have then to vaccinate their citizens again. So I don't believe that they would release this but I think let's just really find a way to increase the production system so that everybody has the vaccine that they need. Alright colleagues we're coming to the end but I wanted to give all of you the opportunity to kind of come back in a genetic sense you've heard the broader debates there's many other more specific questions that I could pose. There are questions that are about for instance, more modern, more new technology vaccines like Pfizer's and Moderna's play out in the medical distribution systems of low income countries. There are questions more specific to the US and the UK, Canada US. There's a question about the West Bank and Gaza and the Israeli government's responsibilities in that regard. There are a lot of different kinds of questions. I wanted to give you an open opportunity to come back and I must say, perhaps it's my South African this that shows it and reveals itself here. But I must say that I still think that one of the biggest dilemmas is how do we create and make it in the interest, the short term interest of politicians to act along the lines that you want. In the domestic pressure that they subjected under. They tend to act while hearing your case and accepting it. They think that it's better to just respond in the short term to the domestic political constituents, rather than the medium and more long term solutions to resolving this and it seems to me that that dilemma remains in this conversation. Let me go and come back to Peter and then second it and then Martin as your final remarks. Sure. I just want underscore something second that said earlier. This pandemic has turned the north south issues on their hood. There are some so called developing countries that have done extremely well because of their muscle memory that could teach so called developed countries a thing or two about pandemic preparedness and response. By the way, our previous measures of capacity laboratory capacity, etc, static measures like that are not very good predictors of cumulative mortality. What is are the dynamic measures, and the best predictor actually is trust in government. So it's just reinforcing something that second it was after, but I want to leave with three messages. And two of them are repeats leadership is the ultimate vaccine against pandemics and the conjoint global challenges of climate racism, economic inequality. Number two, to the young people and to everybody listening equity is in your hands, equity is in your hands, you can solve this problem in the ways we've discussed. Number three is one I haven't mentioned before but I think a key lesson of the pandemic is character matters. You know the one thing the pandemic has really revealed is how much character really matters. And I say all those things. I'm not the risk of Martin saying I'm a soft mushy idealist, but I also fully endorse all the hard headed reality of economics and the political issues that were discussed before that character matters, and maybe just enclosing one thing that everybody can do is to be kind. And I think that that's a message that I would have thought a year or two ago was. A little bit mushy. But I, I think it's a very, very serious message actually after what we've all been through. Thank you very much Adam and second that Martin is really privileged to be with you all and with everybody watching. Thank you second it. Thank you. Thank you so much. I think I want to two points here. One is that investment is really important investment in early surveillance system. There are a lot of pathogens, whatever comes in and countries to consider this as a national security issue. This is a major national security. Put a budget in their defense, the defense budget. Along this, I think also for particularly for developing countries investment in scientific capacity both human capacity and infrastructure capacity. This is really important. And, as I said earlier, this is not going to be the last pandemic we'll ever see. So, this is really, really important for countries to really focus on this and put a lot of effort in investment. Thank you. Thank you Martin. I think I'm going inevitably going to be reduced to repetition. When I complained once to my editor, my first editor 33 years ago that we were repeating something we said a week ago before. I wrote a week before he said, Oh, that doesn't matter. Repetition is the essence of journalism. So I'm going to, I'm not going to feel too guilty. But I think there are four big things that I would stress. One, I think Peter has cited for each point and I've made this too. We have been given an incredibly powerful lesson that the quality of government matters. And one of the big differences and you're absolutely right, it wasn't between developing and developed countries so called that governments that knew that had an idea what they were trying to do and were prepared to act decisively did well. Those that didn't, didn't. The second thing we learned, which is a really profound point again, not really a north south distinction or whatever, is that trust matters and trust is not just vertical it's also horizontal societies in which people trust one another, and trust their government and identify it with did better. We've been given quite a big lesson about the fundamentals of a working society. The third point I'd like to stress what both Peter and second it have said, in my being hard headed on economics I didn't wish to imply this was only about economics. I think the pandemic has turned and I could give a numerous things to be quite simply, you know, I made this point in a quotation in a debate I had. This state spends about 6% of GDP. I don't know the exact figure, maybe five on defense aircraft carriers. God knows a whole slew of stuff. None of which was relevant, not a sue of it to the biggest security threat they face since the Second World War, an event that has killed more as many more people than in the Second World War admittedly different people. We have been told now brutally, what was prior to that largely theoretical, except again a second mentioned in quite a few countries in the developing world. Health is a national security par excellence and once you think that way, you suddenly realize the budgets are completely different, because everybody spends much more on security issues. So if you don't spend on that, you're completely brain dead. Larry Summers has estimated that the cost of the United States of the whole thing will be 75% of a year's GDP. And next to that, any spending is nothing. And the final point, surely we have been taught that having working global institutions of working global cooperation isn't some sort of fancy. Let's be realistic. Let's all be happy together. It's an absolute not essential requirement of operating in a world in which most of the big threats we face are in fact global and the health pandemic. And as I mentioned before, has pointed out what the climate pandemic climate climate threat challenge is going to grow that there are global institutions for very, very practical reasons and those are the four points I would conclude with. I think that this is a useful part place to conclude if I if I can summarize what I'm hearing. Five big issues come out one is leadership. Peter makes this point in all of you did to his trust. You know if you can have the best technical leadership but if you don't have trust in government in in leadership figures that that thing doesn't it. Third is agency of citizens and particularly young people. Peter makes this point and I think that that's absolutely right. What is the diversification of the productive capacity, which came out in so many ways. And the first is building institutional capacity it's a point that Martin ended with but I want to re underscore because building institutional capacity is not simply the rhetoric of it. I come from a sector where University Vice Chancellor's have been talking for 30 years about how they're building equitable partnerships. And frankly what we've really done is weakened institutional capacity in many parts of the developing world under the pretext of solidarity and equity. We really need to become kind of pragmatic about what we really doing and being seriously honest, because if we don't take institutional capacity transnational transcontinental institutional capacity, seriously, we will not survive as a human species in the next 200 years. This is the challenge of our time. That is what I think this lecture has been really fantastic about it's something we're going to continue to be be bringing us so as in the conversations that need to happen. And I really want to thank Peter seconded and Martin for really wonderful conversation. Thank you to all of the colleagues who've been here and participate in this. This has been a really interesting. Interesting conversation. And I thank you all. May I ask you all to please keep safe social distancing where your masks and care for your fellow human being. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you so much.