 Good morning. I'm going to try to be brief. I know everyone's anxious to get their coffee break, and I'm going to try to build on what Katherine and Victor just said. I'm going to try to leave us with a little bit about what can we do? What is happening to promote health equity in cities, both in the global north and south? And I want to give some examples from work that we're doing collaboratively at Berkeley, University of California Berkeley, with NGO and local government partners. And basically make the case, much of what you've heard already, and I'll go through this very quickly, that place really matters, that intracity comparisons are in fact more important in my view than comparing across cities, that institutions matter, and I'll say more about that, and particularly urban planning, and the practice of health impact assessment is one particular institution that I think holds some promise, and that new science really matters, that in fact we can't continue the same kind of epidemiology, the same kind of urban analyses that we are doing to get at the health equity problems where we're hearing all about, and I'll give some quick examples from San Francisco. This is much of a review of what you've already heard this morning, that urban living can be beneficial to health, but it depends on where you live and how that city is governed. And that when we talk about health in cities, that that's not about healthy cities, I would argue. Health in cities really is a discourse and a practice of continuing to address health care and specific diseases, not focused on both assets and solutions, and really continues to focus in a very traditional public health way on one disease, one exposure and changing one behavior, but not the cumulative burdens and vulnerabilities that many of the communities you've heard about already today face, and we can't continue to treat people and send them back into the living and working conditions that made them sick in the first place. I just wanna quickly give you a definition of what I mean by health equity. Public health has done a great job, Ricky talked earlier, 150, 200 years of documenting health inequities, problems, and we hear more and more about that and that keeps epidemiologists employed. But health equity, what do we really mean by that as much more difficult concept culturally, politically, needs to be culturally and politically contextualized, but really focused on broad societal efforts to address avoidable inequalities and focusing on equaling the conditions to promote health, particularly for groups that are currently disadvantaged. And I'm gonna argue that we need to rethink urban governance around health equity and borrowing from the World Health Organization definition of governance, of course, is not just government, but the norms, routines, institutions and evidence base back to science of collective action and includes at least, I would argue, these seven things, identifying and framing new policy issues, generating new standards of evidence, constituting some social actors as experts and others as not part of that discourse. Dealing with the chronic really uncertainty that we face in very dynamic cities, issues of public accountability and transparency, implementation, and learning. Key pieces in a very dynamic urban environment, how do we learn and adjust as new information and new actors emerge? A couple of examples, one from our work here in the San Francisco Bay Area, this is around nine million people focused on intra-urban health inequities in the cities of San Francisco, Richmond and Oakland, California. Fairly, obviously wealthy by global standards, but a lot of urban divestment and health inequities. Just to review some of these data, let's see how this pointer, I'm not sure how this works, but basically what we're seeing here is neighborhood poverty and infant mortality. So the higher the neighborhood poverty group, basically in places, the higher their mortality, and this is disaggregated by ethnicity with African Americans facing the greatest burden. We have a 15 year difference in life expectancy in neighborhoods just a few kilometers apart, even in the wealthy San Francisco Bay Area. This is the longitudinal data of health inequities by race and ethnicity in the same region, and we can see things are getting worse, not better, in terms of the growing inequalities in gap. This is life expectancy between whites and African Americans between 1960 and 2005, and the gap is increasing. And again, we see this trend in cities around the world, and if we look across different scales, people say, well, if you just look at neighborhood, just look at city, just look at nation, we see the same trend, no matter the scale, the higher the poverty rate in a place, the higher the mortality. So what is a hypothesis that we might think about? Instead of focusing on one disease, focus on cumulative disadvantage, and one is the stress sort of cumulative weathering hypothesis that multiple burdens on populations are driving these inequities. So to focus just on one disease really won't get us there, and the idea goes like this, that under normal circumstances, in a stressful situation, you have a hormonal response cortisol, an adrenaline, and that hormonal release kind of shuts off the stress and you recover. But under conditions of chronic and constant stress, in many impoverished neighborhoods around the world, that hormonal release doesn't shut off and continues. And then we see, particularly in the non-infectious disease, the impacts of this kind of constant weathering on the body, and it's likely impact on many of the epidemic and chronic diseases. So what are we doing? We've been, the work in the Bay Area has really been driven by community-based organizations in partnership and pressuring local government and universities to get involved. Land use issues, but also non-health policies, policies around living wages, policies around climate planning, have led us to engage in a practice of health impact assessment, which is really an analytic tool and a process of looking at the positive and negative impacts of non-health, meaning non-health service policies. We've documented in different development projects the role of stress and disruption to people's families, disruption of social networks, noise, environmental impacts, and particularly important is racial, residential segregation and the perpetuation of that in this region. Some of the impacts have been redesigning land use projects, new policies around inclusionary housing, affordable housing, development fees, impact fees to ensure that health beneficial infrastructure is built and maintained, and new mitigation for air quality issues near roadways. One of the most important things we've done is to develop indicators to track over time. This is one example that's available on the web, a healthy development measurement tool that's being widely used, which we've done mapping of inequalities and then overlaying these to cumulative disadvantage, which is the map you see here on the right. Just quickly, the work that we're doing in Nairobi I think complements the idea of the importance of governance. And this is in the Mathare informal settlement, not too far from where Catherine and her work is happening. And this work again is really driven by community-based organizations who do microsavings that organize residents, they do household surveys and mapping to see what are the living conditions under which people are faced and how do we then prioritize planning and decision-making in a collaborative way. Just two quick examples. This is some of our mapping from the Mathare informal settlement of the people per functioning water point. And you can see the great inequalities here. 250 would be the maximum sphere standards and we have up to 2,000 in some of the villages of this informal settlement, which is approximately 150,000 people. What we've done is to try to address that issue, but at the same time develop a long-term planning process. And this is one of our successful interventions of household-level water connections in one of these settlements, which we think is one of the first in Nairobi to have a household-level water connection. Toilets are also obviously a big issue. This is the same mapping of public toilets and the vast inequalities here of the sphere standards and the inequalities that people face. And of course, unsafe toilets. This is a big issue for us because we're in a fight with the World Bank that wants to continue to fund communal-level toilets. Amnesty International, many of you have probably saw this report that came out about inequalities in health and violence and rape linked to community facilities that are not well-lit, that are unsafe for women, particularly at night, perpetuating sexual violence and other health inequalities. We really want to look relationally at our work and not just at one disease or at one risk factor at a time. So really to conclude policy really matters. We need to think about policy and cumulative disadvantage. We need to rethink institutions to create change. Urban planning matters, but it doesn't have actually a very good history of promoting health equity. And we need to rethink the science of how we co-produce evidence and monitor and evaluate as we go. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Oh.