 I would like to invite all speakers to the front and we will open the floor for Q&A. And I would like to take maybe a few questions and then have the speakers the chance to respond. Hello, my name is Pekka Reynicka and I am representing the Finnish Red Cross. First is probably more a comment, goes to Mr. Koniks. The International Committee of the Red Cross has been working on this, as you said, quite a lot also. And one of the most disturbing outcomes of what the information has been gathered by the ICRC in that in terms of absolute figures of attacks against healthcare, it's actually different actors from governments who are responsible for most of these attacks. Lehmann could probably assume that it's informal armed groups who are doing this, but instead it's actually government agencies, armies and security forces which are responsible for most of these attacks. This is probably an unfair question, but I mean, the thing that it would be fair for organizations like the WHO maybe to put up a Hall of Shame which would list the governments who are actually engaged in these kinds of activities. Probably not because they are your directors in a way, but anyway. The actual question is actually for Professor Kunde. The Red Cross was very active when the Ebola was spreading in West Africa. And my understanding is that our people are actually saying now that the virus itself, even if the epidemic is over in a sense, is probably going to be a remaining endemic in West Africa. And we are going to be probably seeing another outbreak of one or the other kind in the future. Do you think that the West African countries are well prepared now for that eventuality? I think we can take a few questions. Yes, I can probably continue from my ex-colleague and my name is Linda Karvenen. I work now for MSF, I'm the project manager in Finland. I want to also take up on a very interesting presentation on the dangers of healthcare workers. I think we agree with much of what you said, but I'd like to ask how do you see that as relation to what was said. ICRC is doing this, MSF is analyzing its own data. And I think everybody agrees we need the data to understand better why this is happening. And maybe a question in the data that you have now. Have you already analyzed that you said healthcare facilities, but were there differences of who were the providers? Because today we also have different healthcare providers. We have the Ministry, we have NGOs, we have even privates. So do you see any data or trends in this? And then you talked a lot about advocacy, which I agree, but I think advocating to the ones that agree with us is maybe not what we need to do. We need to talk to those who are responsible for those attacks. And that's governments, but that's also other armed groups. So how are you seeing that? Because you said you will talk to ministers of health, but maybe it's ministers of defense you should be talking to. Thank you. Maybe one more question. Hi, I'm Christine from University of Denver. So I'm a student of public health and my question could be quite naive, but I do have a couple questions for each of the speaker. With Rudy, I'm really curious who are those brave men and women who are volunteering to be health workers in these very dangerous zone. I wonder how the WHO are recruiting them and what kind of compensation are being provided in order to compensate for the sort of danger that they are experiencing every day. And then with the issue of measurement taken to secure the health facilities and the health worker themselves, I wonder what has been done on the ground floor to protect these facility and people. I'm thinking about security or some sort of protected residential area where they leave or it just kind of sparked to me that it seems like they need to be protected on the ground somehow and whether or not there has been measured on to do so. With Jules Lynn, I really enjoy your talk. I learned so much about these relationships between fertility and crisis. But I really wonder if it is indeed, if you're correct that there's this correlation between women who was born in the war zone, ended up getting married earlier to kind of provide themselves with more resilience in their life. It seems like a difficult solution. How do you provide more education for women at the time of war? I wonder if you have been thinking further into potential policies that could potentially be feasible in the time of a crisis or in a crisis country as such. It seems to be a difficult scenario to deal with. But it's really informative to know that this is the case. I never thought of it that way. For Condi, I was in the U.S. at the time that Ebola broke out and there was a lot of discussion and fear. And I remember every day there's a different organization trying to get our money. It's just like donate because we want to stop this and it seems to be really important. But now that we've gone through it somewhat, I wonder when you are on the ground at the time when the first crisis hit, did you get enough aid, financial aid, financial support, technical assistance on the ground what did happen because we're leaving far away and we feel like the only thing we could really do is to provide financial support. But I wonder that you get enough at the time you really needed. And then I have a final question for you. At the time of the crisis when the first crisis hit and you're at the peak of it, what are some of the most challenging factors that are contributing to the crisis at the time? If you were just to name one, two or three, what was the most difficult thing that you have to deal with in that kind of emergency situation? Thank you. Thank you. Perhaps, Rudi, could you start? Thank you very much. Thank you for the questions. I'll do to answer the question from the Finnish Red Cross gentleman. Our data confirmed that 53% of the tax were by state actors, actually 30% by non-state actors and as a number where it's not known. So state actors, they are perpetrators. And we discuss a lot with the ICRC who of course has the direct link to talk to the military and this is one of the things where we have to make sure that the police military know about it. The problem is with the non-state actors because we do not have direct link to them and today a number of the non-state actors, it seems like the things that we take for granted like the respect for the Geneva Conventions are not accepted anymore as a basis for discussion. So that makes it a little bit extra complicated. But these are the data that we have. Should we do name and shame? Of course, it's very difficult for a member state organization like the World Health Organization to do name and shame. But Margaret Cham is not beyond that. We have a lot of faith in her. She will probably not name a president or a minister by name but she's actually quite vocal. I can assure you, for example, in the Bachmein case, she was quite vocal with the minister. But these are quiet things and since you're from the Red Cross, you know that quiet diplomacy does work. Not all the time, but it makes progress. So yes, we are involved in that also. On the question from MSF, who were the providers? We did not look at that in our data and this is one of the things we will have to look into it. But in general, who are the ones bearing the brunt of the attacks? It's the local healthcare providers, the local staff. And we hear quite often we never hear about that because if somebody from Central African Republic up-country gets attacked, we don't hear about it. When somebody from an MSF hospital gets attacked, we do hear about it. So that's a good thing. We should hear about it. But we would like to extend that. We should also hear about the local doctors in Yemen or in Libya that get attacked. The trends are a bit skewed because how the attacks happen actually in Syria. Syria is the outline. And somebody was asking another day, is it going up or down? Actually, the data do not allow us to confirm that the trend is up. And in Geneva with MSF, we have been discussing that MSF has come to the same conclusion. But Syria skews the data so far that overall, even that, it's not up. But there's a problem there. But we need to do better advocacy and documenting that we have in the UN there is a monitoring and reporting mechanism that actually documents and reports to the Secretary General with documentation that actually stands up in court in the hate, maybe 10 years from now. That's a mechanism that does exist. And every dictator, every non-state actor that does not respect international humanitarian law should think that 10 years from now you may contemplate these acts when you're sitting in the hate in a nice place but locked up place. So we argue that people have to be accountable. Armed groups, we do discuss with armed groups to a certain extent. And when we did polio vaccinations in Syria, yes, if you work in hell once around you have to talk to the devil. So that is not beyond us. But it's not for the mutual need, it's not the natural kind of problem. And we discussed this quite a lot with the ICRC and with MSF in Geneva and how do we deal with that today? Because things seem to be more complicated. Your question on who volunteers, it's not the service providers. It is not who they told us not to touch this. It was told in no uncertain terms. Don't touch this. We didn't. Right. So the people who do provide the services are the national healthcare workers. Quite often it's the humanitarian healthcare workers. And here again MSF is at the forefront of it. National Red Cross people are at the forefront of it. Humanitarian aid workers in general are there. But the majority, the majority of the people, like in Afghanistan, they are Afghans. They are Iraqi. It's not the international. We always hear about it when some international healthcare worker gets attacked. So even today there are still people going out and we have lots of people going out and the international community has still a lot of people going out because people work with their heart. We want to help people. We think it's unacceptable that people have to suffer from the consequences of war and we are lucky that there are still a lot of people. But today, yes, more and more people pay the highest price for that. And that's the sad thing, that we want to stop. What can we do about it? With the ICIC we were part of the healthcare endanger project that looked at recommendations, physical sort of protection of hospitals. And there is a whole list of recommendations that has come out. Yes, putting in barriers. But then somebody will say, well, it makes somebody who needs acute care your ambulance takes the more time to actually get at the hospital. So everything has advantages and disadvantages. But the report is also online on the ICIC website. There's a number of things that can be done all in all, not 100% satisfactory. So we're still looking to do this more. As a matter of fact, Monday when I get back to Geneva, we have with MSF, with ICIC and ourselves, we have a meeting on exactly that. How can we make hospitals safer? Based on the recommendations that we came out with, we want to go one step further. So we are working on that. We don't have the perfect solution, and that's why things are still happening. And if you have the solution, come and see us. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you so much. First of all, let me congratulate very hard our partner. Starting with Red Cross for the fantastic work you've done on the field. You know, I was very, very disappointed when we saw the number of deaths. And death was a very big issue, have to manage death. And Red Cross in Guinea, including the Federation of International Red Cross, did a very good job over that. Now, we know for sure that this is not the end of the game. We are still on a position to strengthen surveillance. And one week ago, we suspected cases in the region where the epidemic started. A man came and suddenly died on the street with vomiting in the area. And the person had been sent to the health facility, and there were rapid tests all over there for Ebola. That rapid test was positive, but need confirmation. The patient with an ambulance, special ambulance with Red Cross, has been sent to Zarekore where the PCR machine was. And the PCR machine tested, the sample was negative. But the end of the story is that was an occasion to see if you are ready or not. But we are aware that, as you said, the epidemic can occur again because the virus is circulating. And we never know when it can occur again. And we are very cautious after the interruption of the transmission. We spent three months for follow-up strengthening surveillance according to WHO recommendation for all these countries. And we are very aware on that situation that the reason, the coordination of the response is still transforming to the agency of national security health issue. In the long duration of perspective. Financial aid and support on the ground. You can say that at the beginning there was not too much found. And people was very weak support. Fortunately MSF was around and Red Cross was around. And a lot of WHO, including CDC team, they start with a few money. But the big issue was with the awareness and with the advocacy. And for these three countries and the magnitude of the epidemics, the international community were in the position to raise a lot of money. But the people and the government was thinking that all this money will go into the treasury. But unfortunately that was not the case because people were not trusting the government. And all the support was spent through NGO, international community. And now the problem how to meet the need and the strategy. That was a little bit difficult to meet the view, the perspective of an NGO among the international institution versus the mean and the priority of the government. But at the end of the day we find a consensus how to spend money. And because at the end a lot of partners had a lot of money not spent. And they were pushing to spend money. And you know how that can be also. What is the much challenging factor for us is the community engagement as well as the engagement of the authority. And that was a very key issue including mobilization, communication and poverty and ignorance because people was thinking about a lot of rumor and the rumor on the field make the strategy very difficult to implement. In addition also we saw that case management, death management and mobility was also very challenging because we are in the condition you never know who is who and the field. And people was afraid to frequent the health facility, the public health facility. They preferred to go to the private, small private sector. And a lot of health workers were infected in the non-official and private sector out of the public sector also. That was a very challenging situation also. But what made the magnitude of the spread out of the epidemic honestly was the mobility and the migration. Mobility of the body, mobility of the cases, mobility of also the contacts. Could you imagine some people have imagined to have a body, the person body in the car because they want the burial ceremony at their village. And the body was like a soldier at the back of the car trying to transport him on the village. All this was a very dangerous situation. But anyway I think at the end we managed to have all the situation under control. Thank you. Thank you for your question and thank you to Rudy and Mandy for such immediate and urgent issues and balancing with my very long-term response to crisis. So I think the question to me was, so I came up with this policy suggestion that maybe early childbearing isn't the best pathway to resilience and other things such as education could be and how do we implement that in a time of war. Well when I did the study we're looking at war at age zero and so the war doesn't necessarily continue on. So we may be looking at places where the war discontinues and although the return to normal doesn't happen immediately. In my sample I did have girls who were exposed to war but then did go on to receive a high school education. But I think more broadly your question is about implementation and how do we implement pathways to resilience, pathways to empowerment in volatile areas. And that's really the work that I'm going to do in Burundi of how do we bring tools of empowerment to the vulnerable populations as well. And so maybe these pathways are different for the vulnerable populations than they are for the average population. So I'll come back in two, three years and tell you the answer. That big policy question of do we need to address the vulnerable in different ways than we address the average population or is it just a matter of pulling the vulnerable into our average programs. So to be continued. Thank you. Thank you. Next round Rachel. Hi, I'm Rachel Gisselquist and I'm here at UNU wider. I'm a research fellow. I'm a political scientist and I work on issues among other things of state fragility and governance. So that's sort of where I'm coming from. But thank you very much for three such interesting presentations and I've learned a lot in listening to you. I guess I have one question for each of you. For Rudy, I'm wondering if you can tell us more about the motivations for the attacks. One, if you've collected data on this, at least on the stated motivations or the aims or what you think the aims might be. Because I think that certainly has bearing on how you would prevent them, right? So if the objective is to bring attention to the cause versus it's an expression of frustration or something like this, then you would have different policy responses. So I'm wondering if you could tell us a bit more about motivations. And I guess related to that, you mentioned that you're looking at attacks in countries in conflict and you find these attacks on health care workers in 19 or 17 countries. So what about the countries where we don't have these attacks? Is there something different about situations where you do see attacks on health care workers versus where you don't? And can we tease out something about what type of policy responses might work better or worse based on that? For Jocelyn, I found it really, really compelling to think... Well, the framework that you use to think about the agency of the woman and the mother. So I sort of don't want to ask the question, but I will. What about the other side? So how do you sort of rule out that it's not the sexual partner's behavior and coercion or motivations that are driving the early childbearing that you're finding? And then for Mandy, I wanted to... In a way, it ties in with my question to Rudy. And I think one of the things that's very striking about the Ebola response and it certainly comes out in your comments about the Ebola response in Guinea is the community distressed of health care workers including attacks on health care workers. And I wonder how do you address this? And how do you think about addressing this over the long term in terms of thinking about future health care crises? Any other questions? I'll just add my questions for myself. And the question for Jocelyn was asked by Rachel, but I have a question for Rudy and Kade. Rudy, so I think the data that you have presented are large, sadly large. But I think, and they understand that it's very hard to collect them. And I think it's impressive that you have managed to do that in these conflict situations. But perhaps where I would like to know your thoughts on what are the research or analytical input that maybe the researchers could provide in looking at those data and saying this is just the number of attacks in people directly affected. But what is the larger effect on the health system? And if the health workers are attacked, some of the routine health care such as vaccinations or taking care of mothers, antenatal care delivery, that doesn't function. And so it has a whole lot larger implication than just the numbers that you presented. And could that be considered part of the advocacy, like evidence-based advocacy? And what are your thoughts on how to go about that? And I think you'll be very informative for us researchers to know your thoughts on this. And then, Kader, I think the Ebola vaccination is really fascinating in a way that we've never seen such international collaboration between international organizations and countries and agencies all coming together to really speed up the development of the vaccine. And usually it takes five to ten years more to develop a vaccine. And in this case, I understand that they're aiming for two to three years. And I think it's a very exciting model, but is that replicable for other diseases in epidemics that could happen in the future? I mean, I don't know if something like that could be replicated in the future because it just sounds like there was immense resources required, a lot of energy and a lot of work from people like you in the country on this and also a lot of risk trying to generate the data and conducting the phase three trial. So I would like to know your thoughts on this. Thank you. Give it a go. Thanks, Rachel, for that question. The motivation at the moment, what we collect is, is it intentional or it's not intentional? That's what we collect. That's what we have data on. We would like to know why do people attack healthcare workers and healthcare facilities? And I have my own theory about that because today the provision of healthcare through the international community is actually fairly effective. It's a good thing. It helps people. It gives people hope. It reassures people. So it is something that belligerents take into account. Can we take that away? The fact that MSF comes in and brings hope to people and provides effective healthcare services. We think that's one effect. The demoralizing effect on taking out hospitals or the only place where people can go and they need an operation, it's actually a weapon of war. Not an allowed weapon of war, but that's the theory. And I think when you were looking for research questions, that's one good research. Why do people do this? So we have some theories about that. What about the countries where there are no attacks? Well, most of the attacks they happen in a fairly limited number of countries and it's the usual suspects. It's Syria. It's Iraq. It's Afghanistan. It's Central African Republic. It's South Sudan. These represent most of the attacks. There are also countries where it went to zero. Colombia was one of that. And in Colombia, as you know, there's a peace process going on. People talk to each other. They have in Colombia a project with the Red Cross for many years on the mission medica, where they use negotiation and a specific sign to ensure that people who are in the medical mission are known and respected. It's a bit of an unusual case, but it did seem to work in Colombia. And last year we didn't see any attacks reported. Maybe we have to look at it, but it's a limited number of countries where these things happen in conflict. What else should we investigate? Well, what we would like to demonstrate at some point is can we attribute deaths to an attack on healthcare workers? And that data, we have, again, our ideas, but we have never documented with data that hospitals so-and-so was taken out. And as a direct result, so many children died because no C-sections available. If you take out a kidney dialysis center, people who depend on that, they die. I mean, there's no three ways about it. Now, usually it's much more complicated than that. But if the only healthcare center that provides, let's say, tertiary care like in Kunduz is taken out, we think that we can see a measurable effect, but we have never measured that. So that's a good research question. And maybe we have to take that up, but you are wider. What else can we do? What are coping mechanisms? What are coping mechanisms of the healthcare system? And what are coping mechanisms of people? Because people have their ways of dealing with these questions. Now, if we want to make recommendations that make sense, then it would be good for us to study what are the mechanisms that work, what are the mechanisms that do not work. And we know from Jocelyn that it's not what you think it is. It's not always what if you go and study, it's not always clear cut. So we may have to investigate this more in detail and then come up with recommendations that will improve the lives of people or at least help them to survive better. Because after all, if we are unable to make a real difference in the real lives of real people, then for us it doesn't make sense. We really have to make sure that we put the victims of these attacks at the forefront, and our role is to make sure that we provide better healthcare. And that's why we have to be all in this. Thanks. Okay, the first question is how we address the problem with our health worker. For us, the issue was not only the health worker. And if you are taking care of having a good case management, it's not only a problem of healthcare. We saw a lot of involvement of the voluntary from Red Cross. They are working very hard in front line. And the reason we think that the good definition is to be the frontline workers because it's beyond of nurses and doctors. And that is a very important thing to consider. How we address that? The first thing that when the outbreak occurred, it was only the concern of the staff working in the treatment center with MSF, with Red Cross. And the other practitioner, including nurses, doctor, was doing another thing. It's like it's not a national emergency. And most of them have been infected out of this treatment center. Why? Because in that context, people didn't take care of the basic things to protect themselves. The first thing, how to wash their hands with soap or with chlorine. And we started developing the IPC, infection prevention, control everywhere. And to sanitize people, this is a very serious thing. You are taking care of all the patients. We never know who is who. And you are threatening this patient. You need to protect yourself. And the concern with these workers, there is no clean water at the hospital. If you wait for the government to install all these tap water, you will die. And you need to protect yourself beyond all these situations. And people gradually understood that it is a very critical and crucial thing and they need to protect themselves. In addition, also, we put in place with French cooperation, Army, a special hospitalization ward to take care of all the healthcare and frontline workers just in terms of equity because they are more exposed. If something wrong occurs, there is a response about that also. What we made is to train and improve the capacity building of all these practitioners on the field, on frontline, and decentralizing the treatment center. At the beginning, there was only for the country two treatment centers. And we pushed to have more than two and to have a lot of case management centers in the field with very well trained and keep and protect the people on that. And in an emergency context, the ethical committee agreed that the healthcare worker can benefit from vaccination also. Even if the vaccine was not licensed, but in an emergency context, it was allowed to vaccinate all the people and expose in the field also. Roughly, that is what we did to protect healthcare worker and frontline worker. Coming to yoga, comment and question, you are right. I was involved when I was in WHO in Geneva to develop a meningococcal A conjugate vaccine because that was the spread in cause with the huge epidemics. That took with PAF and WHO testing, developing, introducing vaccine 15 years. That's longer, but we had an experience saying, okay, we can make affordable vaccine that can be introduced in Sub-Saharan Africa. But we are lucky that there was a lot of partnership including the contribution of transfer of technology, for example. But I think if for Ebola, we are lucky that within the coordination of the leadership of WHO, we had such kind of meeting, putting people together and discussing how are we going to deal. I couldn't say that was not some problem because there was a lot of competition. What we saw is there was not a lot of multi-centric consideration having the same protocol in some country and having a combination of drug also. That was a very difficult thing to manage. But at the end of the day, we can say that there was a very strong collaboration among all the partners including clinical trial designer, including also the ATCs, the regulator, including also manufacturer, so willing to contribute and to see the way we can manufacture a vaccine. And also regulator, we saw MIA in Europe and FDA people willing to really support country. And there was a political issue also. We held in Conakry a big meeting how to make a Ebola vaccine and all these emergency vaccines available and affordable for African countries. That was a very interesting meeting also to make awareness and advocacy toward a good vaccine to be used in the African context. Now, I think we for Ebola vaccine we are lucky also because when Ebola started in Yambuku and Kikwit also, there was a non-human primate study run and we get a lot of data and some vaccine was advanced at human stage of vaccine but there was not political commitment and they say you can stop here because there was a lot of issue of bioterrorism and also bare security. But when the epidemic occurred, there was already some data and we build on that to save some time and to make shortcuts and to have a vaccine ready. And also I think during this partnership and the regulator involvement, they saw a way not to jeopardize the process of the manifest of the developing vaccine but to conduct the phase one or phase two in parallel that make a shortcut to develop vaccine also because if you have a phase one, you need just to test the vaccine in a couple of volunteers and phase two you can move to 100, 200 and 500 and the way to make that kind of option make a shortcut. But when people went to phase one, phase two, finally it was difficult to test the vaccine in phase three during the epidemics and because Guinea was one of the last countries to enter up the epidemic, we had the reason we could be able to test the vaccine during the epidemic. Roughly that is the chance but I think we learned a lot. For example, for Zika vaccine, I think it's very well developed and advanced and we had also some problems in the pipeline beyond the hemorrhagic fever vaccine but there is some other vaccine that can impact the development on less insurance of vaccine. We can say also a country like Guinea we were very open to test the vaccine because it was not easy task to test the vaccine because in Geneva people in our delegation say Guinea don't want to be guinea pig for this vaccine. You see it's not at each every step it was a very crucial step and to see how to deal with all this business but at the end of the day I think we can be able to test the vaccine by chance, by consensus, by awareness, by advocacy and to put money on the basket also because for example we had a strong partnership between Norway, between WHO, MSF, Canada, welcome trust, you see such kind of things push together and to get a strong vaccine. Maybe we are lucky also to have a kind of opportunity to test such number of vaccine and partner. Thank you. And finally, Jocelyn, thank you. Yeah, my question is about sexual violence and maybe pregnancy resulting from sexual violence. So on the analytic level I just got rid of that issue just by making it a life course study. So it was only exposure to war at age zero and then we control for exposure at age three and at age seven and then if there was any exposure after the age of 12 we got rid of those girls from the sample. But that doesn't eliminate just because I eliminate it from my sample doesn't mean the issue of sexual violence in times of crisis is eliminated. So this is actually one of the projects that I'm pursuing at the moment with Pathfinder and going into refugee camps in Burundi and DRC and seeing whether or not women are using, see if there's an elevated fertility rate in the camps and if this is a result of building resilience or by sexual violence and because I follow this issue that there have been a few reports in the BBC of women saying that they feel bad that they have children while they're in the camps but they're glad because their child brings them comfort. And so when I read this in the BBC news I'm thinking okay there is not just this life course effect of fertility but a contemporaneous one of the child bringing comfort and possibly resilience but we cannot ignore these acts of sexual violence that also occur in the camps. So that's what we want to do in the study with Pathfinder going into the camps in DRC and Burundi and seeing what is the balance here, how are women perceiving fertility within the camp context. So that will be another great mixed methods process. So thank you for the clarifying question. Sorry, my question was also about how you framed the resilience and so the woman becoming mother early on, how do we know that it was by choice? So I don't know, well that would be balanced between the treatment and control group. So because I get rid of the cases of war at the time of childbearing so above the age of 12 so both the treatment and control group girls are living in peacetime from the age of 12 and up. And so hopefully then there's balance and so there's balance between meaning that the treatment and control group both have equal chance of becoming pregnant due to sexual violence. And so in the treatment group any extra fertility is going to be attributed to this resilience channel. Thank you for the clarification. Thanks. Okay, so I think it's 6.30 and thank you very much. One last question. Is it one question? Yes. Sorry, one final. Hello, I'm Annepa and I'm from the UN Youth of Finland and I'm also a paramedic student so I'm asking about the attacks that happen on healthcare workers. My question is since I was planning on going someday outside of Finland to work but now it seems like I'm going to die since the statistics were really drastic if in two years 1,000 people die in these specific countries and then 1,500 people get injured and you were talking about the five A's and the T-shirts and I can take one if it helps and go to talk to the health minister of Finland if it helps but I was asking what are you doing currently in order to seriously help the ones who are there? Is there some things done to make them be more safe because the five A's don't help when somebody shots you to the head or something else. Is there something done or ready to help them? Right. First of all, if you feel like going out and help people in the humanitarian mission, you are probably still today still safer than driving a car in let's say in Thailand where lots of people go or driving a motorcycle in Thailand. That is really dangerous. So it's not like if you go on mission and I think MSF will confirm that there are thousands and thousands of people who go on humanitarian missions and come home safely. So the numbers do include also local workers and again a lot of them die but demographer will say 1,000 people is not so much in the global scheme of things. I'm not trying to belittle but we should not have the idea that nowadays if you go on a mission with the Red Cross or with MSF or with the UN that you have a 70% chance of dying. Not true. So it's really safe. My son is in Gambia right now as we speak. I did not prevent him from going to Gambia. Now you can say that maybe that's not a at risk country although there's elections in December. It will be a very tricky country. So what do people do? Well people take safety measures and people evacuate when they think it is too dangerous still today. And we have this what we call program criticality analysis. We have that in the UN. All agencies have that internally so people do look at it. Is it too dangerous to go? If it's too dangerous we don't go. What are the measures we can take? There's different measures. It's not wearing a flag jacket. Usually it's about talking to all parties to the conflict and making sure that you're known. And the attacks that we see especially on humanitarian aid workers is there is there's a failure in that system. If today a Red Cross worker is attacked usually I have worked for the Red Cross for 17 years. So there is always a discussion going on. We are working here. This is what we do. We hope you appreciate that and please keep our people safe. I know that MSF is doing also like that. So everybody does that. So there's lots of things that are being done. But I really want to make sure that you don't walk away here that if you go on a humanitarian mission it's a suicide mission. No that is not true. But if you want to go and drive a motorcycle in Thailand come and see me because that is really dangerous. Thank you. It's good that we took that last question. And thank you all for being here and special thanks to the three speakers.