 Good afternoon and welcome everyone. My name is Michelle Hussein from BBC News and it's my privilege to be chairing this panel discussion at Davos 2021, one of the very final ones at the end of a very busy week, albeit a virtual rather than a physical week of gathering. We're going to be looking at the lessons of the pandemic response and asking what they should teach us about future health care and future collaboration. Covid has brought some of the world's most advanced health systems near to collapse. Elsewhere to it has disrupted hard-won public health gains and the delivery of vital services. It has, however, shown us what collaboration and public-private partnerships can achieve and what is possible in record time when a public health emergency demands it. So how do we make the most of what we have seen in the last year and how do we apply it to Covid in 2021 and also to other health imperatives? And how can we maintain a spirit of joint enterprise in the face over tensions that we are seeing at the moment on vaccine supplies? Let me introduce first our panel. Delighted to have two Ministers joining us. Ina Ericsson-Saridah has been Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway since 2017. Previously it's Minister of Defence. Norway is one of the co-chairs of the ACT Accelerator Partnership, which is working on equitable access globally to Covid, testing treatments and vaccines through the COVAX Initiative. Welcome, Minister Ericsson-Saridah. Thank you. Thanks for being with us. Also Jens Spahn, who's been at the forefront of Germany's Pandemic Responses Federal Minister of Health, a post that he's been in since 2018. And he was also recently appointed as a Deputy Leader of Chancellor Merkel's CDU Party. Welcome, Mr Spahn, to you as well. Thank you for being with you tonight. Dr Albert Bohler has been Chief Executive Officer of Pfizer for two years. The vaccine it produced with BioNTech was one of the very first to be approved by medical regulators. And also in this WEF context, he is a co-chair of the World Economic Forum's high level task force that is being launched today with the goal of accelerating public-private partnerships for epidemic preparedness and response. Welcome, Dr Bohler. Thank you very much for having me. And also Richard Hatcher, Chief Executive Officer of CEPI, which also works on epidemic preparedness. It was launched four years ago at Davos in the light of Ebola, MERS and SARS with the task of helping to develop vaccines for future epidemics and making them accessible. And just last year at Davos, it made its first COVID vaccine-specific investments. Before that, it had already made investments that had a bearing on what we're seeing today, including on funding technologies such as RNA. So a warm welcome to you as well, Dr Hatcher. Thank you, Michelle. Nice to be here. To everyone watching on different platforms, please do use the opportunity, whatever platform you're on to send us your contributions, your observations, your comments, your questions. And I'll try and bring them in to our discussions. But first, before we hear from the panel, we're also joined from Geneva by Dr Tedros Adhamran Gabrielsis, Director General of the World Health Organization. It's very good to have you with us, Dr Tedros, for some opening remarks to help set the scene of where we are at this point in time. Tomorrow it'll be exactly one year since you've declared COVID to be a global health emergency. Take us then to your thoughts today and particularly to what we might have about how we can apply the lessons of the pandemic beyond COVID and any concerns you have about whether we might be seeing some vaccine protectionism or maybe even nationalism. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Michelle. And Minister Soreide, Minister Spahn, Dr Borla and Dr Hatchett, dear colleagues and friends. Last year I had to leave Davos, that was January 22 actually 2020, after the first day to open the WHO Emergency Committee, which was considering the outbreak of the novel coronavirus in China. Tomorrow, as Michelle said, marks one year since on the advice of the emergency committee, I declared a public emergency of international concern over the emergence of the novel coronavirus. At the time, there were fewer than 100 cases and no deaths reported outside China. This week, we reached 100 million reported cases. More cases have been reported in the past two weeks than in the first six months. The pandemic has exposed and exploited the inequalities of our world. There is now the real danger that the very tools that could help to end the pandemic, like vaccines, may exacerbate those same inequalities. During the H1N1 pandemic in 2009, safe and effective vaccines were developed. But by the time the world's poor got access, the pandemic was over. Nine months ago, WHO, CEPI and GAVI came together, supported by Germany, Norway and other partners, to form the access to COVID-19 tools accelerator, including the COVAX vaccine spiller. The ACT accelerator and COVAX were conceived with two aims to develop vaccines, diagnostics and therapeutics fast and distribute them fairly. The first aim has been achieved. The development and approval of safe and effective vaccines less than a year after the emergence of a new virus is a stunning scientific achievement and a much needed source of hope. Whether the second aim can be achieved remains to be seen. As we speak, rich countries are rolling out vaccines to their citizens while the world's least developed countries watch and wait. This not only leaves the world's most vulnerable people at risk, it's also short-sighted and self-defeating. Vaccine nationalism will only prolong the pandemic, the restrictions needed to contain it and human and economic suffering. A new study by the International Chamber of Commerce Research Foundation shows that vaccine nationalism could cost the global economy up to 9.2 trillion US dollars. And almost half of that, 4.5 trillion, would be incurred in the wealthiest economies. By contrast, the financing gap for the access to COVID-19 tools accelerator stands at 27 billion dollars. The Secretary General of the International Chamber of Commerce, John Denton, described fully funding the Act Accelerator as a rounding error compared with the massive stimulus packages implemented in G20 countries. If fully funded, the Act Accelerator would return up to 166 dollars for every dollar invested. Many businesses have global operations that depend on global supply chains. In our global village, if the virus continues to circulate, those operations and supply chains will continue to be disrupted and the economic recovery will be delayed. If we lose trust in international collaboration through vaccine nationalism, we will all pay the price in terms of a protracted recovery. We are asking those governments that have already received deliveries of vaccines to vaccinate their health workers and older people and share excess doses with COVID so other countries can do the same. But we also understand that governments are under political pressure to vaccinate their populations. Therefore, I ask the business community to use your influence to convince governments that sharing doses is the best way to control the pandemic globally, restore confidence and reboot the global economic recovery. The COVID-19 pandemic is a powerful demonstration that health is not a commodity or a luxury item. It is a fundamental human right and the foundation of social, economic and political stability. Yes, we must work together to end the pandemic, but we must go farther. There can be no going back to things as they were. Together, we must invest in a healthier and safer world, and a healthier and safer world is also a more productive and prosperous world. This is not an end-over for governments alone. The public and private sectors must work together. We have good examples from the past year. In our collaboration with Facebook, Google and the world's major media platforms to fight misinformation, in the collaborations to develop and approve safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines fast and distribute them fairly, and in our creation of the Solidarity Response Fund and the WHO Foundation innovative efforts to mobilize support from the private sector for pandemic response and global health. My colleagues, we face a huge challenge in the coming weeks. We must ensure that vaccination of health workers and older people is underway in all countries within the first 100 days of this year. We've just 71 days left. Time is short. Every moment counts. I thank you. And thank you, Michel, and thank you also all panel members. I have another urgent issue to attend. I wish I could be with you in the panel, and I hope you will permit me to leave so I can attend the other emergency. And I hope you will understand. But my heart will be with you. Thank you. Dr. Tedros, thank you very much for taking the time to give us those thoughts. And let me turn first to Minister Ericsson, because Norway is at the very forefront of the call to support the Act Accelerator and COVAX. But as Dr. Tedros said, there is this significant funding gap, $27 billion. I mean, he made it clear just how much is to be gained by filling that funding gap. It's not only the right thing to do, but there's an economic imperative. What are the prospects, however, of contributions coming forward to bridge that gap in the kind of time it would need to happen to make a difference to the pandemic response? Well, Michelle, I think it's a very good question. And as late as today, my Minister of Finance has hosted together with the South African Minister of Finance a meeting just to that point on closing the financing gap. I think there are also promising and positive signals from the US now that they want to engage fully in international vaccine work as well. My concern now is actually in addition to the funding gap is also the pace of rolling out vaccines, because even though COVAX has now access to around 2 billion doses to low and middle income countries, I think the rollout will be a bit tampered also because we see that there are delays on all the rollout of vaccines as we've been alerted about over the last couple of weeks. So the timelines are a bit challenging here. Having said that, I think that the only sound and reasonable way of going about this is not only to cooperate closely, but it's also to finance vaccines, tests and other medication that is needed. I think we all realize and especially here that we are so interconnected and so intertwined that the only exit strategy from this pandemic is actually to work together. And I do think that what we are seeing at the moment is a very challenging situation with a virus that is also changing. That is not surprising to anyone, I think, but it's still a factor and a dimension that makes it all the more important to continue the work that we and others are doing right now, not only to raise money and funding, but also of course to make sure that the production of vaccines continue at the pace it should do. This has been, of course, a very, very live debate, continues to be a very live debate, particularly in Europe. So let me turn to Jan Spahn, Germany's Health Minister. Would you accept, Mr Spahn, that the kind of thing that you have talked about in recent days, the prospect of vaccine made in the EU having to be authorized for export in the world, elsewhere in the world, probably makes this situation harder, the question of access in poorer countries? Well, first of all, thank you very much for the kind invitation to this panel. And this current debate ongoing is actually a good opportunity or showcase to just see what this is all about, because we just, of course, have to find the right balance. I mean, my friend Tedros, and we have discussed it several times, Tedros, this issue that you just raised, which is a very, I mean, it's very important to mention and then to see how we find this balance. Which balance do I mean? There needs to be a balance between, if we take vaccination, the vaccination of your own people, and that is actually the base for acceptance of being engaged worldwide. If you want a country like Germany to be engaged as we are, and we are very much engaged with COVAX, ACT, spending money, because not just for humanitarian reasons, but of course, for our own interest, because it's important for us that Europe is safe, that the world is safe. But if we want to have acceptance for this, of course, we also need to vaccinate, if we take this case of vaccination, to vaccinate our own people. So it's about the right balance. And I totally agree. Our common goal is to vaccinate the world this year. And we are absolutely supporting it by financial contributions to the international organizations as well as what we do here within the European Union. By the way, the whole approach here in the European Union was already one of this kind. I mean, Germany and France, which could have done it on our own, I'm sure our economic power would have been big enough to just do it with this big pharmaceutical market that we are. But from the very beginning, we said, let's do it with the 27, we want the same day to start vaccination in Croatia, Bulgaria, Germany, France, Portugal, all over. And the next step is the world. And the money we have invested in research and production capacities that have been built up and are still built up. Of course, it's an investment not just for Europe or the transatlantic world. But it's an investment for the whole world because this production capacities and the research actually that was done. I mean that less than 12 months after this new virus occurred happened to be there on the world that there are already several vaccines available that show efficacy is actually still a story of confidence so that we build up production capacities for the world. I mean, here in Germany, there's less than 3% of the population vaccinated yet. And if I need to explain to our people that we give doses to other parts of the world, what we will do for sure, somewhere soon. This needs acceptance and acceptance is not yet there with 3% less than 3% vaccinated in your own country. What we need is to find the right balance. Countries like us being very much engaged internationally on the European level international organizations can only be as good as we let them be. I totally support that approach and children knows it. But at the same time, international engagement needs acceptance and this actually is case of vaccination very much chosen. I'm going to turn in a second to Dr Boehler because this question of supply is so important, but I want to come back to Minister Ericsson Serrida for a quick thought before I do that and it's on this. Norway made a commitment very recently that was too in parallel with your own rollout to give us a percentage of doses to poorer countries. So at the same time, given that we have increasing evidence in recent days of supply issues in Europe, do you think you can stick to that? Well, what we are doing is through the COVAX mechanism, trying to find a good way now given the delays that we have seen to stick to that idea that we had and also the policies that we have on this. But it is, as Jens Spahn also says, it is a difficult issue when you do not have enough and enough timely vaccines for your own population. So there has to be a balance, but I can assure you that a country like Norway who spends now 0.12% of our GDP on ACT and COVAX mechanisms is fully committed to making sure that there is an equitable and fair global distribution. But we cannot on our own manage the fact that there are delays now that that will also affect vaccination of our population quite severely. There are delays that also makes us need to change the scheme of our own vaccination because of these delays. So this has to be a joint collaboration. Well, let me turn then to Dr Borla, Dr Alba Borla, the chief executive of Pfizer. Your vaccine, the Moderna vaccine, AstraZeneca, I mean, all in different ways have either experienced supply difficulties already or projecting that. Do you think that as far as yours is concerned, this is a blip? Or do we all need to be realistic about how difficult it's going to be for supply to keep up with demand this year? Thank you very much. First of all, let me say that it's an honour to participate in this discussion. And this is an esteemed panel of leaders that are playing significant role right now in fighting the pandemic. I know all of them by reputation, some in person and I admire all of them for their leadership. Let me take a little bit higher picture, provide and then go straight to your question. I think if there are some lessons that have been learned during this pandemic, there are two that are standing out. And this is one, it is the power of science and particularly the hands of the private sector, but also the power of collaboration. And when I say collaboration, I mean, between scientists within the same company, between different companies between private and public sector, including governments like the Norwegian or German government or the US government, including WHO, including NGOs and the collaboration succeeded. We are in a situation right now that we never thought it would be. We never dreamed that we will have vaccines available that soon. And we never dreamed that we will have vaccines available with high level of efficacy, almost perfect. 95% when it comes to the mRNA technology or modern. So I think now, of course, that the vaccine is available. Everybody wants to have it because it's available. And because the pandemic is continuing to creating issues, there is a lot of tensions. And the tensions are getting political and are influencing the leadership. But I'm sure in every single country that I know and I know of them, they are doing phenomenal job to be able to contain the pandemic. But this is almost a herculean effort to be able to do it. When it comes, for example, to our case, let's start. I don't think we have a supply issue. I think we had a small bump in Europe that was announced a few weeks ago that affects the supply of few weeks. And this bump was very deliberate. So it was an effort to improve dramatically our manufacturing capacity so that we can deliver to Europe and to the world many more doses. Globally, already, we announced that we are increasing our capacity from 1.3 billion doses in the first year to more than 2 billion doses. And the results is that, for example, in Europe, the quantities that we had promised to the European countries in the beginning of December, we will catch up by March. And we will provide much more, many more because we signed additional agreements in the second quarter. So right now, without wanting to say that everything will go exceptionally well, because this is a very complicated manufacturing process, it's not like making a telephone. This involves biological factors. So we hope that we will continue having the success rates every batch is going under quality controls in this release. But I am very optimistic that pretty soon, first of all, that we will absent a significant event in our manufacturing lines, we will be able to provide the doses that we have promised to the world. As we are making contracts, we are very careful when we make contracts and to provide some projections to the governments or to Gavi or to Kovacs that we will be able to meet those commitments. We are working very collaboratively right now with regulators to increase our plans. And by the second quarter, towards the end of the second quarter, I think the world will have enough, at least from our vaccine, not to worry about supplying those that we have already promised to provide vaccine. Dr Buller, does that mean you think that that incredible prospect that Mr Spahn put in his remarks to vaccinate the world this year, if your company alone can produce two billion doses, then assuming the funding is there, it sounds as if you think that at least not immediately, but over a few months, the supply should be there to fulfill that ambition. Given how much are at stake right now, when I and Pfizer make some statements, we need to make sure that we can stand behind them and deliver. So for us to go out and say by the end of the year, we believe we will be able to manufacture and release, because there's a month difference, right? Two billion doses, I feel very comfortable that we can do it. It's not guaranteed, things can happen, but I feel very confident we can do it. I don't think that there are any financial barriers in getting those doses out. We are having contracts with all the high-income countries that they can pay, and we have very good prices, I believe, and we have not-for-profit prices to the COVAX facility when it comes to the low-income countries. So I believe that the vision that the Minister Spahn announced, I think, can become reality. We will need a little bit of help from others, for example, if they can produce Moderna, I don't know. But our two billion dollars, at least, will be available. Thank you. Dr. Richard Hatchett, COVID has really proved the importance of CEPI's mission within the first five years of the organization's existence. We've talked a lot about the here and now. I wonder if you could cast your eye further into the future. What have we learned this year that helps in preparation for the epidemics of the future? Because there is a danger that we'll get so bogged down in COVID and protecting against COVID in the future that we might not keep the lens as broad as it needs to be. Thank you, Michelle. I think there are a couple of important lessons that we can draw immediately from the response to COVID. I want to congratulate Dr. Borla and Pfizer and Moderna and the other companies that have already brought vaccines forward. We have compressed a decade of vaccine development into less than 12 months. That in itself is a remarkable accomplishment. I would build on Dr. Borla's comments about the global scientific solidarity. We know more about this virus in 12 months than we have known about any other pathogen in a similar period of time because of that global solidarity. The advances that we have seen, the speed with which we have been able to develop countermeasures and particularly vaccines did not come out of the blue. They built on years, decades of public sector investment, particularly in the mRNA technologies, because of their ability to respond rapidly. They were envisioned, they have been envisioned for a decade as potentially a first line defense against new viruses. We also benefited from significant investment in developing vaccines against other coronaviruses or in initiating development of vaccines against other coronaviruses such as MERS. The speed with which the COVID vaccines were developed was a direct function of our understanding of what we needed to target for other coronaviruses. And so the vaccines that Moderna and Pfizer in particular developed were really designed within weeks and then shown to be, as Dr. Borla said, 95% effective. We don't know what the threats of the future will be, but I think we should look at the example of that prior investment in developing vaccines against coronaviruses and we should generalize it. We will emerge from the pandemic with a whole new set of tools, validated platforms for rapid vaccine development. If we can expand our investment and cover other classes of virus that present threats to humanity, hopefully we can be as prepared for different threats as we were for the coronavirus that we face now. Now, the last thing that I would offer, I think is, I believe it was 314 days from the release of the sequences until Pfizer submitted their dossier for regulatory review and approval. 314 days. There were almost 70 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 when that submission occurred. We need to radically shorten those timelines and to do that, I believe we will need global effort, global coordination, close coupling of vaccine development with clinical trial networks, with manufacturing networks and with regulatory partners. I believe that with a concerted effort, by the end of the decade, the world could possibly reduce those timelines to 100 days. If we had been able to deliver a vaccine within 100 days, there were only 3 million confirmed cases of COVID and we could have drastically reduced the impact of this pandemic on the world. Well, let me put that straight to Dr Buller, because you already worked to a pretty tight timeline. Do you think 100 days that could be done next time around? You know, we never thought that 300 days would be possible to do a vaccine and we did it. And I agree that we need to have, we need always to set the bar higher and higher. I think there are two things that needs to be under consideration. One, the vaccine needs to have the highest standards of regulatory reviews, because this is the ultimate barometer of public confidence. We should do it faster, but we should do it in a way that regulators, that they know their stuff, know that they can confidently approve those vaccines, because otherwise wouldn't make any good to anyone if we deliver a vaccine that people, they don't have trust to take. The second is, I believe that it is a high possibility that at a certain point in time, we will discover or a new variant will pop up that it is not that the vaccines are not that effective. This is not the case yet to make sure that I clarify, right? But we need to, I think it's very highly likely that one day that will happen. And I think where we are placing our efforts in this 100 days, as Mr. Hacet said, is to make sure that within 100 days and less, we will be able to have a new version of a vaccine so that we can maintain our efforts to provide that high level of efficacy when we administer at 95%. Mr. Spahn, let's also talk about lessons for health systems, because in Germany, you have one of the very best in the world, one that stood up very well in the first wave of the virus, and which, as you're experiencing now, has had a much tougher test this time around. Why do you think that is? You're muted, Mr. Spahn. Sorry, the typical error of the video conference. So, first of all, I just want to give a German note to the Pfizer success because without the BioNTech in Germany, the mRNA research would not have been possible. It shows, for example... And I would like to add that a lot of our scientists that are working in Pfizer site are Germans, minister. Of course. But I just wanted, because that's part of the success story, the whole one, because we have funded, for the first time, BioNTech from the federal government site more than 10 years ago, 13 years ago, I assume. So, when they were really at the very beginning, and this whole RNA technology, we have a second one, CureVac, as you might be aware of, that might get an approval in March, April. But this whole technology that actually was thought of for cancer drugs actually has more than 10 years of research. And that is actually what we, one lesson learned is to me, is that we need to engage even more in this building up clusters, investing as a government, a state role in the whole process to make such a development possible. But we want to learn out of it, by the way, is that we want to become the hub for RNA technology in Germany. And for the next pandemic situation, as Richard just mentioned, these technology might give us a chance then to have a vaccine even quicker than 340 days or what it was. For the German health system, I mean, one of the biggest differences to many of our neighbouring health systems is that we have a big broad network of general practitioners, for example, so that all the mild cases were treated and are treated, not in hospitals. And so the overrunning of hospitals just has not taken place, but for that you really need a broad network of GPs all over the country. Traditionally, we have very high capacities of ICUs, more than 20,000. Right now it's 30,000 in this pandemic situation with a personal need of two. And of course there were debates in the past 20 years, if it should not be less, and if we should not save money, because it's very expensive to have this capacities. And the lesson learned is actually that of course there's always room for being more efficient, but we want to keep them. And what we just have seen is that the German health system is very robust, even in this difficult situation, even in the second phase. And yes, you are right, the second phase hit us harder. I would say almost every country in the world was hit harder by the second wave than by the first one, and historically somehow that seems to be quite common. And perhaps it's another lesson learned, we should not let it happen again, that the second wave is harder. But with the experience of the first one and then the summer and almost no cases, somehow there was the feeling in society we might be over it. Although everyone was warning that there could be a hard winter. And I would say that's more a psychological issue, an issue of a society's psyche, that the second wave somehow is not expected to be as it then comes. And that you really can see in history and for almost all countries on the world. And that is really something we should learn for the next pandemic situation. Yes. In our final moments, I'm going to ask both Dr. Hadjit and Dr. Borla what they want from governments, governments in general, even though we have just two government ministers represented on the panel. But Minister Eriksson, Sir Ido, because we talked about both you and Dr. Tedros talked about the economic risks to to the world if we don't have an equitable vaccination rollout. I wonder also what your thoughts are on the security risks, the instability that has been caused by by the pandemic. Could, could even the lack of access to vaccines be something that is a source of further instability and even potentially conflict. It's something that the UN has warned about in recent days. Well, absolutely. And I think it's a very valid point. Unfortunately, we're of course looking here at what is a health crisis, but also social crisis and economic crisis, the human rights crisis. And I'm also very concerned that not immediately, but over time, we can also see security crisis and we already see that some of the peace processes are getting more difficult to undertake because of the lack of contact, for instance. But we also see, and that is one of the biggest concerns I have, and that is also why this is something that we have to deal with long term, long after vaccination is also also in place. Is the fact that many of the conflicts that we already see around the world can harden. And the reason is of course also the fact that when social economic crisis hit. And I mean, we're all affected by this globally, but we're affected very differently. And that also means that when we see the consequences of this in the long term, the potential for a security crisis is absolutely present. And I cannot underline enough how this pandemic and the consequences of this pandemic, if it's not dealt with, can also lead to a fight for resources. It could lead to intensified fighting in already exacerbated conflicts. And there is a reason why the Security Council now has this very much on its agenda. And I'm happy then to be a part of the Security Council now as an elected member. This is something that we are going to deal with in the Council in the time to come because we have to be mindful of the risks that lies within not only the health part of this, but also the social economic and the human rights part of this. I'm quite concerned to be honest. And especially if there are not in place good coping mechanisms, there is a lack of economic recovery in many regions and parts of the world. And you could then very easily see many of the conflicts and challenges that we already have being further exacerbated by this virus. And for all we know, we haven't seen the end of it yet. Where in the world are you most concerned about on that front? Well, there is a potential, I'm afraid, many places. But what we have seen is of course that many fragile states, many of them already very fragile in Africa, is of course some of those who may be most prone to intensified conflict, or the fact that challenges that are there today, be they humanitarian or political, can be exacerbated by this crisis. And that is why I'm very concerned about already fragile states and they can be in many regions, but I'm also concerned about how this will play out in African countries. Okay, so Richard Hatchet, give us a couple of things that you would really ask from government. If we're going to try and learn the best lessons possible from public-private partnerships that have worked on COVID, what would you say are the things that are most needed from governments to help make that happen? Well, two things. I think we must get out of the current crisis, and I will talk about that in just a moment, and we must be prepared for future recurrences. As long as the virus is circulating anywhere, and the more it is circulating, the more and faster it will mutate. In the last 24 hours, we have had readouts from two vaccine candidates from Johnson & Johnson and from Novavex that are very effective against the previously circulating strains of virus, but less than 60% effective against the South African variant. Our only hope of getting ahead of the virus is controlling its circulation globally, and our only hope of doing that is if the diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines we have developed are shared globally as a matter of the greatest urgency, and that means that other countries will have to follow the leadership that Norway and Germany have demonstrated in supporting global solutions, particularly the ACT accelerator. In preparing for the future, I think governments must recognize that emerging infectious diseases and pandemic threats are an existential threat to our society, and they are an emergent property of the way we live. If we want to continue to live the way we did before COVID-19, we must make long-term sustained and large investments in preparedness. Thank you. Dr. Burla? Thank you very much. Let me separate the shorter term, which is this year, let's say, to deal through the pandemic and the longer term, which is how can we be better prepared in a new pandemic? In a new pandemic, I think what I would like to see from governments and legislators is to create the framework that science-based, innovation-based private sector will thrive. We'll create the framework that the private and public collaboration are at a certain level, so in the next pandemic, we can be doing much better jobs. When it comes to the shorter term, first of all, I have to say that we received everything we needed from governments. I have personally spoken to multiple leaders around the world. They are doing an excellent job to try to control the disease. The results might not be the ones that some people dream to have, but in this situation, it's much, much more challenging than one could expect to see better results. What I would like to see from them is to maintain their patience and calmness. The things that concern me the most are the things that the minister, Eric Censoreide just mentioned, that this crisis will create tensions, and as a result, the voices are getting louder, and as a result, decisions that are not sound might be forced upon politicians. And that's what I want from the governments to do. I'll give you an example. There are a lot of discussions, the extra, I don't say that this is what they are doing, they're not doing it, it's very clear to me, but I think there are some voices that they are asking for something like that. I'm afraid that that could become a loose, loose situation rather than a win for Europe's situation. The supply chains are very, very complicated. We are importing in Europe from multiple other countries to be able to do vaccines for all. If the war starts that one will try to ban either the final product or the supplies from free trade, I think that could create a situation that it is not good for anyone. I'm sorry to stop you, but we're nearly out of time, and I do want to get just a final thought from Mr Spahn on this. I mean, there have been proper tensions in almost a war of words between the European Commission and your government, particularly towards AstraZeneca in recent days. I mean, this is a striking warning that Dr Boller has given. It's not a route you really want to go down. Well, in general, one thing is important for the public debate as well and for emotions. Our common enemy is the virus, not the pharmaceutical industry or not to we each other on the world or whoever. The enemy is the virus. But nevertheless, there are contracts. It's about money deliveries, of course debates. Everyone is desperate to get vaccination worldwide and in Europe and European Union too. We are very much aware that measures taken, of course, will have a reaction. So the measures that will be put into place as far as I know them from the Commission will only be there for some weeks. But to set a sign too, I mean, the US, Albert is not without any measures either. If I just made my put it that way. And we have learned in this crisis and other regards to that supply chains are international and transatlantic. And in general, I agree. And I really want to get emotions down and things solved. And at the same time, we need to find a common approach. And if I just might add one thing, but I really find important for future pandemic situations is a strengthening of the WHO that was not an issue today here. But that's a very important issue to Germany. I'm very glad that the US will remain in, stay in. But we really need to finance it better. Member States, I mean, the WHO can't actually fulfill the ambitious mandate if it is not with the financial resources needed for this. And that is up to Member States to make that sure. And that is a debate we definitely need. But that is perhaps one for next time. Yes, and I just want to come back to Dr. Because I mentioned when I introduced you about the New World Economic Forum Task Force, which which you are co-chairing. You know, there are lots of mechanisms which have really come to the fore in this time in this time of emergency, Seppi being one of them. But what do you hope to achieve through that task force? How does it how does it play a role in a time like this? I think a better collaboration, a framework for much better private public sector collaborations, measures that will take WHO to really the role that needs to need to play. And I'm also very happy that the US has decided to rejoin the WHO. Things that could advance the preparedness of this society to manage better this pandemic, a future pandemics. Okay, well, thank you all very much. And I should mention in terms of future pandemics, Richard, Richard Hatchett, Seppi. There's a new round of funding for Seppi. I mean, it's extraordinary what you have what you have managed to achieve in the first five years. Just a brief thought on what you would do next. I think if over the next year, we'll be rolling out our plans for the next five years. And they certainly include trying to move us forward towards that hundred day goal that I mentioned. That's a moonshot. But we believe with collective global effort, we can make significant advances on what we accomplished in the response to COVID-19. We are also looking. Coronaviruses are a very important threat. We have experienced a severe pandemic with the coronavirus that has a mortality rate of less than 1%. But we know that SARS has a mortality rate of 10%. MERS of 35%. There could be future coronaviruses that are more threatening than the one we face currently. We believe the world needs to develop broadly protective vaccines against a broad range of coronaviruses, not just COVID-19. And we will make major investments focused against that. And finally, we believe that we also need to expand the range of protection against other viruses. And I mentioned the strategy that we successfully used to accelerate development of vaccines against COVID. We'd like to expand that approach to cover the gamut of viral families that we know present threats to the world. Well, thank you for that. It's a sobering way to end, but with all the joy that the vaccines have brought, it's important to put all of this in context and to think about what we might need to be prepared for in the future. So thank you all very much, Richard Hatcher, Dr. Albert Borla, a Norwegian Foreign Minister, Ina Ericsson-Sarajda and Germany's Health Minister Jens Spahn. Thank you all very much. And thanks to the World Economic Forum team for bringing us together. Thank you.