 Now, what I suggest during the 25 minutes which are left for general discussion is to concentrate, to really concentrate on the international aspects of all this. For instance, Jean-Pierre, if you take the PTSD, the post-traumatic stress disorders, if I am not mistaken, historically the interest in such subjects started after wars and of course the Crimea war in the 19th century, but particularly the First World War was quite important in this respect historically, but there are not only war disorders, PTSD caused by war, but also for instance the Great Depression, I don't know if the Great Depression of the 30s or the 1930s, I don't know if there were studies on the mental disorders as a result of a Great Depression such as that of the 1930s and now of course we have the COVID-19 and it is very likely that future epidemics or pandemic will have such consequences. So my first question to you Jean-Pierre, but also to the panel, my first question is, are there already some basic principles that should guide those who are in charge of global governance in this area who are starting the WHO, but not only the WHO, you know, other organizations, because again, you know, this topic is not often covered in discussions on global health. So my first question is, can we draw some at least interesting principles on this issue? And the second point I would like to make also as a question, when I joked at the beginning of this session, speaking of mental disorders or as as communicable diseases, of course it was not in the medical sense, it was in the sociological sense. And I remind all of us of the very famous book by the French sociologist Émile Durkheim, which was published I think at the end of the 19th century, which showed that the surprise of many, many readers that suicide was also a sociological phenomenon. So if suicide is also a sociological phenomenon, not only health, a personal situation, maybe there are other kind of disorders. For instance, alcohol, one doesn't need to be a great psychiatrist to understand that young people drink alcohol because they are together. And when you are together, usually you just exacerbates certain kinds of behavior. So my question, my second question to the panel is, if it is true that many mental disorders, many mental diseases, well, the psychic side of health, if it is true that the collective aspect is important, the societal aspect is important, what kind of consequences should be draw from that in trying to shape policy advice at the global level. So these are my two questions again, we don't have, there are many, many others, but perhaps we could take these two. So maybe I will give the floor to Professor Buriani, who would like to comment on this, and I will give the floor to the two other speakers before we conclude. I go ahead and I will reload. Surely, I think that this kind of massive change of life, because we were stuck in our homes for a long time, I'm sure that the strong effect, heavy effect on the psychological, equilibrium of the people, and also, unfortunately, had an effect also on the lack of screening of a lot of visits for controlling, like, say, any kind of medical conditions. So I think that with such an emergency, we will need to face now and in the future a real complex modification. I'm not talking about mental health because it's not my field, but I can assure you that the disruption of the common, let's say, medical practice has been very, very heavy because many hospitals are literally closed down, anything which was once an emergency or a COVID-19, including mine. So it doesn't surprise me that also from the mental health point of view, the tone that can be played by the population is heavy. Thank you very much. So thank you very much, Roberto. So Michael. Yes, Jay, I'm glad that in the company, I'm in the company of two doctors here, so I'm glad you mentioned Durkheim because I'm a sociologist. I think what we could learn from that is, as you said, it goes for suicide, but also for other mental health conditions. But Durkheim showed that it's strongly connected with social cohesion. So a feeling of being connected with other people and being integrated in social groups. I think now this certainly applies to also the time that we're living now in the pandemic. What we see throughout the world is that we have these crisis teams and task forces of very well-equipped people, but they're always composed of people who are working on virus contaminants. It's a very biological focus. I think managing what is often called the sort of collateral damage of this is, I think, something that should have a high priority in how we deal with this kind of crisis. Also, psychological effects, the effects of confinement, and don't get me wrong. Confinements are necessary. I absolutely support that, but it's true that for some people, the effects are quite disastrous of being not connected to other people. And I think that from a mental health perspective is definitely a risk. Thank you very much. Jean-Pierre. Yes, Thierry. This morning, you said something like we are at war or not. Indeed, our president declared that we were at war. So the history of the post-traumatic stress disorder begins during the First World War, sure, at this chance to work with a colleague called the general and professor, Louis Croc, and he trained me in terms of Marco analysis. And this treatment was a weapon. This played a huge role during the Battle of England because you had so many planes, but so few pilots. So as quick as possible, one pilot was taken back from the sea where I did land. We would inject him and he would go back to his plane in the next hour. So it's a treatment. It's a physiological, it's a somatic treatment which treats this kind of psychosomatic disease. It's a disease. Second, we had much more information than with the wars, including the US in Iraq, for instance, where we discovered that people treated with ketamine for anesthesia didn't develop post-traumatic stress disorders. It's why now we have the first new treatment for 50 years called esketamine, which is an injection by those to treat resistant depressions. So observing these war situations, treating these people in emergencies has lead to new treatments. So I insist there is a real medical condition. It's not an impression or whatever. But I would add to that I insisted on hypersensitability. Hypersensitability is one face of the coin. The other one is toxic abuse. It's dependency. So addictions is linked to hypersensitability. If you help people deal with this hypersensitability, you help them cut with addictions. Two very specific questions. What is the definition of a trauma? Because all of us are traumatized every day by many things. So this is very low-level traumas. But when is a shock so high that it becomes a real trauma? For instance, if you compare a real war and the current situation of a pandemic, one feels that it is not the same magnitude. So how do you define medically the level where the real trauma exists? I did it, my dear Thierry. It's dealing with your own sensitivity. The same event has not the same impact. I was with Professor Rie Krog and the Saint Michel station during the bombing. Some people were there, they were not shocked at all. Some people now are still under treatment. So it's not the event by itself. It's the way you receive it, the way you interpret it, and the way you will deal with it. Some people had a huge post-traumatic trauma by just losing their cat. And it's serious for them. It's not only what you can think of the explosions or crash or plane and so forth. It's the way you receive it and your sensitivity. It's why you insisted on hypersensitivity. Well, thank you very much. And of course, there are statistics which show the percentage of the population or the distribution of the population. And that's also an epidemiology study. There are epidemiology studies on this sensitivity that exists, I suppose. Yes, but this is a practitioner, because when I said we still have something like 3% of the people in the Saint-Michel station under treatment now, 3%. It's a very low, but still there. So now I would like all of you to try and answer my question. So I repeat it. The question is what kind of recommendation or if not recommendation at this stage, what do you think should be deepened in order to shape or to start shaping some global policy elements that do not exist today on this issue of mental health and addictions? So a brief, if you could, each of you try to give a brief answer. Again, I use the word recommendations, but I don't, it's premature, but at least some ideas which we could try to deepen within or outside the framework of the World Policy Conference. So I would answer by one point, just one point. Did you know about this kind of psychological test? Did you know about genetic tests? Did you know about this new MRI? Most of you didn't. So my answer is education, training for MDs, for psychologists, and share this kind of knowledge much more. Thank you very much, Roberto. I think that what's very important from the larger, let's say, the definition of mental health is not to undermine the supernatural institution that we already have and are doing a very good work, which is basically WHO. It's really irresponsible to undermine the authority. It's very, very, very, something very bad and should be done from governments as it happened. On the other hand, WHO has a great responsibility. It doesn't have to appear in any way something which is related to politics. WHO has to be all of its science. So this is something we already have, and we have learned that the stressful situation, fake news, blaming other people can really undermine the geopolitical equilibrium, bringing something which we don't want, because collaboration is the basis of the atmosphere. We don't have to forget that the vaccine was made by two American companies in an unprecedented short time, but the sequence of the virus was provided at the very time by Chinese scientists. This happened because the Chinese scientists released the sequence, and American scientists and German scientists worked on it. So I think that at the very end of the story, we've shown in practical terms how much collaboration between countries can be very good for everybody. So I personally hope that WHO will keep on retaining the moral and scientific authority that it has without, you know, politician going to undermine them. Well, thank you, Roberto. I think this is also related to the education aspect, of course, that is to let better know what real authorities have to say if I understood properly. But if the problem, it seems to me one of the problems is that the vast majority of the population or populations are, even if they are educated in a very basic sense, they don't know much about complex issues. That's very clear. Most people, ordinary people, average people do not know much about economics unless they were trading economics. They don't know much about medicine unless they were trained as medical doctors and so forth and so on. Nevertheless, in democracy, everybody has a right to express himself in every field, including those where he has no particular education. And this means that it can work only if trust is there. So we are always back to the same to the same question because it's impossible for anyone to be a perfect citizen that is a citizen that would be able to make well thought judgments on every kind of issue. So if you are not able to do so yourself, any individual cannot do that. It means that you have to trust some sort of authorities over the, in all the fields and dimensions where you yourself are not particularly competent. So we are always back to the same problem. Is it not true? Yes, I think I completely agree. Michael? Yes. My, well, some of the things that I would like to highlight is, I think three things. One of the things, we didn't talk so much about it in this session, but it has been one of the common threats I think today, what I mentioned, data, data, data. And Mr. Moria, for instance, mentioned this problem about the interoperability internationally when it comes to health data. We don't have such a thing as an international data system like we have in banking, for instance. And we all know that if you want to improve something, you need to measure it. And it may not be feasible to have an international health data system in a short term, but what we can definitely do, and that's what we spend a lot of time on that, and always bringing together stakeholders and countries and develop algorithms together to be able to learn from each other, to compare, and like we do in PISA, but also in other data collections, that's really a way to facilitate international learning, I think, also in this domain. Specifically for the area of mental health, we have developed also an international mental health framework. Well, there's no time to dive into that, but one thing that really stands out, if you talk about it with experts all over the world, is that there is a problem with access, and there's a problem with awareness of this problem of mental health, because we have this striking figure of, what we said, 50% of the population has to deal with some mental health issue once in your life. But another striking figure is that we know that across the OECD that about 80% of people who have mental health problems remain treated, so they never find the way to healthcare, and that is a huge problem that has to do with stigma on it, which might be much more in some cultures than others, and it is related to access. This is a major issue, I think, that we need to work on. And my last comment is, well, it is connected to the story that I already told. I think the way we think about mental health, and we think about how we design health systems, is that we should think about mental health, not just in terms of disease or disorders, but also in terms of quality of life. Because it's not just, let's move away a bit from just this disease focus to which a more people-centered focus. Well, thank you very much. We are now approaching the end. I think it was good, Michael, to come back to this question which was raised several times this morning about data. But I think that data, data, data is not enough, because an algorithm is not enough, too, because the problem is the mindset of the people who interpret data, the mindset of people who build algorithm. For instance, if you are an economist trying to interpret the world today in a very global way, if you are a Marxist, there are still people who think like in Marxist terms. If you are a Marxist or if you are a liberal, you will come to two totally different interpretations of the same data. So it's not enough to have, for instance, a common data base. It's important also to agree, if you want to act at the global level, to agree on some interpretation, on some model to interpret the data. And here it's sort of, yes, I mentioned in my opening comments this morning, I draw a comparison with arms control in the Soviet time. You know that at the beginning state, at the early stage of arms control, when the American experts and the Soviet experts met for the first time, they had no common language. And it took months, if not years, for the negotiators to come to agree on a common language. The missiles, for instance, had different denominations in both countries, and they were much more complicated issues. So it seems to me that when one faces complex problems, the first step, of course, is to agree on the language and some principles of interpretations. In other words, data without models is almost useless. So you need, and if you are a good pilot and you don't have a plane, you cannot fly, and if you have a wonderful plane, but you are not a pilot, there is no pilot, you cannot fly also. So there are complementary problems of complementarity.