 Can I now turn to you, Jacques, for a few thoughts, again, as I said, from an informed outsider, if you allow me to call you that way. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Thank you, Thierry, for the invitation, and just a caveat to state the fact that views expressed here are my own and not involving any organization with which I collaborate. Just a few excerpts from my daily medical literature review over the last few weeks. Two weeks ago, the FDA approved the most expensive drug ever, 3.5 million per patient to treat hemophilia B, a very rare disorder, which affects just a few patients. At the same time, almost at the same time in the wake of COP 27, 230 medical journals published an editorial calling for urgent action, urgent climate action in the interest of health care, pointing out the terrible increase in the burden of disease induced by global heating, mostly in poor countries. And the Lancet added a comment stating that many countries still provide societies to fossil energy, which are potentially higher than the health budget. So we see that governance may be improved. And finally, there was a flurry of articles criticizing health governance, culminating with very good article dating back to February this year by Jean-Pierre Zaniferry and the Bruegel team. And the title is explicit. It says health governance, a forensic analysis. So is governance really dead? I think it is not. I'm not going into the history of WHO creation back in 1948, the declaration of Altma Attab back in 1978, then Astana declaration in 2018, calling for the rollout of universal health coverage in line with sustainable development goals. But I do think that although WHO has been criticized mostly for political reasons, it did a good job with former pandemics. The globalization did a good job because it really took millions of people out of poverty and improved the health care system. So I think criticism is certainly in excess. Also, there are a number of levels for additional governance. The regulatory governance works very well. Agencies collaborate and we've seen how efficient they have been to approve new vaccines. There is a level of international governance which has an influence of health care and which is heavily criticized, which pertains to intellectual property and which has to do with sovereignty, with science, with scientific policy, with economic policy and certainly we'll have to address this in later panels, but I have no time today. And then we all know that all countries do try to have a governance of the health system with very varied means but which all resolve to cost containment. There are other angles of governance, moral or intellectual, scientific societies doing a very good job in their discipline to kind of disseminate good practice based on science. But by definition they have no mandate to propose to prioritize between various disciplines. Stock markets exercise a governance on health product and technology manufacturers, but they have an obvious bias which is shareholders' interests. And finally, we have philanthropic and humanitarian, humanitarian on the terrain, who too often have to establish a governance of their own because, I mean, they really have to do a triage between immediate cons. So how to improve the edifice? Well, my plea is that before thinking of structure we need to really agree on metrics because it's very difficult to measure health care. Actually, once you've gone out from mortality it's very difficult. Then I would really encourage institutions to agree on objectives and to submit those objectives to democratic criticism and debate because it always ends up in allocating two scarce resources and so the need for the population to accept this is very important. I would certainly advise to governance to relinquish the power in health care to health professionals because my 30 years experience actually with health care is that it's much easier to teach a doctor in economics or mathematics or management than to take a lay person, kind of an administrative or business person and teach them medicine. And very often the power in countries in terms of managing budgets is far too much in the hands of the administration and not enough in the hands of the physicians. And as mentioned, I'm not a physician, but I love the physicians. So my prescriptions in summary to kind of keep time in line. Once again, work on metrics, I mean really measuring health is a difficult issue and reinforce epidemiology. I think epidemiology is a science at the crossroad of mathematics and medicine and it's essential to really understand and propose the appropriate metrics. Educate the population. I think this was mentioned in the previous panel and because the choices are so difficult we need to educate the population. Turn the power to health professionals and finally I would definitely advocate for decentralization and turn the power in as much as possible to local players because they often know better than the people who are in the offices, in the central offices. Thank you for your attention. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jacques. So now I must confess I have a problem because we started this session 10, 15 minutes late and I'm told that we have to stick to the schedule and therefore we have no time unfortunately for discussion. Apologies because I was looking forward to a discussion. So with apologies, please let me just give a very short conclusion from what I've heard in the previous and in this session. One, the world is not better prepared today, December 2022 to face a new pandemic as compared or hardly better prepared than it was in 2020. Second, a number of processes have started. Many of these processes including the negotiation of a treaty, the negotiation of a new global health strategy in Europe, the negotiation of a political resolution and the UN General Assembly are slow, cumbersome as Anders said and yet as many of you have said including Lionel when it comes to some of the regional innovations, these processes are opening new encouraging perspectives. Third, there are two key issues in global health that we and preparedness, pandemic preparedness that we still not have clarity on. One is governance and the second is the financing and clearly the international financing facility as it called that was recently established is far from being where we would like it to be. And my last point is that I hope that as a public of the World Policy Conference you realize that health is not just anymore about health. Health is of course on the health agenda, but it is on the development agenda, it's on the global security agenda, it's on the economic agenda, it's on the social justice agenda and as we heard from Christian and the One Health issue is it's on the agenda of all of the interrelated crisis in which the world is currently confronted. So with that, please join me in thanking our panelists.