 All right. Good morning. Good morning. Thank you for joining us. I want to introduce myself briefly, and then we have a terrific panel to talk about the 100 Days Mission and delivering countermeasures more rapidly. I think everyone obviously knows that the pandemic was a catastrophe. We all also know what a destabilizing event it was. The geopolitical effects of the pandemic continue to reverberate. Most of the issues confronting political leaders today, the so-called polycrisis, have roots in the destabilization that the pandemic caused. I think it's important to remember that this was the second pandemic of the 21st century. I worked in the White House during the first one, and after the first pandemic, I had the opportunity to debrief with President Obama, and I told him that in our response in 2009 we didn't dodge a bullet. Nature had shot us with a BB gun, and the response was not validated by virtue of the outcomes. The outcome was determined by nature. Imagine if we had had two COVID scale events within a decade. That is certainly within the realm of possibility. All of the trends that are driving the emergence of infectious disease are going in the wrong direction, and we are in a state of heightened risk. I think infectious diseases and pandemics are truly a 21st century threat and one that we need to address systemically. Six years ago, yesterday, a number of world leaders, industry leaders, stood on the main stage here in Davos at the World Economic Forum, and established my organization, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, to focus on developing vaccines against emerging infectious diseases. Three years ago at the World Economic Forum in 2020, we were watching COVID explode in China. In fact, on the Thursday of the 2020 World Economic Forum, CEPI announced its first vaccine development partnerships. There were still fewer than 1,000 cases of COVID that had been counted worldwide. We announced partnerships with Inovio, with the University of Queensland, and importantly with Moderna to produce clinical trial material and speed their vaccine into clinical trials. The medical and scientific response to the pandemic was nothing short of heroic. The political response, perhaps predictably, a little less so, I think. I think we can all acknowledge that. The response to the pandemic has been marked by considerable inequity of access to medical countermeasures, and particularly to vaccine. There are many root causes of the inequity that we experienced during the pandemic. I think two are really important to call out. One is structural. It's how vaccine manufacturing is currently distributed. Political leaders in countries with vaccine manufacturing capacity have to address the needs of their own populations first, particularly in times of scarcity. I think the World Economic Forum, again, is showing prescience and leadership. They have, with the U.S. National Academy of Medicine, Victor Zell and Cepi, set up a regional vaccine manufacturing collaborative to develop a framework for regions that want to expand their vaccine manufacturing capacity. And we'll have a closed-door meeting later today to talk about how that framework can be improved and then shared with regions that are interested in increasing their manufacturing capacity. And Minister Moreno, I think, might want to talk about that a little bit later. But the other root cause of the inequity was scarcity. Where there is scarcity, there will be inequity. And that's the driver of the 100-day's mission. This is Cepi's goal that we've articulated, which has now been embraced by the G7 and G20, to accelerate vaccine development even over and above what was achieved in 2020, to be able to deliver vaccines to new threats within 100 days. That would give us a fighting shot of preventing pandemics altogether and certainly of reducing their impact. Cepi is also working on the manufacturing issue. And today, actually, we have announced a new partnership with Institute Pestor Dakar, who is building a modern, modular, flexible manufacturing facility in Dakar on the African continent that will be able to deliver vaccines for Africa's use and to be able to respond to future pandemics. It's the first of a manufacturing network of developing country manufacturers that Cepi has announced. We're delighted about that. But today's topic is speed. How can we deliver medical countermeasures more quickly? What will it take politically? What will it take scientifically? What will it take in terms of regional planning? So I am really delighted to introduce the panel today. We have a terrific panel of very experienced leaders with different perspectives. Immediately to my left, of course, I think all of you know the right honorable Helen Clark, the former prime minister of New Zealand, and importantly, the co-chair of the independent panel for pandemic preparedness and response. To her left, the right honorable Tony Blair, former prime minister of the UK, founder of the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change. We're delighted to have honorable minister, Savino Augusto Jose Marino, the minister of industry and trade from Mozambique, and Dr. Albert Borla, a trained veterinarian, but of course the CEO of Pfizer, which delivered more vaccine more rapidly than any other company during the response to COVID. Helen, let me turn to you and ask you a really important question on the political side. In the midst of the polycrisis, in the midst of political turnover, how do we maintain political attention to pandemic preparedness and response? How do we maintain the thread, keep the focus? In a way, we're back to the future at where, aren't we? Three years ago, COVID was exploding in China. Here we are again, and tragically, it's exploding in China. And that, in the sense that it's an ill wind that blows no good, we'll keep COVID in the headlines and at the forefront of leaders' attention in a way that it might not have three years into a pandemic. When we wrote the independent panel for preparedness and response report, we were very conscious that there had been 16 previous such reports and commissions who wrote with recommendations, most of which sat on a shelf, and that it was very easy to enter a cycle of panic and neglect as the immediate heat of the storm passed. I think around the world, populations are over COVID, but as we know, COVID ain't over us and requires a continuing level of focus. And also, of course, it remains the moment to seize, to make lasting change so that the world can cope with a future outbreak with pandemic potential far better than we were able to do on the run this time. Can I say, I'm actually quite encouraged at the number of trains that are moving in response to not only the independent panel report, but a range of other reports and recommendations too. You do have negotiating processes in Geneva for a new pandemic legal instrument of some kind. You have the international health regulation review process underway. You have the pandemic fund at the World Bank. Not a lot of money in it yet, but it's work in progress. WTO made a little progress, but I'd like to see more, but it's focused on the task. Countermeasures, there's a lot of discussion and debate going on and undoubtedly we'll hear more about that today and very interested in what CEPI is announcing with Institute Pasteur. I think there's still a bit of a gap about what leadership and oversight is needed going forward and our panel was clear that really keeping the focus of world leaders on these issues through a kind of global health threats council is very, very important. And we'd like to see the high level meeting in New York in September focus on that. But suffice to say, we could have been well into the neglect phase because of the ongoing momentum of COVID, not least in China now. I think there's a chance to keep the focus on and get the lasting reforms that we need to do better next time learning from this rather sad experience of the last three years. Thank you. Tony, let me ask you, you've sat in a chair very similar to Helen. Interested in your perspectives on maintaining political focus as well. Yeah, well, the best way to maintain political focus because I mean, the reality is for the political debate in many, many countries now COVID is in the rear view mirror. I mean, it isn't, but believe me, most of the people sitting in Downing Street at the moment are not talking about COVID and at the G7 and the G20. I think you won't get the focus you need unless it's clear two things. One, that there is an ongoing challenge and opportunity. And I think that is not just about COVID. It's about the fact that we are going to have a whole slew of new vaccines, injectables that are going to deal with some of the worst diseases in the world that give us the opportunity to make big changes in the health of the world. And if you want the politicians to focus, they need to think, look, this is coming down the track soon. Because if you tell them about a future pandemic, they'll kind of go, yeah, maybe someone else's problem. But you tell them, actually in the next few years, you're going to have the opportunity to make a big difference to the healthcare of your population, that will focus them. But the second thing they need is to focus on the opportunities to change healthcare that have arisen as a result of our experience of COVID. Because when it's all said and done, it was still a pretty remarkable operation. By the way, Sepe did a fantastic job. You guys deserve a lot of congratulations for it. But so I think it's around things like, how do you make sure you get the right scientific cooperation and the cooperation between the regulatory authority so in the future you can clear things much faster? For example, on the continent of Africa, if we had an equivalent to the European Medicines Agency, an African Medicines Agency that allowed you to have one system, one standard, which hugely changed the way that vaccines and treatments are introduced in Africa. And I think that this issue of manufacturing, so a lot of companies learned that if they didn't have some recourse to manufacturing sovereignty, if you like, either directly or indirectly through partnerships with other countries, then they were at a disadvantage. I think there's a huge impetus now for a national digital infrastructure. Digitization in healthcare is, I think, one of the great game-changers. We should be helping countries to develop a national digital infrastructure, which they will need with these new vaccines. And then finally, it's also about showing people and showing the political leadership that you can make a positive difference to your healthcare system by adopting these measures because they've got an impact beyond any particular disease or pandemic. So I think if you want to keep the political focus, and I agree it's vital that you do, you've got to show people that this is a continuing issue. It's not a future issue. It's here and now. It's got a broad set of implications and there are a set of solutions that COVID has taught us, arising out of the challenges of COVID, to which if we apply the right political will, we can make our healthcare systems better, not just for pandemic and disease, but more generally for the health of the population. If you do that, if you do that, they'll think they'll vote in it, and if they'll vote in it, they'll focus. Thank you. Mr. Moreno, I want to pick up a couple of themes that have already been mentioned, certainly the manufacturing effort, the expansion of manufacturing, but I think Tony has pointed to some important opportunities to improve healthcare for all populations. The African Union has set a goal for Africa to develop and produce more and more of its own vaccines to achieve, I think you use the term manufacturing sovereignty and self-sufficiency. What challenges, as Minister of Industry and Trade, what challenges do you see to making that a reality? How can the world help Africa succeed in that ambition? Thank you very much. Let me start by saying thank you for inviting me for this panel. This is an opportunity to share what's happening in Africa, in a special, my country, Mozambique. I would like to start by saying that you may be aware that Africa has, as today's United States estimates, 1.4 billion people. And 1.2 of those people are in the sub-Saharan area, where the expenditure in health is not more than 2%. And this is something that has been looked very carefully. Of course, the pandemic has shown us that we need to look at infrastructures. We do like infrastructures of health. We have poor systems. We have, in Africa, lack of professionals in health. And all those things has come up with the pandemic. And what we need to do is quickly organize ourselves, put the systems working, get the partnership, the best partnership in the world. And we are lucky because, in South Africa, we have already production of vaccines. And this will help the whole continent. The challenge is, actually, as Prime Minister Blythe said, we need to get an entity, an entity who can look at all the systems. We have, in each country, complete different procedures, different systems. And when we look for the way how we need to, the way how we need to tackle the pandemic, or whatever happens in the future, it means that we need a unique system, a system that can be similar in all our countries. But, of course, we are 55 countries in Africa, and each country has its own procedures and the relation is completely different. Even if, and when it comes to the health, so you have so much different system that we need to look at that first of all. Secondly, I think there is a chance for us, as we're running for a free trade area for the whole Africa. So this is a project going on. Maybe we can check that and join the efforts and when bring the vaccine manufacturers, use it, and they quickly have the distribution system for the whole Africa. In Africa, we have all those kind of problems in health, but the challenge is putting our hands together, getting the help of the institutions, the old institutions to attract the best manufacturers of vaccines and they take advantage of the way how we think that the trade must be guided in the next step. Great, thank you. Thank you very much. Albert, first, congratulations on the recent announcement on the expansion of Pfizer's access program. That is a terrific step, but I want to come back to the theme on the 100 days mission. Pfizer broke every land speed record in delivering a new vaccine. By my count, it was 326 days from the release of the sequences to the first emergency authorization of the Pfizer vaccine. And you did that on the fly, establishing partnerships, pulling a program together, building manufacturing capacity or expanding manufacturing capacity. What opportunities do you see to further compress those timelines and what barriers need to be overcome to be able to deliver vaccines even much more rapidly than we did in 2020? Thank you. First of all, it's a great honor to be part of this panel with two ex-iconic prime ministers and acting minister of finance, you the head of SAP. It's a great honor for me. Looking back how we were able to do it, really, I don't know. It's not only the ability to execute a very technically challenged task, but it was also a series of decisions that had to be made that were 50-50. And you had to make all of them right to be able to eventually deliver in 8-8 months. And so we were blessed to be able to do it. Now, there were a lot of challenges that we faced. And there were technical challenges, including the choice of the technology, which was a technology that had not delivered any product until that time, building manufacturing capacity for a product that was never manufactured before just to give you a magnitude of the scale you're speaking now. Pfizer, before pandemic, was producing 200 million doses vaccines every year for all the vaccines that we have in the world. The first year of the pandemic, we produced 3 billion doses of a vaccine that we never had manufactured before. That's very challenging technical to do. Then logistical challenges, these vaccines had to be transferred in minus 70 degrees. We have never built in the world a logistical channel to be able to do something like that. And that can go on and on. But if you ask me what was financial challenges, as you know, Pfizer is a very big corporation, but also we never accepted money from governments. So all of that was part of the daily life that we had, all of us at Pfizer. But if you ask me what was the biggest challenge, I think was the political challenge. I think the vaccines, the COVID and the ability to deliver or not vaccines, and then after we delivered the ability to use them or not became severely politicized and became a political statement if you are wearing a mask or not, became a political statement if you believe we will have a vaccine or not. And after we had the vaccine, it became a political statement if you believe it works or not. And then we went to more extremes if you believe that COVID existed or not. All of these were constantly on our way. And you know, I'm a businessman, I'm a scientist, I'm not a politician. And the same is the same for all of my peers, right? The head of Moderna, the head of J&J, the head of AstraZeneca, that they were trying to do the same. And that we found it the most challenging of all the tasks. And that continued after the vaccine. As you know, governments, everybody was scared at that time. So what was the result? Everybody tried to protect their own nation. So the protectionist, how was manifested in our ability to deliver? Borders were closed. So you can't export vaccine. You can't send it to anybody else, other than keep it in the U.S. Keep it in India. India closed, really, their borders. Europe was the only continent that were allowing part of the production in European soil to be exported. And congratulations to doing that. But still part, right? But at least there was the first six months of the pandemic that everybody was receiving vaccine from their own soil and everybody else from Europe. So that's something that also need to give credit to them. So for me, looking ahead now, how can we make sure that we can be better prepared to do faster in an unknown pandemic that we don't know what will be the nature of it? I think we should analyze what was the success factors in this one. And I think there were so many, but one that stands out was that the world was lucky that there was a thriving life sciences sector that was at each peak of its performance that was able to strike a phenomenal collaboration during the pandemic with regulatory agencies. That's the secret. The secret that there were all these companies in the world that were ready scientifically to address the challenge and they worked hand in hand with regulators that were spending sleepless nights to be able to review the progress so that they can authorize the next step so that we can be able to move. And the second is if we're able to do it in COVID, why not we cannot repeat it in Alzheimer's, in cancer, in Parkinson's, you know, many other diseases. Those are the two characteristics. So for me, the world should start from here. How can we make sure, one, that we maintain in the world a thriving, scientifically-based life sciences sector with the partnership between private and academia and biotics? And the second is how can we take the lessons of COVID, collaboration between regulators and companies and apply them to other severe medical needs of humanity? Great. Thank you. Albert, let me stick with you, actually, and follow up on that question. I mean, Pfizer was unique among all of the companies that delivered vaccines in not taking public sector resources to support the R&D, which had to have taken incredible courage on your part on the part of your senior management to make those decisions, given the unknowns, given the untested technology. But then you described the engagement with regulators. Certainly, Pfizer engaged with governments around procurement. From your perspective, which is unique among all of the companies that responded to the pandemic, what are going to be the key factors that, in the public-private partnerships that we need to have for the future? What are the areas where we need to focus our efforts to have the right kinds of public and private sector engagement? I spoke already about the regulators. This is a highly regulated, let's say, business, highly regulated effort. Before you do anything, you need to get an approval from regulators. These steps could take five, six months. We saw the phenomenon, but Pfizer scientists will work for a week overnight. Clearly, the last night, seven o'clock in the morning, sleepless nights, press the button to send something to FDA or EMA. And then scientists in FDA or EMA will receive the dosage and will spend a week sleepless. No sleep at all so that they can turn around and send a reply in three or four days. That went magnificently well. Very well. What I felt could have been way better for all was if the restrictions in trade were not imposed. They were imposed by fear, but there was not a single country that they had full sovereign, as you said it, in the manufacturing, because although we were doing in the beginning, in Europe or in the US, the component were made all over the world and they were unique. There were pieces that we had to import from Europe to the US, from U.K. to Europe, from multiple, from China, from India, from all over the world, that if any of them was closing as a retaliation, you are not allowing me to expert vaccine, I'm not allowing you to receive nanoparticles. Then the whole world will be, so I felt that was critical. So in the next phase, I think this is something that needs to be addressed, that everybody should remain calm. We should have some rules. Nobody stops anything, because otherwise we are all going to lose, but then we have an orchestrated way to have an equitable way of distributing. Minister Moreno, let me pick up on that. Albert has talked about these trade restrictions and trade barriers. It's kind of famous in our communities that hundreds of components that went into the Pfizer vaccine, for example, sourced from dozens of countries. What opportunities do you see through current trade efforts, and you mentioned the free trade area in Africa. How can that be linked with pandemic preparedness, and particularly with the focus on enabling rapid delivery of countermeasures? Thank you very much once again. Well, the free trade area will be a very good opportunity, especially to enable the way how the distribution system can work. With the free trade area, we will, like it happens in the European Union, have no barriers for moving the goods and services from one country to another. But more than that, we will be able to use the capabilities of a country from the north of Africa to the south. I think that investing in new manufacturers in Africa can be a very good opportunity, especially because we, as I said, Africa has lack of everything in terms of medicines, in terms of drugs. We have challenges in terms of control. We have counterfeit drugs coming in from somewhere, from Asia and from America. And the challenge for us is actually making sure that all those products can be used in the country. Of course, the source of raw material, let us say, for the pharmaceutical, we have capabilities, we have potentials in Africa to produce more of them. I'm talking about the agriculture products and all those products and be used for some medicines. We have an experience now, a recent experience from Rwanda, who has started the production of medicine. It has been a success. It has put the price of medicines going down. And of course, we need to replicate that experience from Rwanda in other countries. The ones we have, the potential, the industrial potential to put new factories and new producers. As I said, well, the market is open. The market is open. The market wants good medicine. The market wants good investors. The market is looking for good products and definitely for good services. So there's an opportunity in Africa for that. Perfect. Thank you. Tony, I want to skip over you for a minute. I want to come back to you, I promise. But, Helen, given your work on the IPPR and talking about some of the opportunities that Minister Moreno just mentioned and the financing that will be required to support that, in the context of the current fiscal constraints, the debt burden that many, many countries are facing, what kinds of financing do we need to bring to pandemic preparedness and response, and how do we take that message to stressed ministries of finance? Well, I think we saw in the current pandemic response that the model of relying on, in effect, charitable funding didn't work terrifically well. And we're now seeing with the establishment of the pandemic fund for preparedness. Conventionally agreed, I think, that you need around 10.5 to 15 billion a year being put into support for low- and middle-income country preparedness efforts. They will, of course, contribute a lot themselves, but solidarity is needed as well. And the fund is about 10% of the way to the lower end of that target. Our panel advocated what's perhaps called the jargon, a global public investment approach. And the advocates of GPI advocate that any future fund should be set up using these principles, where you set up on a sort of member-state basis on an ability to pay from each according to their means and to each according to their needs, which is how WHO or poor funding of the UN or whatever is financed. That would mean, for example, that Mozambique, as in LDC, would pay in a very, very small amount. But of course, when it came to the allocation, would be getting a significant allocation along with other LDCs. So that, I think, should be the model. If you spread, say, 10.5 billion across a cost-sharing formula like that, it actually doesn't amount to a lot for anyone, even for, say, the US, which is always by size of economy in GDP, the biggest contributor. So that would be the kind of approach that we would advocate. And I maybe hold some hope that at some point, the pandemic fund could transition to something like that. I think it's great that it's up and running, and I'm quite encouraged by the direction that I hear it's taking. But over time, if it could transition to an even more inclusive model with a more broadly-based finance, I think that would be helpful. Great. Tony, I want to switch gears slightly. We talked about the importance of linking the development of new countermeasures and capabilities to develop new countermeasures, to ability and opportunities to deliver health care in the here and now, and that that was critical to securing political buy-in. During the pandemic, we saw, as I said, there were multiple causes for the inequities of access that we saw. Even after billions of doses of vaccine had been delivered, 12 billion doses in the first year, many countries encountered difficulties in delivery. And we'd be very interested in your thoughts, maybe the work of the Institute, on how to improve access to medicine so that if we can deliver vaccines in 100 days and other countermeasures in 100 days, how do we then get them to the people that need them? Yeah, I think it's a really important question. So Albert was talking earlier about the politics of the situation. And I think there's sort of unforgivable politics and forgivable politics. The unforgivable politics is turning a public health issue into a political issue. I mean, I remember at the beginning of the onset of COVID, people saying, what do you think of the politics of COVID? How serious is this disease? And I was like, what? Well, you asked me about the politics of the disease. I mean, it's a disease. I don't know, you're going to ask someone who knows. So what's unforgivable is turning things like whether you wear a face mask or not into a political issue. That is unforgivable and stupid. But there's a forgivable politics, which you see also, by the way, when it comes to Russia and Ukraine and energy prices. If you're a politician and you're facing an election and you've got the ability to vaccinate your people, you're going to vaccinate your people first. So the question really is, how do you create a situation in which that more forgivable political anxiety is dealt with by a plan that allows you now to work on what are the elements you're going to need in order for this to be dealt with in the future equitably and properly. And, you know, I mean, I was, I love listening to Albert because he's an expert that I can actually understand. And, you know, the thing that he's saying, I think, is so important just to alight on, which is that you've got to put the different elements of the players in this that are going to be important in making sure not just that a future pandemic is well handled, but that healthcare systems are developed properly and as new treatments come online, then they're made available to more people. You've got to get the right people in a partnership together to work out how they create the mechanisms so that in the future it's better than it was in the past. And that is about getting the major pharmaceutical people, life science people, working with the regulators, with the government's understanding what it is they need to do in order to make sure that they're not left in the situation where they're scrambling for vaccine or for equipment that they're going to need, but that there's going to be sufficient provision and that there's going to be the ability to manufacture in countries in which there's not going to be the same problem. I think there's going to be a move, I think, probably to set up manufacturing hubs, but in countries maybe that are small population countries because if you're a manufacturing hub in a large population country, you're going to have to look after that population first. And I also think this issue to do with the technology and the digital infrastructure, I just want to emphasize how important I think that is because in the end you need the data, you need to know who's been vaccinated and who hasn't been. Some of the vaccines that will come on down the line will be multiple shots. So you've got to have the reasons to do with the healthcare more generally, but certainly for a pandemic or for vaccines, you've got to have a proper digital infrastructure and many countries don't have that. In fact, most countries don't have that. So again, you've got to say, okay, who are the people that can make this happen? How do you get the right partnerships in place? So my view is this is what I'm arguing with that should happen in the G20 particularly, I think which is, I mean G7 is important forum, but the G20 is the broader forum is you've got to work out what is it that you want to achieve in order to make sure that any future pandemic is properly handled and what are the partnerships that we're going to create in order to ensure that the answers you get are the right answers and then you're going to have to have the mechanisms of implementation and those mechanisms will be partly through the formal institutions that you have like the WTO, but they'll also be through organizations like yours which I think have many advantages because they don't get landed with the same bureaucracy and frankly, small P politics around them. So I think that's what we need to do, but if you want the politicians to focus on a plan, I promise you it's got to be because they think in the next few years, not in the broad future, it's going to matter to them to have that plan. Let me just make an inject a comment on my own and you raised the importance of the digital infrastructure and we saw in countries that had good digital infrastructure. Israel, for example, was with its ability to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of the Pfizer and other vaccines. The UK, where the national health system allowed very rapid evaluations of the efficacy of different kinds of approaches. They made disproportionate contributions to our understanding of COVID and to the delivery of improved clinical care when we were learning really, really rapidly. Right, one other thing, by the way, is genomic sequencing, I think. How do we establish the right network of that and how do we make sure that if you are discovering things in a country because they're doing a lot of genomic sequencing, for example, like the South African said, you don't tend to have that country feel they've got a problem because they've discovered a new variant. Well, that's exactly what we saw, of course, was that South Africa was punished for doing the right thing. And when we have to create systems and hopefully the pandemic treaty will do this, that will prevent that kind of, I think, knee-jerk backlash. It's hard to avoid. We've got maybe just a minute or two. Let me ask anyone on the panel if there were thoughts that were stimulated by the comments of your fellow panelists. If you wanted to inject any last thoughts. Helen, you look like you. The last thought, perhaps, would be to get some discussion around the various possibilities for countermeasures going forward. And I've put my name to a Lancet comment which talks about the importance, really, of building on this concept that WHO has begun with the regional mRNA hub. It could be expanded, obviously, to different locations and a wider range of technologies. But I think having a system where scientists around the world's regions, from LMICs to HICs, are able to collaborate and cooperate on designing what we need for the future is important. I think there's also governance and financing issues going forward as to how we support the development of that and then the equitable rollout. And I think the regional manufacturing is just a no-brainer. We need distributed manufacturing for all the reasons that have been raised. And you made in your opening comments, Richard, the point about both the structural issues and the scarcity. I think we've got a chance of overcoming both of those. Great. Thank you. Let me just briefly sum up, and then I'll invite Sean Bishan up to make a couple of concluding remarks. It's been a great session. We've covered a wide range of topics, from scientific discovery, from risk-taking in industry, to the need for trade agreements, to efforts to expand manufacturing, to issues of financing and delivery of healthcare and how we can link what we are trying to do to advance pandemic preparedness with the delivery of healthcare every day and to help politicians see that as an opportunity, so that this is something that they can continue to focus on. Tony, I liked your forgivable and unforgivable politics. I haven't heard that distinction before, but I think it's very apropos. With that, I want to thank all of you for coming. Let me invite Sean Bishan up. I think he wants to make a few quick remarks. Thank you, Richard. So good morning, everyone. My name is Sean Bishan, and I head up the Health and Healthcare Division here at the World Economic Forum. So first of all, from World Economic Forum, a big thank you to you, Richard, for moderating this session. And huge thank you for our speakers. Right on Rebel Prime Minister Clark, right on Rebel Prime Minister Blair, on Rebel Prime Minister Moreno, and Dr. Burla. Great comments, very useful. One thing I want to make sure that we emphasize here today is, as Richard also pointed out, this is a sixth year anniversary for CEPI. CEPI was created here in 2017 at the annual meeting right here in Davos. And what a great success it has been. It's been a fantastic success. Richard has done a great job of leading this organization. So big hand to Richard and big hand to CEPI. It's a great, we have been talking about public-private partnership. It's a great example of public-private partnership. Obviously, there is GAVI that was created here several years ago, and both GAVI and CEPI has been so instrumental during this pandemic, during COVID-19 pandemic. It's also because of Richard's leadership that 100-day mission that we talked about is now included in G7 health agenda, which is a great achievement. I think we need to get it on top of G7. And as you said, Prime Minister Blair, it should be also part of G20 agenda. Two other things I would like to point out here in my closing remarks, in terms of what we are doing from the World Economic Forum to help on the pandemic preparedness side. One is Richard you already mentioned, and so did the Prime Minister, and in terms of the regionalized vaccine manufacturing. So regional vaccine manufacturing, we launched this initiative at the World Economic Forum together with Victor Zhao, President of National Academy of Medicine and CEPI about a year ago. And it's coming up with Roadmap, which will be discussed today actually at four o'clock. I think, Laura, at three o'clock, sorry. So I invite people here, you know, whoever can join to look at what we have done and then what's the opportunity going forward. And then the second one is, again, Prime Minister Blair, you talked about the pathogen surveillance. We are working with Africa CDC. We are working with public and private partners to bring that together so that we can all access, as soon as there is a pathogen that we identify, we can have access to the data. The whole world can have access to data. We don't repeat the South Africa example. We don't penalize countries for sharing their information, for sharing the data. And we come up with medical countermeasures, whether it's vaccines, diagnostics, or treatments. So I think that's something that's very important, and we have launched that initiative. We are working on that. So that's, I think, very critical here. I don't think we are going to avoid outbreaks. Those will happen the way we live, with the growth of population, with climate change, infectious diseases will come through, there will be outbreaks. How do we stop them from blowing into pandemics? That's the question. How do we catch those early on so that we can come up with these medical countermeasures and stop those? So with that, I know we are over time. So I will stop here. Thank you again, Richard. Thank you again, speakers. And everyone for participating here. Thank you.