I can start, and Svend, you may want to add to that.
In a sense, we at the Global Fund also had to struggle from the beginning with this kind of challenge between an emergency response and a sustainable, long-term response. When we started 15 years ago, HIV/AIDS was considered a global emergency that required a very urgent response, but at the same time, you have to respond in a way that is sustainable because, for example, as most of you will know, when you put somebody on treatment for HIV/AIDS, it's lifelong. It's very effective. The people have an almost normal life expectancy today with this treatment for AIDS, but they have to take the drugs every day.
You have to have a long-term perspective in that, and when the world is faced with new emergencies, such as Ebola, or now Zika, and so on, we don't have a direct mandate for that but what we did, for example, in west Africa was to provide those countries—Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, for example—which were affected by that maximum flexibility through the funding of the Global Fund because many of the measures you have to put in place to contain and control an Ebola outbreak are very similar to what you need to do to contain AIDS or malaria. Actually, the major differential diagnosis for Ebola was malaria, so we were increasing our funding for the malaria control while also strengthening efforts enabling health professionals in those countries to take the required precautions for this disease.
We often have to balance that and also make sure that the work continues to focus on what is really the major infectious disease, if you look at the impact, and to keep a focus on that.
Svend, do you want to add to that?