Good morning, and welcome to Moderna’s First Quarter 2020 Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. [Operator Instructions] Please be advised that the call is being recorded. At this time, I would like to turn the call over to Lavina Talukdar, Head, Investor Relations at Moderna. Please proceed.

Thank you, operator. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to Moderna’s conference call to discuss our first quarter 2020 business updates and financial results. You can access the press release issued this morning as well as the slides that we’ll be reviewing by going to the Investors section of our website. Speaking on today’s call are Stéphane Bancel, our CEO; Tal Zaks, our CMO; Stephen Hoge, our President; and Lorence Kim, our CFO. Before we begin, please note that this conference call will include forward-looking statements. Please see Slide 2 of the accompanying presentation and our SEC filings for important risk factors that could cause our actual performance and results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in these forward-looking statements. We undertake no obligation to update or revise the information provided on this call as a result of new information or future results or developments. With that, I will now turn the call over to Stéphane. Stéphane Bancel: Thank you, Lavina, and good morning or good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for joining the call. I hope you and your families are in good health. As you know, we believe mRNA has a potential to be a new class of medicines with the opportunity to address many unmet medical needs, with medicines with higher probability of technical success, with greater speed of research and clinical development versus traditional medicines and with better manufacturing capital efficiency and lower cost of goods than injectable recombinants. Given the amounts of working with new technology, we have been laser-focused on managing risk: technology risk, biology risk, execution risk and financing risk. As many of you know, 2019 was an important inflection year for Moderna. We reported clinically validating data from key programs into other modalities, prophylactic vaccines and systemic secreted and cell surface therapeutics, data…

Thank you, Stéphane, and good morning, everyone. I’ll start with a quick reminder on the data generated to date with our vaccines. In over 1,500 healthy volunteers and 7 positive Phase 1 datasets to date, we’ve observed the safety profile that’s consistent with the safety of adjuvanted vaccines. And we’ve time and again demonstrated the ability to elicit an immune response in the form of neutralizing antibodies. I’ll start with a high-level progress on mRNA-1273, our vaccines against SARS CoV-2, and will give more detail shortly. As you heard from Stéphane earlier, we have the FDA clearance to move into our Phase II study, and we plan to start it shortly. This study will run in parallel with the NIH-run Phase I study, which has completed enrollment of the first three dose cohorts. Our CMV Phase II dose confirmation study is fully enrolled, and we still expect data readout to come in the third quarter of this year, despite having had some COVID-19-related disruptions. At our Vaccines Day on April 14, we announced positive interim analysis of our Phase I study for our Zika vaccine. At the two lower doses of 10 microgram and 30 microgram, we achieved seroconversion rates of 94% and 100%, respectively. The two higher dose cohorts of 100 microgram and 260 microgram are now fully enrolled. As a reminder, we paused our hMPV/PIV3 Phase Ib study enrollment as a cautionary measure to protect children and their caregivers due to COVID-19 disruptions. Our RSV program with Merck continues. So this has been covered in detail, but just to quickly pace everybody on the same place, our SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, mRNA-1273, which was a subject of much work and discussion in the first quarter of this year, demonstrates the kind of speed that we believe the platform can provide,…

Thank you, Tal. Let me first cover an update on the Vertex agreement. In July 2016, we entered into a strategic collaboration and license agreement with Vertex in that discovery and development of potential mRNA medicines for the treatment of cystic fibrosis or CF by enabling cells in the lungs that people see us to potentially produce functional CFTR proteins. In July of 2019, the initial research term was extended by six months. And based upon promising preclinical data generated, in March of 2020, we were pleased that Vertex elected to extend this collaboration for a further 18 months. Now let me turn to financial results. In today’s press release, we reported our first quarter 2020 financial results. Note that these results are unaudited. We raised approximately $550 million in net proceeds from the February public equity offering, which resulted in us ending Q1 2020 with cash, cash equivalents and investments of $1.72 billion. This compares to $1.26 billion at the end of 2019. Net cash used in operating activities was $106 million for the first quarter of 2020 compared to $144 million in 2019. And just as a reminder, that latter number includes an in-licensing payment of $22 million, which will not recur. Cash used for purchases of property and equipment was $6 million for the first quarter of 2020 compared to $8 million in 2019. Revenue for the first quarter of 2020 was $8 million compared to $16 million in 2019. This decrease of $8 million in revenue was mainly due to cumulative catch-up adjustments resulting from changes in our estimated costs for our future performance obligations, coupled with the timing of amortization of deferred revenue due to the satisfaction of our performance obligations. R&D expenses for the first quarter of 2020 were $115 million compared to $130…

[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from Matthew Harrison of Morgan Stanley. Please ask your question.

Great. I guess, first, you’ve highlighted the 50-microgram dose on the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. And I think Dr. Fauci in his interview also talked about good responses in low doses in animals. Can you just talk about your confidence in being able to move forward and elicit the right kind of immune response with the low dose as opposed to the other doses that you’re testing? And then secondly, can you just update us on where the field is and figuring out what neutralizing antibody titers are and if you think they’ll be available by the time you report initial data from the Phase I study? Thanks.

This is Tal. Let me take that question. Two spot-on things that we’re looking at. So first of all, 50 microgram is our current best guess. We – this is short of data and it’s based, as you’ve seen Tony Fauci’s remark, on what we expect the platform could deliver. That being said, the final dose selection will really be a factor of, I think, three elements. The first is the overall sense of a dose response of how much more do you get as you go up in dose. Because in the case of a pandemic, we obviously need to balance this with having enough doses available. And so you don’t want to unnecessarily overshoot. The second element is an understanding of what that dose could mean as you compare to convalescent serum. And so there’s a lot of work being done on assay validation, and I’ll get back to that in a minute, to understand what any given level of antibodies mean. And the last element that I think will enable us to connect the dots is understanding the performance of the vaccine in additional animal models of SARS-CoV-2 and then seeing, commensurate with the expected ability to protect those animals, what levels of titers do we get. And obviously, the higher the species the more reliable that data is. But ultimately, what we care about is being able to connect the dots for human disease. So it’s a – long story short, it’s a best guess estimate for now and based on the emerging data, and we will continue to refine it as more data comes in. Your question about the right kind of immune response. Look, I think the data we’ve seen to date, both across the clinical trials, across the experience that we have in the preclinical models, across the board, as I mentioned, in all the other clinical trials, we’ve routinely reported neutralizing antibodies as the measure of immunological success. And if you think about the kind of scientific-first principles of of scientific-first principles of how an mRNA technology presents an antigen from within the cell and mimics the instruction set that a virus would otherwise give the cell to make an antigen, we get the right kind of immune response, however we want to characterize it, neutralizing antibody in Th1 versus Th2, et cetera. The emerging data that we’re seeing preclinically with mRNA-1273 is all consistent with that. Your final question, on neutralizing antibodies, yes, those assays are being stood up as we speak. They’re being validated. They’re being transferred to commercial vendors. And the NIAID is actively looking at in parallel with the simpler types of binding antibodies we expect to be able to report, both kinds of data when we see the data from that Phase I.

Your next question comes from Cory Kasimov of JPMorgan.

I’ve got two of them for you as well. So I guess, first, can you talk more about what the Phase III COVID vaccine design might look like? And there’s, obviously, nothing traditional about this program. So how should we be thinking about kind of like the endpoints interim analysis and amount of follow-up you think you need for either emergency use authorization or full approval? And then my second question for you is regarding COVID – also regarding COVID-19. There have been some conflicting reports out there on emerging mutations with the virus. I’d be very interested to hear your views on this and what it could potentially mean for the effectiveness of your vaccine.

Thanks, Cory. This is Tal. I’ll take those questions. So look, the Phase III design, let me make a couple of points. Any pivotal trial in order to demonstrate efficacy as well as safety has to be placebo-controlled and large enough so that the people – among the people that you will vaccinate, there will by chance occur cases, right? And so it’s a case-driven design and you set your statistics based on what you expect to see and how many cases you expect to see in the placebo and then how many fewer cases do you expect the vaccine to demonstrate. Now any such trial to be effective depends on three things: how big it is when you start, how good are you at predicting the attack rate in the population that you vaccinated, because if it’s case-driven design, then we can vaccinate a whole lot of people. But if they end up for the months to come not being exposed to the risk of an infection, then we won’t know whether the vaccine work. And the third element is how good our vaccine is, because the higher the point estimate for the vaccine efficacy, the clear the results are and the sooner you can find them. Somewhere between those parameters, we are going to have to have a conversation. It’s ongoing between us, our collaborators at NIAID, at the NIH, and ultimately, FDA. The length of follow-up here and how soon can we see the data, I think, is a function of all those design elements as well as where you sort of set the bar for cases and what expected benefit is. Now you asked an interesting question on where does EUA come into this, where does approval, and what kind of interim data one could expect.…

Okay, thanks for the full responses and great CD impressive progress you guys are making.

[Operator Instructions] Your next question comes from Ted Tenthoff, Piper. Please ask your question.

Ted, you might be on mute. Operator, we’ll come back to Ted. Can you go to the next question please?

Your next question comes from Salveen Richter of Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.

Where you’re looking at challenging animal models and then examining the antibody levels in humans? And then a second question around with regard to supply and demand constraints, is the Lonza partnership really just kind of where you – I guess is that – are you going to expand beyond that to kind of handle demand and supply?

This is Tal. Let me try and take your first question. I think you got cut off, but if I understood you correctly, you asked whether we’re running animal channel challenge models and whether we will be able to connect the dots between those and what we see in human vaccinees. And I think the answer is, yes. That work is ongoing. It’s been done in close collaboration with Barney Graham’s team at the VRC of the NIH. And the assay development work that is ongoing is being deployed, so that we are able to connect the dots between the challenge models, convalescent serum and the serum that we eventually expect to see from people who have been vaccinated. So I hope that answers that question, Salveen. Let me turn it over to Juan to talk about or Stephane to talk about the Lonza question.

This is Juan Andres, Chief Clinical Operations and Quality Officer in Moderna. So let me take the second question that you have. Lonza brings an incredible track record in supporting and manufacturing products worldwide. Lonza’s capacity, together with the capacity that we have in our site in Massachusetts and the capability, will be a great help for Moderna scaling up and also producing the quantities. We are going to manufacture together with Lonza the formulated bulk, and I expect that we will have more partnership with existing CMOs once we’re finished in distribution, and if needed, with new ones. Thank you.

Thank you.

Your next question comes from Ted Tenthoff, Piper. Please ask your question.

Great. Can you hear me okay? Stéphane Bancel: Yes.

Great. Sorry about that before. And thank you for all of the hard work. It’s been just an incredible run during this last couple of weeks and the company has really risen to the challenges. Lorence, it’s been so nice working with you, and I’m wishing you all the best too. So my question actually has to do with CMV. And I know you guys have talked about sort of the challenges just with getting the final data sets and the final process and all those things. So I wanted to see if there’s an update on that and whether or not there’s any changes to the expectation for data in the third quarter. And also, how this general progress and investment in the vaccine platform will really help what you’re doing in CMV. Thanks so much.

Thanks, Ted, for the kind words. This is Tal. Let me try and take maybe both of those questions, and Stephane can add on. On CMV, I believe we remain on track, and it’s – you can do the simple math here. If we’ve already vaccinated over 70% of people with the second dose, and it’s that critical post second dose interim analysis, that should confirm our dose for Phase III. If you recall the data from the Phase I, with much smaller numbers of subjects, we had pretty tight error bars and a pretty good understanding of the dose response curve. Now with the much larger study, even if it ran into some sort of difficulty because of COVID-19, we’re going to be more than powered to understand the immunogenicity. And the size was really driven not just by the need to understand immunogenicity, but also to validate the safety profile that we see here. So I’m confident that with the numbers of people that we managed to get into the second dose, the amendment of the protocol, as mentioned for the remaining less than 30%, that we will stay on track, as we’ve discussed before, to have the data and be able to move on. And our plans for Phase III continue and remain fully on track for CMV. Your question on how it’s preparing the platform. I’ll give you sort of a brief answer from approach of maybe medical and development, and then I’ll let Stephane talk as it relates to the company becoming sort of moving to its commercial life phase. The COVID experience is doing really three things for us. It is accelerating our understanding of the safety and immunogenicity at a much wider level for the platform, sort of the leading edge of data,…

That’s super helpful, thank you very much.

[Operator Instructions] Your next question comes from Yasmeen Rahimi at Roth Capital Partners. Please ask your question.

Hi, team. Thank you for the continued amazing progress that you’re making day over day. Two quick questions for you. The first question is related to how are you defining age cut-off? In the Phase II, you mentioned there will be a cohort of patients who are 55 and above. Is there maybe a range above which you’re not going to be going after? And then is there going to be a cohort among the Phase II and as you’re thinking about Phase III that are healthy but are at highest risk given that maybe they have obesity or cardiovascular disease? How are we thinking about this patient population that are at the highest risk to incorporate that into the Phase II and Phase III enrollment? And then the second question is in regards to manufacturing. If you could help us understand, what is the single largest unknown when it comes to scaling up mRNA therapeutics?

This is Tal. Let me start by answering the clinical ones, and then I’ll let Juan take the manufacturing question. The – in our Phase II, there is no upper limits. I think above 55. You’ve seen the NIH Phase I sort of parse it out a little bit more finely. I think, for us, we’re going to take all comers above 55 with no upper age limit. In terms of your question on cohorts at higher risk for disease should they get infected, this relates to both the elderly and people with distinct comorbidities. As we build the safety database, obviously, we need to get there, but get there responsibly. I think the Phase II, the initial sort of expansion into larger numbers is people that do not have a high-risk of disease should they get infected. In the Phase III, we will clearly then open it up, and we will do that in a manner that’s responsible and takes the appropriate interim looks to make sure that we expand into that population who needs it the most in a way that’s careful. And that’s an ongoing discussion, obviously, between us, NIAID and FDA how to best achieve that goal. Let me let Juan take your manufacturing question.

Okay. Thanks. Thanks for the question. Obviously, one of the unknowns we discussed before which is the assumptions associated with dose. And then in terms of the industrialization of the product, obviously, where we’re working very hard is in bringing the equipment, bringing the raw materials, bringing the people capabilities together as we scale up. I don’t think it is a very single unknown in dose. We have done this before, probably not at the scale at which we are going. Having the partnership with Lonza gives me a tremendous confidence that we are going to be doing this very rapidly. And obviously, speed is of the essence. Bringing these three things together is what it’s all about, and that’s what we are doing. Stéphane Bancel: Yes. And maybe Yasmeen, just to add something. We are extremely fortunate to have Juan and this leadership team. As you know, he and the team have all come from large organization. They have managed a very large manufacturing complex organization. They have a lot of experience. They know that every extra million dose we can get out of our system will be helping a lot of people. So I’m very thankful for the team. They are literally working seven days a week, pulling all-nighters to shave every day we can so that we can really maximize the mostly output of the system, and I’m tremendously thankful for them.

Thank you, Stephane. And so on you were very grateful for all the work that everyone has doing behave and humanity.

Your next question comes from Geoff Meacham with Bank of America. Please ask your question.

This is Alec on for Jeff. And Lorence, we’re sorry to see you go, but I assume you’re moving on to bigger and better things. So my question is on capital allocation in the near term. You reiterated your 2020 expense guidance. But I was hoping you could give a bit more color on the gives and takes within that vis-a-vis OpEx versus CapEx. And how much manufacturing build-out and commercial readiness activities for COVID-19 are reflected within that? And my second question is on the commercialization front. Do you intend to take the vaccine forward yourselves? Or do you think it will take partnering to deliver that at scale? Or would the U.S. government potentially step in as well? Any color you can give here. And if there’s some historical context you could point to, that would be great.

Alec, it’s Lorence. Let me handle the financial question. With respect to the guidance and the components, so as I mentioned around sort of the pre-COVID business, if you will, I’d mentioned that we’re seeing a bit of a slowdown in expenses, OpEx related to lab work and some of the clinical trials, as we’ve noted. And so those expenses will be coming down relative to what we thought when we originally set out guidance. The offset is investments that we are making to be ready for all that’s coming down the road. We’ve mentioned this – the rapid acceleration of the COVID vaccine timelines, and there’s a lot that we need to do at the company to be ready for potentially being commercial in 2021. And so those offset, we will continue to update you all as we – as we scope those investments as we move forward. With respect to CapEx, it is not a huge component here right now of the anticipated budget, mainly because of the leverage we’ve got in the platform as well as the benefit of having a great partner like Lonza on board. And again, we’ll continue to update that guidance should anything change. And then the last thing I would just reiterate is that there is substantial OpEx expected with respect to the COVID vaccine work being funded by BARDA, the clinical development at scale up. But that will be paid for by BARDA reimbursed on a very rapid cycle time. And so that’s why I mentioned that there would be this matching of expense and reimbursement through the course of the year that would substantially offset. Stéphane Bancel: Yes. Thanks, Lorence. And Alec, on commercialization, as you can appreciate, as we’ve said before, with the case of CMV, we do not…

Great. Thank you, and congrats on the rapid progress.

Your next question comes from Alan Carr of Needham & Company. Please ask your question.

Thanks for taking my questions, and congratulations on progress. I got a couple of them, in your increased focus and success with vaccines, are you able to accelerate? What sort of extra emphasis are you putting on these early stage vaccine programs? Can you give us an update on 1345 and 1893, your RSV and EBV programs that are internal? How are those moving along? I know you don’t give high res info and timelines, but to the extent you can. Then the other question is around your COVID-19 program. To what extent is it feasible to have even an interim analysis of your the planned Phase III trial in 2020? Stéphane Bancel: So let me start maybe with your first question, on EBV and RSV pediatric. As you know, we do not guide on programs' timelines. So the team is working on advancing those important vaccines as fast as possible. But we have given no timelines, and we will not give timelines. On the retail, as you appreciated over the quarters, to give timelines, when we get closer to kind of late stage development and especially with the SARS CoV-2, given the pandemic and given the suffering around the world, we think it’s important to communicate our best plans. And I hope everybody can appreciate that when we say we aim to start a Phase III early summer, this is the best possible physical plan. Fifty things can derail that. But for the early programs, we are not communicating. Tal, do you want to take the COVID interim data question?

Yes. Yes. Yes. It’s a good question. I believe we should be able to have a sense of the cases and a potential early look by the end of the year. But again, that is a function of how soon can we start, how big the trial is and how good are we at immunizing people who are then at risk for cases occurring, because, as I mentioned, it will end up being a case-driven design to be able to analyze it. And we’ll share the details on the expectations once we lock down the design with our partners and vet it with the agency.

So do you expect it to be just a U.S. trial, or would you go global? And I guess another, I guess, follow-up to this is, to what extent I mean a who talk about the possibility of a larger trial with multiple vaccine. Are you contemplating that, too? Or is this – the trial that you’re planning for Phase II just a Moderna versus – a Moderna candidate versus placebo?

So let me take both questions in turn. This first pivotal trial is going to be a partnership with NIAID with the NIH. So it will be, at this stage, either solo or a predominantly U.S. trial. We’re in parallel, looking at opportunities to launch parallel pivotal trials in Europe and globally, because I think, ultimately, the more data we have here, the wiser we will be. I think – can you please remind me your second question?

Yes, I think you answered it. I was wondering if you were contemplating a trial – or the government contemplating a trial.

All right. Right, the multi-arm trial, yes. Yes, yes, yes. So there’s been a lot of talk about that, both on the WHO side as well as the NIH. As you can clearly intuit, it’s not front and center in my brain for two reasons. First is, we expect to be the first one out there for a pivotal trial, and so we just have to get on and demonstrate our trial – our vaccine’s potential. But the second one is more fundamental. I think it is important for the field to use more or less the case where it actually makes sense to run many vaccines in a single trial. It’s not like we’re lacking for volunteers who would line up to be immunized and understand the benefit of a vaccine. And frankly, the epidemic is so unpredictable in where it shows up, and to what degree and how it comes down, that there is no expectation of a consistency of attack rate over time that would make that add any scientific value. So for my – this is a personal opinion here. I question the merits of that design from a scientific and a public health need perspective. I think what’s critical here is that for every vaccine candidate, as Stephane alluded to, we’re going to need more than one of them. But it matters less whether there’s a few percent difference on the apparent estimate of the point efficacy, what matters is you know it works and you’re able to scale it up and make it available to those who need it the most.

Okay, thanks very much.

Your next question comes from Gobind Singh of BMO. Please ask your question.

This is Gobind on for George. Two on 1273. The first one would be, can you help us understand if there’s any profit share agreements in place? Were there any other parties, including the NIH, around the vaccine? And just how do you guys see the commercial landscape evolving with so many other vaccine candidates in development? And then just to follow-up maybe with the NIAID’s comments about their preclinical results that they saw. I understand they’re probably doing their studies separate from you guys. But maybe you can help us understand what kind of preclinical results you’ve seen and when might this data be presented. That would be really helpful. Thanks a lot. Stéphane Bancel: Yes. So it’s Stephane. I’m going to start and then the team might think of issues I drop. So it is pretty – as Tal said, there’s preclinical work being done, both in the labs and at NIAID, both with Dr. Tony Fauci’s team, as soon as they just – body of data that makes sense, and is complete and holistic, we intend to publish that work. So as soon as it’s public, you’ll be aware. In term of the profit share, we have not disclosed previously any arrangement. So I will not comment on this one. And what was your other question?

The commercial landscape and how other coronavirus vaccines are in development? Stéphane Bancel: Yes. Thank you. So on the commercial landscape, as I briefly mentioned a few minutes ago, as you know, I mean there are 100-plus last time I checked on Wikipedia, vaccine candidates being worked on around the world. The thing I think that are important is manufacturing scale and where are those projects in research of the clinic. As I said a few minutes ago, I believe that the project at this stage in research with a group that doesn’t have the ability to do tens of millions of doses come off ramping up to hundreds of millions per month. He’s not going to be able to have a big dent on this pandemic. And so if you use those two as a screen, which is what we do, I think we end up with a very few number of players, that have again a chance in the 2021 timeframe to have an impact on this. Obviously, like always, in drug development, not every candidate is going to get to a finish line. And I could also anticipate that once a few vaccines are in late stage or commercially approved, a lot of the early project might just stop investing because we are deploying capital and talent for something that might have no commercial end. So I think while there is a lot of people on the stop lane, my sense is very few of them get to the finish line, with manufacturing scale that matters. One or two million doses a year is not going to be very, very helpful at the global scale.

Thank you for your help.

Your next question comes from Justin Kim with Oppenheimer. Please ask your question.

This is – it’s actually Hartaj on for Justin. So one thing first, Lorence, thank you so very much. It was a real pleasure working with you. I look forward to seeing you again sometime in the future. And then secondly, just to Moderna for all the work that you’re doing. I think people – a lot of people really don’t understand just the compression of the timelines that you and the government are engaging. It’s really, really a thing of beauty, knock on wood. So two questions. One is manufacturing and a second on regulatory strategy worldwide. So on manufacturing, if you can just talk a little bit about going from clinical to commercial batches. I know you’ve talked, it’s gone about going from millions, tens of millions to now billion with Lonza. Can you just talk broadly about the timing? When can you go from that clinical? I know you’ve mentioned that Lonza will start manufacturing first batches in July. And how that maps against the BLA that you’ll be starting to file? And then secondly, on regulatory strategy. Japan just approved remdesivir. I guess the EU is going through an approval process, a fast approval process for remdesivir. So how are you thinking of the worldwide approval strategy aside from the United States where I assume you’ll file the BLA towards the end of the year? Stéphane Bancel: So Hartaj, let me maybe start quickly on manufacturing. We have not done and have shared precise output per month. What we’ve said is that given we’re ramping up both Norwood, which we said could do up to 100 million doses per year at the 50-microgram dose, and then the Lonza site. As you can appreciate basically every month this year, every month next year, the output per month is going to increase. And so the team is working as hard as they can because they do understand, trust me, that every extra 100,000 vial we get out of the system, we will protect more people. We will slow down the spread of this virus. So it’s not a linear process where you start now at 100 million dose per month, of course not. So it’s just going to be an acceleration process, which is why this dialogue with the government in term of allocation, and we’re going to be hand to mouth for quite some time where as soon as product is made and QC’ed we will go to the government, and then they’ll decide how they allocate it. And we’ll just kind of be on a regular basis. Tal, you want to take the regulatory question maybe?

Yes. Thanks, Stephane, and thanks, Hartaj, for the question. Look, we’re in active dialogue now with the regulators beyond the U.S. I think having the partnership with Lonza is a huge enabler to envision the ability to scale up and eventually supply the vaccine on a global footprint to those who need it the most. That will take shape over the coming weeks and months. The expectation I have is that we will do more than one trial to demonstrate the benefit. That being said, at a certain point, we’ll obviously have data, both potential benefit and ultimately for benefit. By and large, that data should be applicable for filing in other territories. And so we’re actively mapping it out, and our intent is absolutely to eventually be able to make this vaccine available to those who need it the most.

Great, thanks for all the question.

There are no further questions at this time. Presenters, you may continue. Stéphane Bancel: So thank you so much, everybody, for participating, and we look forward to talking to you, hosting you at the latest on June 2 for the Moderna Science Day. Stephen and his team will host. Thank you very much. Have a good day and stay safe. Bye-bye.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today’s conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.