I've got to say, having read the judgment and considered the legislative schema, it's hard to conclude that she's wrong, because on a plain language reading of the Act, the now very old Act or at least 30-year-old Act, "a limited number" of patients can't really be described as the whole country. That, basically, is what the case turned on, because the Government has granted the Pfizer vaccine for everyone over the age of 16 who wants one, and we agree with that. That's a good thing. We want everyone to go and get the vaccine. But, of course, it's provisional consent, purportedly granted for a limited number of patients. 