The court suggested that we look at this despite the fact that the Medicines Act has been in place for decades, and similar broadly used vaccines have been given provisional approvals previously, perhaps also with a question mark over at least some of them. I found the analysis of Justice Ellis interesting in her comment that the evidence on the affidavit, evidence in front of her in respect of the application for injunction, showed that often provisional approvals don't specify the number of patients who are going to be treated by a proposed new therapy, not always vaccines. But in a lot of those cases, it's self-evident, because the class of people who would benefit from a medicine that's been introduced for a small class of people is obviously for a small class of people, or a smaller class of people.