 These would be in any other day, would be huge stories. First one here, this is extraordinary. This is the FT. Most UK businesses are unsure they can survive the coronavirus. As you can see, construction, entertainment and food services among most pessimistic sectors. I'm going to bring up a quote here. The majority of UK businesses are not confident they had the financial resources to stay open during the coronavirus pandemic, according to an official survey as data shows the economy contracted even before the disease struck, which is very, very striking. According to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, Economic Research Centre, the UK economy could shrink by 5% in the first quarter, which is particularly strange when you think that the lockdown didn't start until mid-March, and if the lockdown continues by between 15% and 25% in the second quarter. Michael, this is quite significant, isn't it? 59% of 4,600 businesses that replied to a survey didn't think they could continue operating through the crisis, which would indicate they won't see the other side of it to clarify those words. Yes. There's two facts you've presented, and I think they're both very different in terms of how we should look at them. In a way, a recession of between 15% and 25%, that's not a policy failure. That's something that we actually quite want to see, because what we want to see is economic activity dampening down. We want people to stop moving about so much. That means that the policy is successful as far as businesses stop functioning during this period. But that's very different to this idea that 59% of businesses think they might go bankrupt in this period, because what the government have said they want to do, and I don't see that much reason to not take them at their word on this, is to freeze the economy and to have businesses survive until this crisis is over, when they can boot back up again and start functioning again. What it seems like with policy as it currently is, maybe that's because it's been based too much on loans and small businesses aren't interested in taking on more debt, as Bhaskar said, when they reopen. It's not as if people are going to buy twice as many meals afterwards. They've got a big black hole in their finances, which alone won't fill. They need cash grants. It does seem like not only will we be freezing the economy over the next three, six months, which is a good thing, but there will be many good businesses that die over that same period of time. Go bankrupt. Well, yeah, they'll expire. They will no longer exist. If you look at it as well, the important thing is we've not gone from even healthy economic growth isn't even the right word. Even just normal by the standards of the last 30, 40 years growth to 3% per annum, basically towards the end of last year, or 0% growth. You could say that's because investment was being held back to Brexit or whatever. The first quarter to already see a contraction would suggest that we were hovering at zero anyway. This is a really important point. The economic context within which this crisis happened is already terrible. They're already high street businesses going bankrupt. Already we had a housing crisis, not enough homes were being built. I think, as we've said repeatedly, what this will do is intensify a preceding crisis as much as be this kind of exogenous shock. That's the word we keep on using, which is a bit different to the 70s. The oil crisis happened in the 70s. There was rising home ownership, rising living standards. This crisis happened in a very different environment and a very scary one. Bring up a quote here from Paul Dale's chief UK economist at Consultancy Capital Economics said that February's contraction, which before March, looked like the calm before the storm of a lifetime because the coronavirus lockdown will mean that in March and April GDP will fall at speed and magnitude no one has ever seen and no economy has ever experienced before. But as you've said, Michael, I suppose that's to be expected and that's actually the intention of the lockdown. Yeah, that's a good thing. As you say, this crisis as it comes along will intensify pre-existing crises which sort of underlie the system. So indebtedness of firms and firms with a lot of fixed cost in industries that might not be particularly profitable at this point in time. I think it is worth saying that it could also be an opportunity if the government is willing to adopt the right policies during and after this thing. So one reason we've had such anemic growth over the past decade is because of the high levels of indebtedness and low inflation, which means that those debts don't go down. We talked about this when James Medway was on the show. Even moderate centrist figures and like the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies is suggesting that one way that we might come out of this crisis is that you've got the government with huge debts and unlike in 2008 when they try and get down those debts by cutting wages and cutting social benefits, they could decide to accept higher levels of inflation. So pump money into the economy, allow inflation to rise and that would not only lower government debts because they become less valuable but also private debts. And so if we do have a sort of refoundation of a Keynesian model where we accept high inflation, that could resolve some of the contradictions of capitalism that we currently have. If a new settlement is found, obviously there's going to be many people whose interest that doesn't serve, big asset holders and I mean the toys will worry about the kickback that they might experience from from homeowners if they do that.