 I want to go out this graph because this graph was again on Newsnight, they said they got it from the Lancet. I think this really just helps you understand all the different theories. On the y-axis, you've got cases being reported. On the x-axis, you've got months since transmission established. So this red line, that's showing if you get exponential growth and the virus gets out of control, and 60% of society get it all at one time. Obviously, you don't want that because health services get overwhelmed. There's not much opportunity to protect older and more vulnerable citizens. We should also know it's not just older people, it's also people with disabilities or people with suppressed immune systems. If it all happens that quickly, there's no time to protect the vulnerable, fundamentally. Well, also, society just collapses, right? You can't run supply chains, transport links. If one in four people is sick or something, I thought that was the main concern that you basically can't maintain public order and sort of the reproduction of society. The main concern with the red line is that loads of people die. I mean, obviously. But the point is, even all being at once is probably better for the economy, because Boris Johnson said this. I'm not saying the economy, I'm saying public order, and you might have rioting, looting, etc. Well, what you'd have is you'd have lots of old people dying, and you'd have lots of people... I'm not saying dying, people contracting it, I'm not saying dying, most people survive. Why are people contracting it going to riot? If you do the red thing, supply chains collapse, you can't access food. But supply chains, because basically, if you do no controls... One in four police disappear, nurses, teachers. No, but the whole point is one in four police wouldn't disappear. The only people who are going to die are people who aren't... I'm saying contracting it. Yeah, but if you contract it and you're fairly young... And you have to be isolated. So in the red thing, in the red phase, people aren't being isolated, so that's the whole point. Right. So we could just decide that we're going to let it continue. All the young and healthy people who are the people who form the basis of the labor force anyway, they can continue with a few sniffles and a bit of a cough. Some people barely notice they've got it. The economy would continue as it had been, and then a bunch of people who are economically inactive anyway, die. That would be the ultimate neoliberal capitalist. We value capital and we value wealth over everything else. That's what you do. You wouldn't have any controls whatsoever. The green option is to say you slow it down. So you slow down the spread. So ultimately, again, you're looking at sort of 60 to 70% of the population getting it before they develop herd immunity, but you slow it down with measures like social isolation, and then that means that the health service is never overwhelmed. You have the chance to sort of separate all the people and more vulnerable people from the ill population and then you limit casualties. That's the green one. And then the blue one, this is what the government is saying they want to avoid. The blue one is when you get a few cases, that's when you have absolute lockdown. So you have absolute lockdown, cases go down to zero. But then because you can't lock people in their homes forever, you have to let them out again. At the moment you let them out, there is still coronavirus around, even because some people still have it in the community or because there's still a global pandemic going on. And then because no one's got herd immunity, you then get another epidemic situation. So the point being that all those months that you spent locked down were pointless. Or if it turns out that your second boost is in the winter, then it could be that all that lockdown was actively unhelpful. Let me just say, just to respond to some of the things in the comments. I think if you had the scenario with the red line, you'd have to have martial law. That's just my view. You have so many fatalities, you'd have prison. I mean, you've already seen prison rights in Italy with a far lower level of cases being reported per head of population. I think you'd have to have martial law. I think that's one of the considerations for government policy on this, is public order. I just don't agree. Because I think the prison rights probably has a lot to do with the fact that people are... Well, I mean, it depends how old the people are in the prisons. I mean, ultimately, if you let the red thing happen, then most of people of rioting age, most of people of working age are going to be absolutely fine. I mean, the human cost is massive for older people and people with suppressed immune system, but they're not your standard rioters and they're not your standard people. We're looking statistically at more people. You're more likely to die from this thing than you would have been at the average UK national, the average person walking around per head, per capita, than you would have been fighting in the Second World War. So, you know, you're looking... No, hold on. But if you saw your front load, all of that, several hundred thousand casualties, people being upset, supply chains being massively disrupted, et cetera. I just don't... I think clearly the state would think this may be a big public order consideration. It would be very unpopular. The idea that things would be, yeah, that there wouldn't be mass dissent against the government, there wouldn't be mass protests, supply chains wouldn't be disrupted, there wouldn't be prison riots, wouldn't be riots to access health care. Come on. You'd have martial law. I don't mean... I think what you'd get is you'd have a very unpopular government because so many people would die. But the people don't... I mean, are people going to riot because people are dying from coronavirus? I don't know because when you go and riot, you're more likely to get it. I mean... Anyway, we disagree. I think that's probably a consideration for the government not adopting the red line strategy. Who wants all of those people to die? I mean, I think the other danger is that the government maybe have adopted the red line strategy. So that's the fear. So the blue line... Yeah, we've talked about the blue line. So disagreements about the government response are fundamentally... The government say they're on the green line and they're avoiding the blue line, which is what they say countries like Taiwan who've had a more shut down system of doing. But then what people like... I've forgotten his name already. Anthony Costello, so he was the guy who was the next director of the World Health Organization. What they're saying is actually... Yeah, this is fine in theory, but what the government have implemented would actually put us on the red line. Because he's saying if you've got 10,000 people who currently have coronavirus in this country and you're not really doing anything to separate anyone, then you are very close to getting to this completely overwhelming outbreak. So he's saying the government are putting us or the government are definitely risking putting us on the red line. And given that, if you're looking at this graph and you say, what's the best outcome, the green line? What's the worst outcome is the red line? So then you thought you'd aim somewhere between the green line and the blue line. And the British government seem to be aiming somewhere between the green line and the red line. So can I ask you, given that their voter base is older voters, why would they be front-loading several hundred thousand deaths almost on purpose? Yeah, so that's what seems very... I mean, it's Chris Giles, I think, from the FT was tweeting precisely that. He was saying, like, even if hypothetically, this makes sense, there's a sort of time lag. So it could be that in two years, we look back at the government policy and say, oh, that was kind of clever, because whilst we had more deaths in spring 2020, France had more deaths in spring 2021. But the point is, and this is what Chris Giles, this is, I think, economics editor at the Financial Times, he was saying that if we have a period where, because France is in lockdown, they have 500 deaths in April. And because we don't have lockdown, we have 2000 deaths in lockdown, 2000 deaths in UK, then the government are gonna struggle to continue with that particular policy, right? So there is a concern. So you're right, front-loading the deaths could be a big problem. Strategic comms nightmare. You know, look, I'll be like, tell the townally political editor of the Daily Mail, look, we'll be, give it six months. More deaths now, for less deaths later, it's never been a particularly good slogan.