Yeah, that is a great question, Diego, and How amazing would it have been if you'd been given this paper to review? So the reason we talked about pragmatism in this paper was that there was a, I guess, a little flurry of activity. In early 2022, when we're writing this, clearly, now, it is the second half of 2023. And the paper has just come out. So that's, yeah, that's publishing for you. And pragmatism was being presented as a kind of next big thing as a paper, not perhaps next big, big thing. But it was a response to the scientific framing of the pandemic, basically. So the idea was that we can't just be all science, science science all the time. This is what was being published. I'm I'm drawing particularly on their greenhealth paper. It was in social science and medicine. And the idea that we need to be drawing on different kinds of expertise. So that, then for us, I guess, becomes more of a procedural thing. And you, as you said, it's an epistemological, originally an epistemological idea, like, what, what are we, you know, what sorts of knowledge are we drawing on? I guess? So it might seem an unusual suggestion as an alternative to ethical frameworks, because they're not really related, right. The idea I think the sense in which we've taken pragmatism was about a procedural how a sort of procedural justice in a way like not, and I'm not saying who gets what I'm saying more like who gets to be involved in the decision making. The idea that people on the ground, people with lived experience, should be involved in decision making. Didn't happen very much at all in COVID. And there weren't there. You know, there have been constant calls about we need to have more social scientists, we need to have more ethicists, we can't just be relying on I guess, biomedical evidence. We got to know quite a lot about how the virus behaved in the body. We didn't know very much about how people behaved around the virus if you like. So it was the idea was at taking those sorts of knowledges. And making them important, you know, giving them a voice would be a really important way of helping people make decisions as well. One, and this is, I guess, I got a couple of things to say. One is that in Australia, we have this new upcoming not yet new Australian center for disease control or ACDC. Which I kinda love. The initial framing around that is incredibly biomedical. So it's a, it's slightly depressing, we've got work to do, it's kind of like have we learned nothing? I mean, I hope we've learned a great deal. But an idea that could could help a bit of, I guess, ethically justifiable procedural input that would hopefully help things would be to have some sort of standing committees, some sort of standing ethics and social science committee involved that could be, you know, really thinking about what's important, what matters in this situation, if we are putting forward this particular thing such as, I don't know, stay at home orders or a bunch of, you know, vaccine mandates, whatever. What are we actually doing to people, we know what we're doing to the, to the virus, but what are we doing to people? And does that matter? What matters? Who's it going to affect? How will it affect these people differently? All of these questions presumably, could have been going on in the background of COVID decision making, but there was so little transparency that who would know, you know, and I think that's a big part of the pragmatism argument is that it all needs to be super transparent. And also that we need to learn from our mistakes, right? So that transparency means that we need to be trying things, letting people know what it is that we're trying, making, evaluations and assessments public. And then learning from those, you know, not just doing the same thing again and again. So I'm not sure if I've totally answered your question. But I do think there are really valuable things to take from pragmatism. It doesn't you know, that they're not going to they're not a perfect answer. But bits can help.