Yeah, so when I leapt into my elevator speech, one thing I should possibly have mentioned was that we weren't asking participants to think in terms of value trade offs. We weren't asking them at all about value trade offs. You know, when they when they told us something, we said, Oh, why do you think that, or, or what's important about this situation? So we weren't asking them to do any trade offs. It was me trying to do the trade offs. So I just wanted to kind of make that clear methodologically. I, I sort of... appreciate that the the measures that health economists use are really valuable in a particular setting, you know? I think it is important to be able to compare things using a common metric. I don't think that that sort of thinking should be employed more generally, to be honest. They definitely have their place. But for me, exploring the kind of incommensurateness, if that's a word, yeah, let's just use it incommensurability. Thank you, Diego. Like what matters to who? Why it matters. You know, who gets to decide what matters? For me, that's at the heart of public health ethics, or the kind of applied public health ethics that I like. I think it's really tricky. And one thing that I think is important is that we're really explicit when we answer those questions. So quite often there's an assumption, like an implicit sort of thing that happens when people are talking about health, they're talking about public health measures, they're talking about benefits and harms. It's not very common that they are explicit about what matters and why. They're often saying, Oh, well, it might save some lives, or if it can save one life, then it's all worth it, all of that sort of thing. And I understand the primacy of saving lives, you know, everybody wants lives saved. But we seldom, when we're using that sort of rhetoric, we seldom talk about all of the other things that happen while our life is being saved, for example. And so, you know, I was thinking about, how do you decide what is more beneficial to a community out of, say, more green parkland with lots of trees in it? I don't think that trade offs are ever easy to compare. I don't think any time we're talking about, oh, it's a matter of maximizing benefits over harms, that sort of thing, I always want to dive a little bit deeper in and say, well, which benefits are you talking about? And which harms are you talking about? And what's the background context that you're talking about them in? So I understand that for people who don't love really applied work, that can be super annoying, and for some people, that is a bit of a sort of drift into relativism. And I don't intend that at all, but I think that when we're talking about benefits and harms, often, not only are they not necessarily commensurate, but they're not being experienced and felt by the same people. So you might be doing something that benefits the greater good, the wider population, whatever, while burdening a very specific population. And I'm trying to think about how to tie this back into the AMR but, but I keep coming back to Covid. Because, you know, Covid is always this thing that keeps on giving, right? And, you know, there were so many really obvious examples of that where it was technically, maybe probably not beneficial to have things like curfews or five kilometer or two kilometer, or whatever there were, radiuses for where you could go outside, those weren't necessarily beneficial to the people who were bearing the burdens of them. In fact, I would say they weren't. And so for me, the thing I like is the messiness about thinking about what constitutes a benefit, what constitutes a harm, who for? Why? And maybe the health economists do that. There's some really cool health economy stuff, actually, but I never read it.