Thank you, Llywydd. Well, the First Minister, like all the Governments of the United Kingdom, says that his policy will be based upon the science, but what do we mean by 'science' in this context? It's not medical science. We're talking about statistical modelling, and nobody thinks that econometricians and economic modellers are scientists, so why should we think that statistical modellers in the field of the medication have any more credibility? After all, the UK Government's strategy has been founded upon the study of Professor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College, a man who famously lost his job because, rather than practice social distancing, he was practising one of the more extreme forms of social proximity. His track record is actually very poor. He was the one who said that the BSE outbreak would cause us to lose 150,000 people who would be dying from contracting it. In fact, the actual number in the event was 200. Nobody knows what's the basis of Professor Ferguson's modelling; it hasn't been peer-reviewed. So, I would certainly counsel caution in treating that as science.

An alternative is the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford, which has said that beyond cyclical theories about influenza, we know little about whether pandemics follow distinctive patterns at all and making absolute statements of certainty about second waves is unwise.

Of course, countries that have begun to relax their lockdown like Germany have experienced no such resurgence as a second wave, and even more interestingly—I was pleased that Huw Irranca-Davies mention Sweden in his contribution—Sweden has had no lockdown enforced by law at all, and what's been the experience of Sweden? The infection rate in Sweden is 3,000 cases per million. In the UK, it's 3,700 cases per million. Our infection rate in Britain, in spite of our total lockdown and the economic price that we've had to pay for it, is greater than in Sweden. Looking at the death rate as well, that's higher in the United Kingdom than it is in Sweden. The deaths per million in Sweden are 371, in the United Kingdom, they are 521, almost 50 per cent higher than in Sweden. The infections in the United Kingdom are about 0.4 per cent of the total population. In Sweden it's 0.3 per cent.

So, there's no actual evidence that the lockdown has made as much difference as is claimed for it. Of course, it's difficult to make international comparisons because the way statistics are collected differs, and also the social and psychological characteristics of different countries also differ. But when you consider the huge economic and social costs that we are bearing for the Government's response, not just in Wales but also throughout the United Kingdom, I really do think that we ought to have a greater sense of proportion. Mandy Jones, I thought, asked some very important questions, and so did Adam Price in his speech earlier on also. What are we hoping to achieve from this? Mandy Jones asked a very pertinent question, I think: are we trying to just flatten the curve or are we trying to stop the infection spreading? Well, if the choice is the latter, then the lockdown is going to continue for a very, very long time indeed.

The Swedish economy is forecast to contract by about 2 per cent as a result of its response to the crisis. In the United Kingdom, it's going to be anything between 15 and 30 per cent—a fall that is as great as anything that we suffered in the 1930s in the great depression, and that's going to have an impact on public services, not least the national health service. So, we really need to do all that we can to get the economy moving again. In Sweden, what they've said is that people should be socially responsible, and a third of people have avoided going to their workplace, and daily restaurant turnover has fallen by 70 per cent. But Swedes are voluntarily adhering to the guidance rather than having to be forced to. And what's the result of all that in Sweden? Fewer ICU beds now occupied, and the number of patients in intensive care in Stockholm has dropped by 40 per cent. The daily death toll flatlined in the second half of April and has been declining ever since. The famous R number is 0.85 in Sweden, and it's anything between 0.7 and 1 in the United Kingdom. So, our experience is broadly very, very similar. But the economic price that we are going to pay in this country is vastly greater than is going to be paid in Sweden.

Of course, we must behave in a sensible way. For the vulnerable parts of the population—the elderly and those with underlying health conditions—then, there ought to be isolation, and social distancing is sensible for everybody in these circumstances. Our problem is that our policy has been too little and too late in the things that should have been done, and now we're extending for too long the things that have no real beneficial effect. So, I would counsel the First Minister, without being too specific about how the traffic light system is going to be operated in practice, that he should err on the side of being bold, as I said to him last week, rather than being timid. Because there is no evidence that the health risks that are going to be run are anything like the economic and other risks flowing from it, which will have an ongoing effect in the future and will lead to other deaths as well for other causes, as Mandy Jones pointed out.