Thank you for the follow-up question. Of course, we had an opportunity to discuss some of this in the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee earlier this morning. So, as well as a direct contact that we expect from CMO correspondence with people in that former shielded category, we'll use the variety of our channels, and, to be fair, there's been such interest in the former shielded group that I expect we'll get significant pick-up in national and local media when we recommunicate where we are.

I think it is important to emphasise the lessons we've learned from the first six months. We do think we've prevented significant harm for people on that shielded groups list, but it comes at a cost. There was a cost in terms of people's mental health and well-being, because many of the people felt lonely, even with the support that was provided. So, shielding isn't an end in itself with no harm that attaches to it; it's always a balance. We also know that the previous approach of having a list of medical conditions doesn't take account of all the evidence of harm from COVID. We know that if you're less well off, you're more likely to suffer more significant harm—that point about health inequalities has been re-emphasised with a vengeance with the first phase of the pandemic. And, also, if you look like me, you're more likely to suffer harm, so the point about ethnic origin isn't taken account of in a medical conditions list. And, equally, if you look like me, and if I were to weigh three or four stone heavier, I'd be at a greater risk again as well. Not all of those things are picked up with a medical conditions list approach, so we're learning from what's happened. We're going to have to apply that, with the advice we get from the chief medical officers, in advising people how best to take care of themselves. But that will definitely involve direct contact with people on that former shielded patients list.