At 80% there is something significant to the injury, which isn't reflected in there. I'm not criticizing the graph. All I'm saying is it's hard to capture that, because somebody would look at that and say this is what he got, but it could actually be more. It's possible.
The other thing I wondered about in this chart is that you're taking this to age 65. Is that correct? The person is 24 years old and you're projecting this out—