That's a good point. I think the issue, as I have always said, is that when we engage in our risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication, the key is that when we have reasonable and probable grounds and we go forward, we want to communicate. When we communicate with the public, we do so not just because we want to talk about it; we have to engage the public in a trust, in a confidence, in a working relationship, because if we ask them to avoid something and they have no concern, there's not much of a response. We engage their trust and their confidence.
Therefore it means it behooves us, when we explain to them, to say on what grounds we did that—and we often do that in our messaging: because of this and this and this, we are concerned. If the evidence is weighted enough in their minds, even if it is precautionary, they will take the appropriate steps. Sometimes, in cases of other health hazards, when we've told them, the public decided on their own to ignore those warnings. But they have been duly informed on that. We've asked for their participation in there.
You're correct, you don't have to have everything correct in line, because the public knows that, but they do have to have enough information—transparency, as Dr. McKeown talked about—that they can engage and understand. The public is very well informed. They have lots of sources, but they want to make sure it has come from a credible source and it is in context, so they can say this informs them enough that they can make a decision and participate. If they don't, they know where they'll go for more answers.