That's a difficult question for me to answer. I'm not a physician, so it is best for me to leave the specifics of that to the physicians. But I do know, through my colleagues, that the information given by Dr. Gulenchyn , Dr. O'Brien, Dr. MacEwan, and some others we discussed it with was that essentially 10% of the nuclear medicine patient population would have been considered critical and in need of radioisotope imaging, around 40% to 50% would have been considered in need, and 40% could have been put off and done at a later date.
With respect to the direness and the health impact, that would be better answered by a physician.