I would bring that back to the studies we've run and the results we've gathered, rather than anecdotal evidence that I might have seen in walking about interpreting booths and behind the scenes. I think there is one result that should concern everybody who sits in the room and who listens to interpretation. It is one whereby deteriorated sound quality leads not necessarily to something that sounds off, and not necessarily to something that is off stylistically, but to something that is missing important—or not important—content.
When we do not know, as people sitting in the room relying on interpretation, whether the interpreter is actually able to provide all of the content, then I think I would leave that in the hands of people who do research into politics and other fields to see whether that is something you would deem appropriate or acceptable. That, I think, is one of the big and obvious dangers for the people in the room.
For the people in the booths, I think we still need to find out more about the extent to which increased and sustained cognitive load or overload might lead to medical manifestations or physiological manifestations. At this stage, we do not have any real long-term study. We don't have any longitudinal study. Even our study only had exposure on task for 40 minutes, with a 15-minute break every 10 minutes, which is far less than the average interpreter has to do in a working day.