I think Mihir, thank you for the question. I think, Derek and I can tag team, this is what I think. It's - when you think about the scenario we're in - it's - if you think about with and without forbearance programs, you probably have different answers, right, in two ways. One with all forbearance programs, we probably wouldn't have the number of defaults that we have today, right, because there are a number of people that are in forbearance programs, kind of probably are more on the margin or did it more from a hedge. If we - if so, when you think about that factor, it would, it just plays out differently. So I think from a - from a scenario perspective, I would just - I would think of it as in the context that we are today, we do factor in the existence of forbearance program, we're monitoring the trends very carefully to watch as Derek just mentioned thinking through how cures play, how new defaults center, we were pleased in July, not only to see the cure rate, but also to see the number of new defaults, right, because ultimately new defaults would drive future claims. So we are monitoring very carefully, But in our analysis, we do take into account forbearance programs and other support we see in the market from an economic point of view, the Cares Act, other opportunities for supported in home borrowers through this temporary moment of hardship to keep them in their homes. And so - but we think we're early in the cycle, we need to continue to evaluate it and watch the trends and watch kind of how unemployment develops, watch how home prices develop as I mentioned earlier. But we do believe factoring in forbearances gives you a different answer from a default-to-claim rate, but also if you didn't have forbearance programs, we probably have lesser defaults. So I hope that's helpful? Derek, maybe you'd like to add anything?