In this talk we investigate the implications of rescue cases featuring risk and overlapping outcome groups. We argue that a look at these cases provides a new perspective on the numbers debate in general and on the contentious issue of aggregation in rescue cases in particular. The former concerns the insight that proposals that were previously thought to coincide with saving the greater number or giving it a greater chance do not consistently do so after all. The latter concerns the insight that in some cases, one needs to aggregate people's claims against their will in order to save the greater number or at least give it a greater chance to be saved. We deem this insight to pose challenges for proposals (be it lottery solutions or proposals to save the greater number outright) that justify their numbers-sensitivity by pointing to the autonomous, self-interest-based choices of the very claimants they aim to save.