 Okay, we're back for live. We're here on CoronaWatch with Mike DeWert. You may remember him. We did a show with him a few weeks ago, and we're going to update on that because he can give us the charts and the graphs about the curves and the calculations. A very interesting show last time. This will be even more interesting because we have more experience. And Mike incidentally is our corporate scientist, our chief scientist if you will. It's very important for every organization to have one, and we have one in Mike. Thank you for doing that, Mike. Also, Mike is a kind of Renaissance scientist. I don't mean he's stuck in the Renaissance. I mean, he's a scientist for, you know, for all matters, a scientist for all seasons. So thank you for coming on again, Mike. Appreciate having you here. Thank you, Jay. Thank you for having me on. I'm glad to be here. So let's update on how the curves are doing. Very important. We know that because this is kaleidoscopically changing or could be amazing. Go ahead. Well, let's go to slide two to review what pessimistic projections I showed before. Yeah. So on this slide, this is a prediction the top curve. Hello. Yeah. The top curve, which is labeled world was what I had predicted on February 26. I had assumed that China would have an effective lockdown. The rest of the world wouldn't. And at that time, the doubling rate in the rest of the world is about every four days. The cases were doubling. And so the red dots were the, you know, cases up to March 25. And turns out this prediction held for another few weeks after that. I assume that the U.S. and Hawaii would have a similar rate of increase, which would have been pretty catastrophic. We would have been in a really catastrophic situation starting now and then continuing through May. If you go to the next slide, it's what's really happened so far. So top curve is in the gray line is my world prediction from February 26 and that held until about April 1. And then the actions from the governments of the world, social distancing, contact tracing, quarantining, started to bend that curve over. U.S. and Hawaii also started bending over about that time. And Hawaii now looks like it has like on almost a month doubling rate. This is about 20 days. We have saved a lot of lives already. If you look at the world curve, there's about 8 million fewer cases today than there would have been if the world had taken no action at all. U.S. is a little over almost a million and a half fewer cases than if no action had been taken in Hawaii, a couple thousand. So as extreme as it is, you know, we've saved a lot of lives already. And they find a way, I think, to keep these curves slow, slow them down further with less economic dislocation. So, yeah, right now here in Hawaii, we seem to be doing better than the U.S. mainland and even better than the world average. If you go to the next slide and see, this is what the curve, when they say flattening the curve, this is what they're talking about. They're talking about trying to take that rate of increase. They would peak at an incredibly high number eventually if the whole population was vulnerable to the disease and slowing it down and making the peak lower than it would have been. The real question is, have we really reached the first peak of the curve? And if so, how low will the dip go before it re-accelerates? And I'm pretty sure it will re-accelerate. We're nowhere near done with this yet. So my guess is that if we can maintain this, we've bought ourselves six months or so to prepare for the real peak. U.S. has bought itself about four months before the real peak, which is going to happen in October. The peak will happen in November. This is pretty pessimistic still. And I'll have to see how the trends go. Like I said, this assumes that we've always done is switch over to a new exponential rate of increase that's slower but still looks horribly going to snowball. Let's look at the next slide. So if you really want to make sure you're flattening the curve and keeping it flat, you really just have to test. And the lower the rarer an infectious disease is, the more you have to test to make sure you can detect it. And so if one in 10 people at risk, if one in 10 people in the population say everybody that shows symptoms is at risk for having this disease, you don't have to test about 20. You have a 90% chance of seeing that you have the disease in the population. If it's one in 100, you've got to test over 200. If it's one in 1,000, you've got to test 2,300 people to have a 90% chance of actually detecting the disease. So you really have to test, test, test, test, because one in 1,000 is about where we are now in Hawaii. And we can't let it explode. Once it's to one in 100, you're after the races. So we have to test everyone's been exposed. And this is nothing that I came up with. This is what experts in the World Health Organization are saying and what they've done in Korea and Iceland and Taiwan. Test everyone who's been exposed. Test anyone with even mild symptoms. You know, maybe it's a flu, maybe it's a cold, maybe it's a COVID-19. And then trace contacts and get the contacts to self-isolate. You can be contagious for it's up to 11 days before you actually show symptoms. It's still research in progress, but it's best to isolate people for two weeks if they've been exposed. You can be contagious for two to three weeks while you've been sick and then the aftermath as you recover. So if we could get everybody at home to stay at home for a whole month, would we wipe out the SARS-CoV-2 virus? I don't know. But one thing we really, really, really, really can't get complacent. In the 1918 pandemic in the United States, the second peaks were often the highest. National Geographic has done a very, very good piece on this on the 1918 pandemic. I know you've had the experts on the 1918 pandemic. I'm not an expert. Sure, I have Jenny Pressler or somebody else on. But if we go to the next slide, we can see sort of what happened in 1918. Next slide. Yeah. So some cities didn't bother doing anything. It was way too late. Philadelphia lost almost one percent of the population to the flu. And SARS-CoV-2 is at least as deadly as the 1918 flu. The U.S. overall lost about half of its, a percent of its population. So in Hawaii today, that would be about 5,000 extra deaths. And to put that in context, last year in Hawaii, about 7,000 people died last year in Hawaii. So we'd almost double our death rate for the year and not even counting the knock-on effects from people not being able to get health care because of the overwhelmed health care system. St. Louis had a higher second peak because they relaxed their social distancing. This whole thing lasted 24 weeks, almost six months before they could declare it over. So we're probably not even halfway through this pandemic yet for the United States. I think I have one more slide. What is that one? Next slide. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Here's just to bring it home. Yeah. San Francisco had a pretty good second peak. He was even higher than his first peak. It's just you can't get complacent. New York was very aggressive, like they are today, and they saved a lot of lives. They had a lower death rate than other cities on the East Coast. So this, like I said, we just got to continue our social distancing. And really, the one thing that would let us go back to work is diligent testing and contact tracing. That is what we really, really, really, really need. And the United States is behind the curve on testing. And I'm sure as you had your other words on say. Well, I mean, what's the good news? The good news is we slowed it down and slowed it down a lot. We slowed it down these extreme measures. Can we keep them up? Are we going to be able to keep them up? Or can we find another way? I've come to the conclusion that talk about reopening the economy should happen after we have made some real headway. And I think, let me throw something at you. I think, yes, I suppose we have kept the number of cases down by social distancing and containment as in other countries. But at the end of the day, you can do a much better job if you have testing, ubiquitous testing. And you have the bioinformatics to actually analyze that testing. And you connect that with the tracking. And now you know everybody who has it. And you can focus the quarantine, the containment on the people who are really shedding the virus. We haven't done that. This has been a sort of a shotgun blast. And I mean, I'm happy that we have contained it limited it to some extent. But my proposition to you is we could have done a much better job at containing it had we used testing and tracking. Yeah. Yeah, I know that's exactly what they found in South Korea, Taiwan, Iceland, Singapore, you know, testing and tracking. And then get the people who have been exposed to self isolate until they show that they're clear of the disease, that they haven't actually contracted it. Like I said, it takes two to 11 days for this for you can be contagious before you have symptoms. And it takes a lot of people to do this tracking of contacts. You've got to interview the person who's sick. And then you've got to get them to really tell you who they've been with. And then you've got to go track those people down. That's a lot of work. And it can't be done via just a cell phone or AI app. You know, it takes people. And that's one thing that we're not really doing a very good job of. You know, it might take something like, I think I read one estimate that it would take at least 300,000 people in the United States to do this tracking to actually be engaged in that work. It's an investment worth making. You know, in other countries, people who are out of work because of the quarantines and the lockdowns are actually volunteering to do this. And that's helping a lot. So, yeah, you're right. We need to tap into people who are of good will and who are willing to volunteer. Some of them are being paid to stay at home. Well, maybe we could repurpose them and get them out. That issue came up in the connection with the HGEA this week. I think we could generate, especially in Hawaii, a powerful force of volunteers to do this. Because you don't necessarily have to expose yourself to do the tracking. You can do it on the telephone. You can do it on Zoom. You can do it without necessarily meeting them. And even if you do meet them, you can use masks and distancing so to minimize the risk. So I hope that's coming soon. Let's talk about an ideal world. You know, right now, and I think it was in the morning in a civil beat that there's a group of researchers here in Hawaii who are looking for money to develop a test. It's remarkable, is it not, that here, where months into this thing, we know clearly there's a matter of science and logic that we've got to be able to test if we're going to contain it. But we still don't have you, big one. Next week, we're interviewing a researcher in MSU, Michigan State University, who hit the national press on a fast test that he made. Speed is everything. Right now, if you get tested here in Hawaii, it'll take you a week or 10 days to get the results. That's much too long. That's because they have to send it back somewhere and all these protocols. That is really inadequate. So to me, testing is the first thing to reducing the curve in real time. And I don't think we're there. And the tracking thing, let me point out on the tracking thing, we did a show on this yesterday. It seems there's a joint venture kind of collaboration going on between Google and Apple to develop a tracking app, such as the Chinese developed in Wuhan, where you can tell that somebody who was tested positive is within your Bluetooth range, and it will warn you about it. Furthermore, tracking means bioinformatics. It means database processing and all that. So all this has to be coordinated. And regrettably, Mike, on the federal level, the White House has done, may I say, virtually nothing. I mean that in the nicest possible way. To extend the test and to coordinate the tests and to allow systems, develop systems for tracking. So we are missing out on two very important tools as far as I can see. If we had those tools, we'd be much better off, right? Yeah, ProPublica just reported a couple of days ago that there's a lot of excess deaths from pneumonia and other illnesses in cities that aren't being recorded as SARS-CoV-2 related. Because they don't test the dead people. And that's silly. You've got to test the people who die of the disease too because you need to trace their contacts. Even if you think that it just might be in SARS-CoV-2, you've got to test people for it. Yeah, one way for countries to make their statistics look good is to not bother testing. Like North Korea is still reporting the pro cases. It's like, that's not credible. Yeah. And yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So good. Go ahead. Well, there's so much bad information out there as well. I know there was a report, Wired Magazine picked up a story from a South Korean research group that put a paper into the Anals of Internal Medicine that masks don't help. And I went and I looked at that paper and I looked at the data the researchers themselves published in that paper. And A, it was a really grossly underpowered study. There were only four patients. And what they had them do is they had them breathe on a Petri dish that was placed eight inches in front of their faces. And they did it without a mask, with a surgical mask or with a two layer cotton mask. And they controlled by having them breathe before with them without a mask and then repeated the no mask test after all the other breathing. And they said that the masks weren't effective in their conclusions. But what the paper showed was that the surgical mask cut the amount of virus on the Petri dishes by factor two. And the two layer cotton mask cut the amount of virus in the Petri dishes by at least a factor of 10. At least a factor of 10. A factor of 10 isn't good enough if you're a doctor or a nurse being exposed to these patients. It's really significant though if you are going to the grocery store and you're just going to do that once a week. If you can reduce your risk or the risk of the people around you by a factor of 10, that's worth it. So a two layer cotton mask seems to be more effective than a surgical mask and definitely effective. And I wrote a comment in the Anals of Internal Medicine about that. And a couple of other researchers wrote the same thing that their data contradicts their conclusions. Unfortunately, comments aren't publicly available. You have to be a member or you have to register to get to them. But anyway, so there's a lot of what's effective and what's not effective. The quinine in Brazil, they were doing a study where they had high dose quinine treatment and low dose quinine treatment. The very sick people had to stop the high dose arm of the study because more people were dying of heart damage from the quinine than they were saving from the SARS, COVID-2 virus. Well, the White House, and not only the White House, but other health experts have really confused us on the masks. I think it's probably motivated because there weren't enough masks and they told us not to use it. But you don't have to be a scientist to know that if you put something in between you and the virus, you're going to be better off. And you know, there's this poppycock about how only the people who have the disease should wear the masks. To me, that was poppycock at the inception. And they were telling us that in no uncertain terms, you don't need a mask. And I think to ask you about how that affects the curves, if we had all been wearing masks from the outset, even surgical masks, we would have had fewer deaths. Am I right? We would, yeah, absolutely. I mean, the mask is not that hard to wear. You just got to wear one, have one, you got to be available. Hard thing to do is take it off in a way that you don't contaminate yourself. So you got to wash your hands before and after you take it off. And there's instructions online about how to doff your protective gear properly. So, yeah, no, we would have saved lives if people had been masking all along. I'm really amazed at these great United States. The guys who won World War II, the guys who developed the Marshall Plan, the guys who created, you know, B-24 bombers overnight, you know, one off the assembly line every X hours or days, we can't make masks. We have to import masks. We have to import them from Korea, just the way we're importing tests from Korea. It strikes me as amazing and then the Defense Production Act has not actually been implemented to do that. So it's sort of a voluntary basis and everybody goes to the fabric store and buys fabric or they go online and they find out how to turn a t-shirt inside out. That's ridiculous. The federal government has billions of dollars of resources. They have all these scientists, many of whom they fired or, you know, discouraged in recent years. And the result is we do not have masks and, oh, God, it's really awful to think about it or test. So my question, you know, is why not? What happened? What went wrong here? Is this a federalism problem? Is this a problem of somebody sleeping at the—get all these guys standing behind Trump who are medically, you know, Akamai and they're telling us the wrong story about masks. Except Fauci, you know, Fauci seems to be trying to give us good information. Yeah, you know, the South Koreans and the Taiwanese learned from the MERS problem that they have to be on it when it comes to these new infections. You know, the Taiwanese, when they heard rumor about an infection in Wuhan, they sent some of their scientists there to study it and they came back and said, by golly, we got to watch this thing. That's why Taiwan has an incredibly low infection rate. Even though they're very close to China, they started screening everybody from Wuhan in January. Every fight that came in, they got screened. And they then screened, test, contact, trace. You know, we in the United States, sort of the victims of our own success, we think we're so much smarter than everyone else in the world that we can't learn from them. And the Taiwanese kind of, you know, they'd learned from their mistakes. They had the test capacity built. We won't import tests from other countries, even though Germany has offered us extra testing kits. Even China's offered us extra testing kits. We're a little bit—behaving a little bit arrogantly here. We're not humbled for help, like you pointed out with the doctors. We're not humbled enough to let Mexican doctors in to help us or Cuban doctors or Guatemalan doctors. You know, Latin America doesn't want this thing to spread to them and they wouldn't help us stop it here. Because right now the United States is the global center of the infection, partly because of our arrogance. Well, I mean, I think the bottom line is when Donald Trump gets up and takes credit or tries to take credit for the reduction that you described on the chart, he's really not entitled because he could have done so much more to reduce that curve, even to stop it at the outset, but he didn't do that. Yeah, I know. Yeah, I know. I mean, the governors have stepped up, especially, you know, like Mario Cuomo, even our governor, Governor Ege, they stepped up to take action. They listened to their scientists and this is what we got to do to stop it since the rest of the country is doing anything to stop it. You know, like the United States doesn't let us in Hawaii control our border. We can't shut down the airport. We can't shut down the airport. We can't stop the flights. We can't stop the ships. So we have to resort to things like quarantining everybody that comes in for it. Well, I want to talk about one other feature of the charts that you were pointing to. We have some very interesting points there about the reinfection, about the second wave or more of the third, whatever it is. Allah, what happened in 1918 and 19 when we sent our troops to Europe, the thing mutated and came back with a vengeance and reinfected us something awful. But right now we're in a very interesting spot. I'll go ahead. Sorry. No, it doesn't have to mute for the second wave. What happens is you just have to get complacent about your social distancing and your quarantining measures. Because we are nowhere near herd immunity yet. I mean, maybe a few percent of the population has had this disease and is now immune. We are nowhere near having achieved herd immunity and there's no vaccine. So all I have to do is relax our guard down our guard and we're back on that doubling every four days curve. Well, I think in some places in the country, there will be complacency. There will be. If there isn't, they didn't do a good job on distancing to begin with. They were not Akamai, for example, about the New Orleans Mardi Gras, which cost many lives. And other places where they continue to go to restaurants and bars because the states didn't act fast enough. And there was no federal order about anything, including masks. And this president won't wear a mask. So he's discouraging people. He's telling them you can be complacent and it's no problem. But worse now, this is what I wanted to ask you about. So I think complacency is a central point going forward. And the other point is the notion that if we attend to the economy without fixing these primary problems, like masks and testing and bioinformatics and analysis, if we ignore that and go complacent on that, which I think he's really messaging that we should do and then sort of spend our time and effort and resource and public and the oxygen in the room is all about rebuilding the economy. I think we are building in complacency and we are building in a second wave. Am I right? Oh, yeah, yeah, absolutely. There will be a second wave. There will be. And the question is how big it will be and how bad will it be? If we can't delay the peak until after a vaccine is available, there will be a second wave and it will be bad. And it's not clear to me that we're through the first wave yet. We'll have to see another week or so of data to see if we actually got through a first peak. And now we have bought ourselves time to really get sensible precautions in place. You know, I could say the contact tracing testing and you're right. The testing has to be quick. It can't take weeks. It's got to be days and preferably hours to get a result back. That's reliable. Unfortunately, the way the government's done it now, there's it's a Wild West in terms of testing. They've opened up the testing to all kinds of private companies that and they've relaxed the rigorous standards required for a medical test. So where you can buy a test online and you don't really know how reliable it is. And that's just wrong. I mean, other countries in the world have solved this problem, you know, Taiwan, Korea, Germany, Italy, China. And yet we're we're we're letting the capitalism hold sway even in this area. You know, we're letting people make a buck of tests that may not be reliable or may not be able to distinguish this SARS-CoV-2 disease from this from a common cold coronavirus. And that's what's scary. You can't distinguish this disease from the common cold. You got a pretty useless test. Yeah. Well, I mean, you know, it's pretty scary to hear the possibility that the second wave would be worse than the first wave. But I think if we're all complacent and we don't follow the rules and we haven't solved these threshold problems, it very well could be worse. And if it's worse, there will be many more deaths that are completely unnecessary, right? Yeah, I mean, that's yes, I agree. And it's less than 1918 is, you know, we could lose half a percent of our population, which doesn't sound like a lot, but you know, that's double the death rate for the year. I mean, there'd be a lot of funerals from our complacency. And I know I've talked to Jenny Pressler and the other experts who I'm not the only one who's done an alarm. But yeah, we've got to maintain. As you said, we've got a test. We've got a trace. We've got a quarantine and to make sure that we can do this in a way that's sensible and at least intrusive possible. It had some success in Iceland with this. They still like gatherings up to 20 people happen because they have this testing that's fast, you know. They can test people and they do test people in South Korea. You don't need to have symptoms. You can just go ask to be tested and they'll test you. I mean, if you think you've been exposed, you can get tested. So these things are all coordinated. They're all, they need to be coordinated. The masks, maybe you don't need them so much if you have a lot of testing. If the tests are fast, maybe you don't need so many masks or death. So the whole thing is like an algorithm about how you're going to deal with this. With that effect, you have fewer cases. But you know, let me ask you, this is so personal. I mean, I'm trying to avoid getting this disease, Mike. And so are you. Oh, yeah. For our respective families, we're trying to avoid. So we're going to take the reasonable, if not reasonable, even sometimes super reasonable precautions that are available to us. And that means not going out so much. It means wearing a mask. And if there were tests available, maybe we would, you know, be more on it. I don't think tests are all that available here for somebody who just wonders about it rather than has serious symptoms. So I'm thinking that one of the factors in play is that there are a lot of people like you and me. And Donald Trump could get up and say, don't worry about a thing. He said that before. Don't worry about a thing. This is going to go away in some magical fashion. All we have to do is rebuild the economy. Let's get out there and open those businesses. Let's walk the streets. Let's have our gatherings. Go to church on Sunday. All that stuff. Don't mind it. Okay. And I'm not going to follow that. You're not going to follow that. And a lot of the people I know are not going to follow that. But what do you think the country in general will do? It's hard to say. You know, like in Michigan, you see people trying to lock up, chanting locker up at the governor because she wants to put in social distancing requirements and masking requirements. I mean, it's the things that we're doing here in Hawaii and Michigan, the chanting locker up to the governor. I mean, this country has such a polarization where a lot of people think that any of this illness, if they don't know somebody who's sick with it, it's just a conspiracy to take away our freedoms. You can see that in Hawaii. You see some of that here. It's a case where the freedom to not wear a mask and to gather in groups of thousands. It constrains a bigger freedom, which is the right to life and not dying of this disease. Yeah. And in terms of the precautions I take, yeah, wear a mask when I'm at the grocery store. I'm a caregiver for an Alzheimer's patient. I have caregivers come in and help me a few days a week. They're the biggest risk we have because they're poor people who some of them ride the bus to get here. And they mask, but their masks are just surgical masks. And I was actually astonished when I read about the one place that had been burglarized of a quarter million dollars worth of N95 masks. It's like, well, wait a minute. This place employs caregivers for dementia patients and other people who need help. And the caregivers are getting the N95 masks. They're getting the cheap surgical masks that are only 50% effective. Why aren't they getting the N95s? Why was there a warehouse full of N95s that weren't being used by people who are going out in the community and actually putting themselves and their patients at risk to do this work? So we even see nonsensical things happening here in Hawaii. So yeah, I don't know why they were hoarding the masks, but the company was hoarding the masks. I don't know why. But here, we're a little more sensible than average. In the United States as a whole, you see some pockets of sensibility, California, Washington, Oregon, New York. And then you see some pockets of craziness like the people in Michigan who are trying not to have to do any social distancing. We nearly need to try to get... It would help if we had cheap, quick testing such that you can be tested. Just if you want to be tested, get tested and viable, because then we would have to have fewer of these harsh restrictions. But that's what's key is getting the testing done and then really getting people to at least wear their masks in public until we get the vaccine. People are going to... Go ahead, sorry. So I'm flamboyant. No, I'm saying... Go ahead. Thank you, Mike. You're so courteous. Let me just say that when I get out of this discussion with you and the charts and the graphs and the considerations of the second wave and the complacency and all that and all of the things we've discussed, the masks and the testing and the analysis of the testing, the tracking. What I get is this, from a rational point of view, this absolutely needs a central authority, a central repository of expertise coming up with well-thought policies and implementing around this country. And the tremendous tragedy of this pandemic is that we don't have that. We have disinformation, misinformation. We have zero effort, even under existing law. We have a fragmentation from city to city and state to state. We do not have policies that apply everywhere. We have... It's really a mess. And I think that it shows. Yeah, it shows. I mean, we had a pandemic working group. It was supposed to actually prepare for this after 2008, the Merse thing. Because we knew we could be hit with this. We knew that the United States, even though it's icily by two big oceans on the other side, it's not immune in the age of jet travel. And that group was disbanded. And all the warnings sort of ignored. Oh, yeah, we're the United States of America. That kind of stuff only happens in those countries that are poor and backwards and not worth considering. And I can say that arrogance has just really come to bite us. And it's not everybody in the United States is arrogant. But the people in charge of this were arrogant and more concerned with their stock portfolios, perhaps, than they were with the health and welfare of their fellow citizens. And let's hope that's changing. There's people in the government definitely trying to change it, trying to do the right thing. There's people in the military trying to do the right thing. You know, you have an admiral or a captain of an aircraft carrier. You know, it says, look, I've got a pandemic on my ship. I have no way to social distance my sailors. We've got to do something about this. And so he gets reprimanded. And the actual, I've never seen anything like this where the guy who's in charge of the Navy goes onto the ship and disparages the captain to the crew and calls him names and says he's stupid. And I'm like, you all, I don't know about militaryness there, but in corporations, you know, they're saying praise in public, reprimand in private. Right. You know, right. You have to be pulling over with your people. You have to treat your people with respect and recognize they're trying to do the right thing. You know, so now, of course, that Navy secretary is gone now. He realized that he did the wrong, or somebody realized that they did the wrong thing apparently. Once you've gotten on the wrong side of Donald Trump, you're out. But now Fauci's on the wrong side of Donald Trump. And I'm really worried about them getting with the Fauci because he's one of the voices of reason in this matter. So, well, you know, I think we've already seen tragedy here. We were in a tragedy. The economy is in a tragedy. It could have been avoided. But I think what I also get out of this is that in the second wave, the tragedy is going to be that much worse. And that could happen, am I right? It could happen just between now and six months from now, the election. And the American people could find out the hard way that they've been misled or not led. And, you know, hopefully that will be expressed in their votes on election day, assuming we can have an election day. What are your thoughts about that? I mean, this has got to have a political implication. Well, I got to say, the way our primaries in Hawaii, so we just had Democratic Party presidential preference pool. It was all done by mail. When the Democratic Party decided to do it by mail, SARS-CoV-2 was not on the radar screen at all. It was just trying to get more people to participate in the election. We thought this was a good way. And it turned out to be brilliant. I mean, we were able to hold essentially a primary totally by mail. And apparently Hawaii, that's what we're going to have to do, is hold our primaries by mail, then find a way to hold our elections by mail. And the security is going to be really, really difficult. And I thought this before, why, for example, when I own stock in a few companies, and I get, and notice this from meetings, and I can go online and vote on the issues before the company's shareholders. And I can vote for the board of directors online. And there's a security code that's unique to each person. You put in your security code and you cast your vote. And here's billions of dollars are at stake sometimes in these companies holding these online shareholder meetings. Why can't we do that with the U.S. elections? Why can't we have a way of voting that's secure enough? Secure enough for Procter & Gamble and IBM and Microsoft. You would hope that we can make these things secure enough for our governments. That's going to be really hard because you need a U.S. one standard. And so far, the election management has been left up to the states. And that might be written into the Constitution, so it might take quite an effort to change it or to get all the states to agree on a standard. But that's what we need is somebody to go online by mail and have secure elections without people having to be face to face during a pandemic. Now, South Korea just did have an election. Their election was not all online. But what they did was they had a lot of poll workers, they moved out to do the work at the polls. You had to sanitize your hands. You had to wear gloves. You had to mask up to go into the polling place. And then as you left the polling place, you had to take off the gloves. You threw them in the trash. And that way, they had the most probably the safest election they could have in the middle of a pandemic. That's the kind of thing we have to do, but we have to be able to gear up for it. We have to have the people. We have to have the equipment. We have to have the will. And we have to learn from what others are inventing. Okay, we got to go. Mike, great discussion with you again. I hope we can circle back in a few weeks and check out how your curves are doing that. Mike DeWard, our chief scientist with curves. Thank you. Thank you. See you, Jay. See you. Hello.