ever had much trust in models. And Bret Hume, I'm paraphrasing, but basically Bret Hume said, "Why are you telling us now?" Because you seemed pretty confident not too long ago. But now you don't trust models.

And here's what I find funny about that. The reason Fauci says he doesn't trust the models is that they're only as good as the assumptions you put in them. Is that wrong? Is Fauci wrong that the models are only as good as the assumptions? No, of course not. Of course now we all know that. And is that the most ordinary, expected thing you could ever say about models? That it depends on the assumptions you put in? It's just the most obvious thing.

So I said in a different tweet today that I would lose respect for any expert who believed models work. Any expert, doesn't matter what the field is. If they say these long-range, multivariable models work and actually can give you a photograph of the future, I would not trust those experts. You know what I mean?

But what was funniest about this is Bret Hume is probably one of the most experienced news people. He's seen everything from every angle, one of the sharpest observers of political life especially. And apparently Bret Hume thought these models were actually telling you something. To which I think, really? Having you get this far and not know that long-range prediction models are not telling you even slightly more than you could just guess? Because if they could, anybody who had that kind of superpower to predict the future even with a little bit of edge over chance would be a trillionaire. If anybody can do it, somebody would do it to get rich. There'd be a million ways you can exploit that to get rich. So no.

Dr. Fauci, his, my opinion of Dr. Fauci just went up a level when he said he doesn't believe the models, the virology models. So that is the correct answer, Dr. Fauci.

I see that the ex-FDA head Dr. Gottlieb is saying that we should go back to work, but ideally we should have widespread screening. Now I would like to nominate for the most useless thing that anybody can say about the coronavirus is, "We should have widespread testing. Why don't we have more testing? Hey, I've got an idea. Why don't we do testing? You know, South Korea did some testing. Why don't we do some testing? Hey, I've got an idea. Has anybody thought of this? We could do some testing. Have you realized, am I the first one to think of this, that if we could test people and we could test a lot of people that would really help? We'd know who didn't."

Wow, I'm so sick of people going on television or in the news to tell us that it would really be good if we could test, if we had the tests, if we could. I'm pretty sure that would have been right at the top of the list that our experts would have wanted to do. Please stop saying we should do more testing. There's nobody who disagrees with that. We just can't do it.

So you know, it would also be good to stop this pandemic. Magic. Why don't we use magic? People, are you not thinking it through? Just use magic. Oh, magic isn't real? Well then we'll just test. We'll just do massive... oh, we don't have massive tests. They don't exist and we can't make them that fast. Oh, all right.

Well, the good news is that there are a number of exciting developments in the world of testing now. By the way, one of my best predictions, I believe, based on some information I had that most people didn't have, is that the world of quickly testing stuff had moved way, way into the future but hadn't quite been productized yet. In other words, there were a lot of startups who already had licensed technology from government labs that would allow you to very quickly check things inexpensively and accurately in the field. So I'd seen the number of startups try to exploit that technology. So I predicted early on that you would suddenly see leaping into existence this technology because now it was an emergency. So funding could be had and things would get ramped up quickly. And just like I imagined, I think you're going to see some new stuff. Let's just say I get to see things before you do, and there's some exciting stuff coming in that realm.

Here's an interesting positive thought. The president said something along these lines but I want to extend the thought. So the president was making his economic prediction that he said the second quarter's going to be bad, the third quarter maybe you could start to think about things getting better. But the president thought that there was lots of pent-up demand and that the fourth quarter could be record-setting. I really, really like the way he puts that because he's being very, I'd say, conservative about what would happen this quarter. Next, obviously they're not going to be great. But then he gives us a pretty legitimate, most optimistic case that the end of this year things would start picking up and maybe even set records because of pent-up demand. Yeah, that could happen. I mean it's just as likely that there'll be soft demand because people got crushed economically. But you could see the people who didn't get crushed just stepping it up and having a little extra spending. I can see that.

Here's the part I want to add, and I think that the president referred to this but you're taking the level deeper, which is we've never had a tim