Editor's note: You can find a full transcript of Doc and Matt's briefing, complete with slides, below the video. If you'd like to view a pdf of the slides, click here.
Dr. David Eifrig: All right, hello everybody and welcome to this week's COVID conversation no. 17. We skipped a week, but we've been busy. And Matt, welcome. We're socially distanced. How are you doing?
Matt Weinschenk: I'm doing well. How about you, Doc?
And then of course spread the word to healthandwealthbulletin.com. That's our free daily. And we love it. People have been signing up, and just spread the word through that. They want to get a taste of what we're doing in our publication.
All right, well let's dive in.
Matt: Yeah, let's dive in. So this week we'll go through some of our normal charts and we'll dig into some other topics a little deeper since we're going to do it every other week.
So the basic case count has plateaued at least for a time here, and this is a seven-day average so you get a pretty good indicator. If you see a flat line it's flat for a little bit, so that's good.
On the local level we see some changes. We see some more states moving down to flat.
Those trouble states Florida, Arizona is over here and declining which is good. So still a lot up here in categories at – categorize is rising, but when we look at those what I'll call trouble states, those southern and western states, the new case count are coming down. Florida from 12 down to 10 and a half. Texas a big drop there.
So what – let's think about what could be happening here. So these states were opened and now some of them have put some measures to close down. Obviously they've learned that the virus wasn't gone. Maybe they're doing masks more. Maybe the case count is down, right?
Another thing that's happening is that there's been a huge delay in testing. They're saying 10 days, 2 weeks to get some tests back. Now we don't have data on this. This is anecdotal. Like how widespread is it? Most of these things go through Quest and Labcore and they're the ones saying how long it's going to be. But if you have two weeks where you can't get tests back you're going to have two weeks of declining cases, right? You can't get positive cases if you're not getting tests back.
Doc: Now could you go back just one slide. I just want to suggest or posit, is it possible that this is with the opening we've just gotten this flood and flash of both having tests available, and almost call it a spontaneous combustion of spread of this virus, but then it's now going to do a natural tail off because it's hips, or approaching herd immunity, or do you think this is a mix of that perhaps along with restrictions again? What's your take?
Matt: So I don't think we're anywhere near herd immunity. I know we can disagree on that, but I do think there can be something of a breakpoint. So New York had this huge surge and then it went away. And yeah, they locked down and it took some time and they started doing the right things, but it doesn't seem like they went from – I don't have the number up here, but weren't they getting 30,000 cases a day or something like that? And then it kind of went away.
So there might be – yeah, there might be this phenomena where there's a rush that then cools off. It might be more it came to the break point you've talked about. I think we have some stuff about what percentage has – we'll get to that later. We'll talk about herd immunity in a little bit, but yeah, I mean it could be either one of those because there's so many things changing all the time, but to see this in multiple stage is encouraging.
If it is just a testing thing that would be certainly unfortunate. But we don't have this for every state. But this is the percentage of emergency department visits that are classified as corona virus like, flu and pneumonia or shortness of breath. So in Florida you can see just – you know, squint your eyes and make it a little blurry. They are generally trending down. Since the start of July they're trending down.
So that's a good sign, right? That maybe it's not just a testing. Same thing in Arizona.
People showing up in the emergency room, for many reasons as a percentage are trending down. Georgia doesn't look as encouraging.
Doc: But it's not – I mean if you watch the news and read articles it makes it seem like the end of the world is coming, and these ER's and hospitals are all filled up. That data says that's not the case. Is that – I mean -
Matt: Well, this is percentage of visits, so I mean the other thing is we only have this on a short-term. So I don't know if six percent for shortness of breath. It's gone from six to eight. Is it normally two or – I mean that's probably a pretty common one.
Doc: Yeah, no, it's definitely gone up into July 5th, but now it's come down and you're looking at COVID COI's, these corona virus like illnesses. Those have dropped from eight or nine percent of an ER visit. And this is where in Florida at least.
I know you have Georgia up there, but Florida where they were saying 15 percent of people were testing positive. It's just interesting that there's positivity in the ER's, but then only half that or a third of that are being coded diagnostically with that disease. So I find that, again, positive. I find all this stuff really exciting, really good.
Matt: Yeah. And so don't get too excited because the death -
Doc: Except for this. Yeah.
Matt: This one is coming next. Shouldn't be laughing, but yeah, so we saw case counts go up and it seemed pretty clear that in a few weeks the deaths would fall, and they are certainly ticking up.
And again, this is the seven-day average, so that sharp incline means we've had some days that were even sharp right now.
There has definitely been advances and treatment that more we hear out of New York the more we hear a lot of things that they just did very wrong and they didn't understand. So -
Doc: Yeah, and I want to ask one more question about this that I – I've been frustrated in the last week really too trying find easy sources of this data, deaths again relative to age groups. Because I feel like the press is moving for the next hottest topic they can create fear, and one of those is – and I keep seeing all over the place.
We're not going to dive too deeply into it today, but I want to bring it up here is that I saw some Harvard expert. He's retired now. It was some Harvard expert claiming that a 12 year old and a 13 year old is just as likely to get sick and die from COVID as he is, and he's got to be 65.
And I like that is nonsense and yet you're seeing these articles implying that, inferring that. You haven't seen any confirmatory data that there's this sudden increase in deaths in younger folks that's any different than what it's been throughout this, right? Am I missing something here?
Matt: No. I haven't seen that, but I'm not familiar with what that is. Headlines are twisted so much you can't tell what the real claim is anymore.
Doc: I just want to remind people this is deaths from COVID positive patients that at least in Europe a third of co-infected with other things, comorbidities, cardiovascular disease, cancers, other things. These all lead to death. We're identifying them on this chart of COVID, and I just want to remind people it's probably older folks.
I'll leave it at that. Again, I've been frustrated trying to find data on that stratification again. I saw it about two months ago, but this seems like it's not being reported again.
Matt: Yeah. I mean that's a huge problem this data. So, Doc, why don't you get into this? We have just a interesting study that came out next, but I think you wanted to –
Doc: Yeah, so people – one of the things, and, Matt, you just cut me off for – or push me off into the deep end of the pool, or pull me out and put me in a shell. I want to talk about tests and false positives and false negatives, but in specific to tests right now that everyone is talking about that look at antibodies.
And so think about there's four quadrants here. On the left side is positive tests is on the top left, and then the lower left is negative tests. And think about that as those are rows. So the top row is you go and get a test, and then it comes back positive. Think of the bottom row you go and get a test and it comes back negative.
The vertical columns there's just two of those. One on the left is antibodies, and that means that in reality you really do have antibodies. And this is sort of looking at it as if you were omniscient, but you really have antibodies. And then the next column over is you don't really have any antibodies.
So a false positive would be in the upper right where the test comes back positive, but you really don't have any antibodies. And it's a quality of – considered a characteristic of the test having a poor false positive rate.
Similarly, in the corner of the lower left is you have the antibodies because you're in the first vertical column, but the test comes back negative. That is also an example of a test that you don't want to have because you want to know if you have the test – had the antibodies positive then it's potential you could travel and do whatever you want to without any fear of catching this thing again and getting sick from COVID.
So my point on the whole thing about this is is this test – many of these tests have a poor false positive rate that is higher than normal. And just look at this theoretical test where that upper right corner. Eighteen – so if the total you had 27 positive tests, 18 of them are false positives, and nine are true positives.
And then if you go over to this yellow box, that shows you that if the doctor or the lab says you have a positive test you divide the nine, the real true positivity – because that's what we want to know, do you really have the antibodies. Are you really protected? We divide that by the total positive tests, nine divided by 27, and you can see it means that the information is only a 33% probability that you actually have the antibodies.
Well, if this is a disease that kills you when you step outside and catch it, I'm not going outside, and you're not going outside. And that's the problem with false positives, and that's the problem with poor test quality and test characteristics. And one of the reasons why it's an important topic, and Matt and I have talked about this going back and forth for really I think probably our first COVID conversation, and it's an important thing that we have to just be aware of and cognizant, and it's not a fault other than science and technology takes a while to get great tests.
And I just want to go off the chart a little bit and talk about strep tests. It used to be you had to go in, you cultured a throat, you put it on a disk and you grew it out to see if you had strep. Meanwhile, if you didn't give antibiotics and waited four or five days for that thing to grow out, a person could get problems with their heart, could get infected, vascular infections from strep.
So now we've got a test that can do like instantly in the office, and if it's negative we know it's a really good test, and so we don't have to give antibiotics. Whereas before you just did the test, you grew it out, and if it came back negative you could stop the antibiotics. I don't know if this helps, but it's the idea of these tests have characteristics of true and false positives, and true and false negatives. Do you have anything to add to that, Matt?
Matt: Well, so sometimes with these odds statistical things I like to take in extreme, right? So let's say there's a disease that only one – so what's happening here is between false positives and prevalence of a disease, it doesn't follow your intuition anymore, right? So let's say you had a test that is 90% specificity, right? And there's a disease that only one in a million people had. If you gave it to everybody you're going to say 100,000 people have this disease, when actually there's still only one needle in the haystack.
So if you're giving tests to a lot of people and there's not a lot of true positive you're still going to get all those false positives. So it could really mess things. Just another way to think about it.
Doc: Yeah. And I want to highlight what you just said. That's another thing and people – and I can remember this class was one of my favorite weeks in medical school. Because the lost part of it is we have this faith in the tests, but it also depends what Matt was just saying, on the prevalence of the disease.
You can have a great, great test, but if the disease doesn't exist just a few false positives will make it look like you might have the disease, and it depends on the therapy and the treatment for that. I mean yes, prevalence really matters, and that's why you've heard me talk about it. For me testing is important. You want to try to give symptoms, you want to have people come in and say they've got a cough, a sore throat, shortness of breath. Now you test them so the test becomes a better test because the prevalence is more probable.
But anyway, thanks for bringing prevalence up because it's sort of lost on many practicing clinicians.
Matt: Yeah. Okay, so speaking of testing there's a new test out there.
This is just a little bit of positivity. This is a study. We took eight days and they trained eight dogs to sniff out COVID, and they did pretty well. They're up in the 90's or 100 here on specificity, which is finding the true cases, and a little not quite as good on making false positives, but it's completely noninvasive unless you're scared of dogs or something.
I just thought this was interesting. I don't know if we're ever going to use dogs, but it made me think just how – who knows what the world is going to look like, right? If a year from now if things are still going on and instead – you know, there's temperature checks and maybe there'll be dogs sniffing people before you go into a concert.
And what excites me about it, I don't think that's going to be the real case, but just all the ingenuity and things that people are getting done. They're training dogs to find a new way. We talked about the UV lights that could melt the virus out of the air and just the way the market responded. There were no masks available and now we've got plenty of masks.
It's just interesting to see, and I think probably one of these weeks we'll dig in more into the vaccine progress, which may or may not happen, but what we've seen so far is impressive. Now you don't know what's been done until you get the final answer on these vaccines, but and maybe they're pushing them too fast. And we'll get into all that stuff, but I think it's amazing to see some of the good sides that people and that science are pulling off.
Doc: And I just want to add one more thought on that. Dogs, there's some really interesting studies done with dogs and their sniffing ability. And their ability to detect cancer in humans is truly amazing. And I think it's one of the breeds of beagles that has an apparently a super sniffer for one of the – a deadlier cancer, and especially one that's caught earlier it's less deadly.
So yeah, super exciting. Thank you for sharing this. I just I love this stuff. Gives me great hope.
Matt: Let's see here. Okay, so now we're talking about prevalence, and we're talking about what's out there. Doc, what do you want to say about seroprevalence?
Doc: Yeah, so we've alluded to this, mentioned it, talked, maybe battled a little bit, but in the box it says 53,000. This in New York. These are the New York City metro cases that have been reported. And the CDC in the last couple of weeks has come out and finally confessed, if you will, that yup, it's probably true that there's more people that actually have antibodies to it, which as far as we know the only way to get that is if you've been exposed to the disease.
And so you can see that's 11 to 12 times higher than what's been reported, that is people having the disease. So this is exciting because we haven't gone out and broadly tested everybody for antibodies. And this is probably people that are approaching the health care system. This is not a randomized trial. It's intellectually looking at the science of this, although we will eventually do that.
I'm even more optimistic now when I see this. I think it's going to – we're going to discover it's even higher than we suspect. Again, making way for a faster herd immunity than anyone could really imagine.
Same thing south Florida. Ten thousand cases reported, 117 in serology by antibodies in the blood. San Fran same thing. So this is exciting, this is interesting to me.
And then finally looking at case positivity in Florida that we've seen how this is varied, and I'm excited that, again, this is a great use of the test, a lot of them are coming back positive. I look at that as a sign that we're using tests well, and volume of testing is the thickness of this line.
So you can see up at these peaks the thicker line means we've been using more tests and the volume is stayed up that high. So we're catching this disease and now it seems to be dropping off with volume increasing. So, again, that's another positive thing to me, and then I kind of want to leave the health section on a note of positivity, which is what happens when vaccines are produced.
Here's a disease, measles, that – I mean all I can tell you is that it created a lot of morbidity and mortality in human populations until a vaccine was created and then plummeted. And this is a great, great ability of vaccines and shows this. And it's not – this is not made up science. You can be anti-vaccine and claim people were hurt and injured by these vaccines, but the number of people that suffered from that, whether it's mercury or whatever, versus having 400,000 people get measles. It's a tradeoff that you have to make in society sometimes.
This box on the right just shows you what's happened when the anti-vaccine movement starts to kick in and you get a spike, but you can see this – even the peak last year was like 1,100 people, 1,200 people, and that's nothing compared to half a million cases. And again, kids would die from measles, so we've saved lots of children with a great vaccine.
So just wanted to share that. It gives us hope that these vaccines work. In coronavirus I was reading one an MRNA one looked interesting. Anyway, let's turn to business shall we?
Matt: All right, so we're going to dig in deeper into employment and some of the factors driving it because this is – you know, employment drives the economy. People can't spend if they don't work. It's basically one of the most important things we can do to get out of this recession is see employment start rising.
So we do know that mobility across the country dripped when during the shutdowns and started coming back, but we've flattened out here. Trouble states, if you let me call them that, Texas going down to Arizona still kind of went back up. But mobility is down, people starting to go back to restaurants.
They dropped from the same level as last year to off about 100%. People started going back and now as those case counts shot up again and certain states closed back down they started not going out.
And as part of that we're seeing businesses close permanently. So this is data harvested from Yelp, and you can see if a business is closed temporarily, and then eventually they may switch that over to permanent, and that's been on the rise.
So 60,000 since March 1st is – that's a big number, but also just as a percentage, you know, it's called 180,000 businesses listed as closed temporarily at this point. And now you're up to a big chunk of those are actually closed permanently. So that's a scary number. The longer this goes on the harder it is for those things to survive.
So what is that doing to employment? So what we're going to look at is we're going to look at monthly employment numbers, then we want to try and find things that are more real time so we can get a sense of what's happening now. So the one thing we'll look at is hires as a percentage of the total labor force.
So here this is a good number. This is the V shape, right? You know, 4% of the labor force was hired in the last month there. That was May data. So that's good, but if you look – we want to kind of distinguish between people coming back to their job, and the normal economic growth of people hiring new people and expanding, or whatever they may be doing.
So if you just call back your workers that's not really going to show up as a job opening, like a job listing. And we see job listings have plummeted to about 3% of the current labor force, and have not come back. So this is concerning.
Take just a company like ours. We don't have an in-person business. We can do our business as usual, but are we or our company – any company in an office or something like that. They take on special projects and they're bringing in new people just for their normal expansion. I mean it's belt-tightening time for most places, right?
And from the individual side the number of people quitting their jobs is way down. So this is a good indicator. As people are confident, they quit their job. They spend their money because they're going to get a new job. As people feel good the quit rate goes up, and it's way down there, 2008 levels. You'd be pretty hard pressed to quit your job these days. It would not be good because there are not many job openings going back to the previous line.
So let's go to weekly data, and let's go to the unemployment claims. This is the long-term view. This is that number that was totally crazy, that 7,000 people – I'm sorry, seven million people – yeah, you can see how it's normally in the thousands. Seven million people started collecting unemployment.
Let's zoom in. This is the same data, same chart but just a shorter timeframe. We saw the seven million people go on unemployment, eased off, eased off, but now you know the trend. We're not getting fewer people. Now there's call it a million and a half people requesting new unemployment checks each week. And that's kind of leveled off, so that's not good.
If you look at continuing claims, so now we're counting – we're not counting the new people for the week. We're counting how many people are still on unemployment. We shot all the way up to 24 million. Started easing off, but this is not a V shape, right? This is going to take – if you stretch that out you're talking about three years to get anywhere near normal, so we're not seeing a lot of fast activity there.
All right, this is a weekly survey. This is some very rich data that the census bureau started doing during the shutdown. I think they started it in March, so we're in week 11 now. And this asked people a whole ton of questions and I just want to focus on these first two. So week by week what percentage of households have experienced a loss in employment income? And this has gone from like 47% to 50%, something like that, but it's not going down, right? This is going up.
More households are reporting a loss in employment income week by week. And if you ask them if they expect a loss in employment income for whatever reason, things aren't looking good at work and they think things are going to turn around, that was getting better, but now people are more worried about that here. Now maybe their prediction is not right, or maybe it is, but this is not moving in the direction we want.
Look at the same data. They asked people have you been employed the last seven days, and this is the – millions of people. So 130 million people were saying yes, 120 were saying no. At the start of the shutdown things started getting better, right. More employed here, fewer unemployed here, but now things have turned the other way.
So here to here the last two weeks we've got another five million people saying no, they weren't employed in the last seven days. So again, this is real time, sort of fast data, as fast as you can get it. And it's showing this. You call it a W shape. It's showing this recent slowdown that we've been seeing.
All right, more employment. So this is an interesting chart. It shows what's going on with young workers, what's going on with recent graduates, all workers and college graduates. So a few things here. You don't want to be a young worker. You've got 22% unemployment, right? You don't want be coming out of college now if this is – unfortunate the time you're going to come out. You've got almost a 15% unemployment rate.
But what I also found interesting is that this recession, this shutdown, was a lot of people that lost their jobs were the restaurants and the lower income jobs that couldn't – that work in person with people. And we've seen that. They're unemployment rate for all workers has gone up, but look at the college graduates. They usually have a better unemployment rate, and the blue line is almost always lower than the gray line.
So college workers do a better job keeping jobs than all workers do. But here they've shot up. They're about the same level, and college workers are unemployed at about 7%, which is way higher than financial crisis and any other time back to 1990. So the unemployment picture is spreading to the – call it the higher income brackets, which is concerning.
And this is just a real time indicator that uses a bunch of data to try and predict what the unemployment rate is at a faster rate. So you can see this is what it predicted, and this is when the real numbers came out a month later how it was doing. And what we see here is improvement, and we see it roll back over. Now a little bump on these last two weeks here. Maybe that's good, but it's definitely not continuing this path to get back to full employment.
And the end result of this is a decline in real personal income. So if this is excluding government transfer. So take out those extra unemployment checks, take out whatever else, whatever other relief programs that are on there. If you don't count those personal income is down about 5% off last year, which is – I mean a huge on the scale of the economy.
If you look at this side here, you know, call that – there's that – there's five trillion there. No, I'm sorry, it's over on this side. That's a trillion there, right?
Doc: Trillion, yeah.
Matt: Fourteen to thirteen. That's a lot of money that's not going out to the economy.
And our last employment check I found this interesting. So as we speak they're debating the new relief package and if they're going to extend this extra $600 a week. And obviously the democrats want to give people money to help them, and the republicans want to make sure people have an incentive to work. And both of those viewpoints are valid, but what's actually happening, right?
So those are both sort of philosophical arguments, right? Some people say, "Hey, don't give people money. They won't work." Some people say, "Give money to help them." But really the question is what are people doing right now at the levels that we're giving them. You can't just say the money is too much. You have to know how much money is and what people are doing.
So I found this interesting. In June of the people that went back to work, so 100% of people that went back to work. These in blue, which accounts for 70% of those people were earning more on unemployment than they were than they went back to work.
So that's – I mean I find that encouraging that people do want to work, and also a job is – that you will collect for an extend period is more valuable than an extra paycheck, and extra $600 today. And I think a lot of people are rational and realize that. So -
Doc: Well you're an optimist because they went back to work. I'm angry because we gave them more than they were making. I mean if times are tough I'm probably somewhere in the middle. Okay, well we should give them what they were making so the choice is a real one when they want to go. But this says that it only maybe affected 30% of them possibly.
Matt: Yeah. And I mean that is – that's totally sensible. I think it's just harder to enact speedily than to throw an extra $600 in there. So maybe the right number is 200, or which I think is what the republicans are saying now, or maybe it's more, who knows. But the point is -
Doc: What you're saying is the puritan work ethic is still alive and well in America.
Matt: Yeah, I guess so. I really – when you think about incentives and if you want to be pessimistic about it you would say, "Why wouldn't you – not one single person is going to go to work for more – for less money than not working." And then of course you say, "Well, what would you do?" And then you'd say, "Oh, well I like to work. I couldn't sit home all day. I'd probably rather be -" so everybody thinks that other people are doing what they're doing.
Doc: Matt, that chart has made me less grumpy. I thank you for doing that.
Matt: Well, wait until we get to our next section. So let's just look at a few of the things on the financial markets now.
These chaos hedges, if you want to call them that, are just absolutely on a huge, huge carrot. Gold setting new highs, silver doubled. Call it a double in the last few months here, especially in the last month. Bitcoin, well not back to new highs, but multiyear highs since the big crash.
And if you look at just how big these monthly moves are, silver in particular hasn't had a jump like this since the '70's. Gold has had moves this big, monthly moves this big, but it's still definitely up there on the high end.
So what is this telling us? It could be a few things.
One thing is these things are considered inflation hedges, right? So you have money supply. Huge growth in money supply, huge growth in fed balance sheet. Is that going to be – cause inflation? I don't know. Hasn't yet. That's a whole thing. But this is one reason why people would be buying gold and maybe silver, too, and maybe bitcoin if that's the way you think about it.
But it could also be – I was trying to think about if gold traders and these people who flock to gold can actually have any insight into what may be happening.
So I looked back at 2008, and we've got the stock market in black. We've got gold in gold. And you can see – if you remember that crises that was not like coronavirus. That was there were shock showing. Things were getting really weird. You can see that there was trouble in the markets, but you still didn't know how big it was going to be before things really collapsed.
But when those shock – when those cracks started to show that's when gold made its move. Gold went from 700 to 950, which is a big move, and that happened pretty much before the market really fell off. So was gold foreseeing that happen? Maybe it can portend that trouble, and down here we have the balance sheet.
So here is when the fed started flooding the system with money, and that was well before. So it wasn't a reaction to this. It might have foreseen it, but it wasn't a reaction to this. So maybe these cast hedges on the rise could be a momentum play. Could just be that they're hot now. It could be because of the Fed balance sheet, or maybe they see trouble ahead.
Doc: Speaking of trouble ahead, man oh man. Corporate debt, as a percentage of GDP, I don't know that it's ever been higher. This chart doesn't go back far enough, but student of history tells me I don't think it's ever been higher.
Now, people will say the caring cost, or the interest that corporate debt is required, and corporations are required to pay is so low that it's not an interest problem. That it's just been able to kick the can down the road and refinance and refinance. And with the fed in there and the balance sheet exploding out I'm saying they're going to be there in backstop.
Now they haven't jumped down into junk yet, but do you think they will? Do you think that's what this will end for the dollar with Fed starting to buy junk debt? Do you think that's where it'll happen, or won't happen because they won't ever do that?
Matt: I think you have to distinguish between are they going to say, "Hey, we have a junk debt program?" That's one thing. And then are they going to actually buy it? Because we saw with the investment grade they said they were going to, and that confidence essentially fixed the market and they don't have to buy very much.
So I could see them saying that. I would be real surprised if they actually end up buying a lot of that, but I don't know. I've been surprised already. And when I look at this I just think that equity is flexible and debt is rigid. And if you are a company that has no debt you've got a lot of flexibility. You cannot make money this year and you can make it back next year.
You can take things easy, but if you have to make those big interest payments and those big balloon payments when your principle comes due, you have to have good years, right? So that's what this is. This is rigidity in the system that where you've just got to see if this recession will be bad enough to break it.
Doc: Could you do me a favor? This is just to stroke my ego a touch. Could you put your arrow right about the point where the editor's conference this past year? Doctor Eifrig showed this exact same chart, had it circled there – the cash and buying gold over here. Prefect, all right. Thank you.
Matt: No problem.
Doc: You got anything else for us?
Matt: No, no. Nothing from me. Send any questions. We're looking – I've got some ideas, but we'll see maybe what topics we focus on two weeks from now.
Doc: Sounds great.
Matt: Yeah. Send us those ideas and we'll see what we can come up with.
Doc: And definitely please spread healthandwealthbulletin.com is a way for you, especially if you're a paid subscriber to share with ease our free e-letter to get a chance to experience our writing, the things that we're interested in. And then if you have questions that you'd like us to dive into, or want to explore, or just want to give us thanks and feedback like many have done just contact us at email@example.com.
Matt, thanks very much again. Nice seeing you. I like this two weeks, so we'll talk with you in two weeks.
Matt: Sounds good. Talk to you then, Doc.