t's still on their website, still a story, and it goes like this. Here's the actual text from CNN: "President Trump continues touting chloroquine, a malaria drug he believes might help fight against coronavirus. CNN's Sanjay Gupta explains why that and other drugs that might be effective against the virus need more evidence."

Here's the problem. That's not the drug that President Trump has good hopes in. It's not chloroquine. It's the generic, older, weaker form. The actual drug is a derivative. This I'm not a chemist, so you know if I'm using their own words, forgive me, but it's hydroxychloroquine. And it's not by itself. It's hydroxychloroquine with the azithromycin, and then I think in some cases all with zinc. So if you haven't studied those three, it is nonsense to say CNN, it's nonsense to say the president is pushing this other drug that's in the same family but it's a different drug. And if you would look at it by itself, apparently the evidence is weak, and it's the wrong drug anyway.

So if you're watching CNN say Trump is pushing a drug that's not tested, look carefully for the word they use. Are they saying chloroquine, which he's not promoting, although you know earlier on there were some suggestions that it worked, or is he pushing hydroxychloroquine in combination with the Z-Pak or azithromycin and zinc? Because there is a memo, I guess, or a letter from a doctor.

So here's some new information. A doctor in New York treated 350 patients because he's in the hotspot somewhere in New York, 350 patients, and wrote up his experience using the recommended, let's call it the Trump pack. The Trump pack, which is the hydroxychloroquine, not the chloroquine, but the hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin and zinc. And he reported that of 350 people he treated, zero deaths. Now apparently he was getting them early, so he wasn't waiting for symptoms to get bad. If they came in and said, you know, it looks like it, they got the drugs. Zero hospitalizations. 350 patients, zero hospitalizations, zero deaths. Now zero hospitalizations means zero ventilators, right?

Now keep in mind this was not a controlled test. It's one doctor who treated 350 people. I think he knew they had coronavirus, I'm guessing. And he got a result that would clearly indicate that if that's reproducible, it would clearly indicate that we can get back to work. And we'll talk about that.

All right. The range that I'm hearing for, so the medical experts and other experts are weighing in, but how long should we wait before getting back to work? And I'm seeing estimates of some experts said that in Wuhan in China, five to seven weeks of lockdown was necessary to really get on top of it. Five to seven weeks. But the president has said that at the end of two weeks you'll have some kind of decision. Now I don't think he's made his mind up, and we'll talk about the options, but it's good to know there's a decision.

Now let me tell you one of the most important concepts of economics. Now the swearing is coming. Oh, it's coming, but we'll get there. So here's one of the most important concepts in economics. Now you don't need to study economics to get the easy stuff, such as you know some costs you can ignore in the future, that kind of thing. Here's another one: economies like certainty.

Now you say to yourself, well duh, doesn't everybody like certainty? What economies really like is certainty. I mean really, really, really like certainty. So if you have a situation where you have this choice, saying I don't know when we'll open up, I'll let you know when we know, very, very bad for an economy even if it's true, completely true. Oh gosh, I don't know when we can open up. We're just gon