Based on what? That's one of the points I was getting at with my earlier sarcastic retort. The range was 9% to 47% (? -- IIRC..too lazy to scroll up). That range is more than one-third of the whole range of possible rates of job loss. I didn't check the study's noted margin or error and confidence levels associated with that range, but it's size alone requires one to have a strong basis for arguing it's amiss...And you've shared none other than what must merely be your gut feeling, and that's based on your experiences and knowledge as a physicist rather than an economist. Obviously, you can have your gut feeling, but I'm struggling to see what be the point of your offering it as the basis for refuting the analysis and predictions of professional economists. Do you see specific issues with the approach the WH researchers used? Do you take exception with one or more of the reference sources noted in the study? Is there some aspect of physics you know of that the researchers do not and that they didn't consider in producing their report? Do you think the range is mistaken based just on your gut feeling to that end? If your answer is "yes," well, okay...at least I understand what underpins your denial of the report authors' accuracy. It is a "hard" news piece rather than an editorial that the journalist wrote; thus I don't know whether she has an opinion on the matter. Okay. I don't follow you. "That" what? Seeing as we're headed into uncharted water, the approach you suggest seems like a reasonable way to explore the various solution options that might be proposed.