Travelers who hold COVID-19 antibodies should be incentivized or at least not penalized by current COVID-19 standards.
If you are considering booking travel or signing up for a new credit card please click here. Both support LiveAndLetsFly.com.
If you haven’t followed us on Facebook or Instagram, add us today.
Antibody Waivers
Some destinations require COVID-19 negative tests but according to studies on antibodies, negative results are less necessary, especially in the first few months. For example, a negative test result is required days before leaving the US mainland to Hawaii, but visitors to the Big Island of Hawaii have to take and pass another test at arrival to show they didn’t contract the virus since their last test. Other countries have rigorous testing standards too, even New York will require a negative test to enter the state.
For the purpose of this post, let’s assume for a moment that the antibody studies are flawless and accurate as stated. A business person should be able to present an antibody test and not be required to demonstrate their immunity again for a period of at least three months (the shortest listed study.) Even for leisure, the traveler should be able to travel as they wish as they are not a threat to themselves nor others.
Countries like Cambodia, which require an upfront deposit to offset potential medical costs, or countries like Thailand that require onerous COVID-19 medical insurance should be waived with the presence of antibodies.
Travel requirements are in constant flux (see Hawaii, Costa Rica, or Jamaica for example), now more than ever is a good time to utilize a travel agency.
Lower Costs
During the course of the year, speculation of how insurance companies will treat recovered COVID-19 patients has ranged from logical to insane. If the insured doesn’t experience extended adverse health effects, insurance companies should provide lower (not higher) costs to their customers. They have virtually no risk of reinfection (according to the above antibody study) which reduces the potential future financial risk for the insurance companies. Infected but recovered COVID-19 patients should pay less for coverage.
The same should apply to those countries that do not have an antibody waiver. If the insurance plans are essentially a plan to overcome absurd odds, insurance companies should incentivize antibody travelers to take on the required policies at a lower rate as they are lower risk. This may encourage those who are safe to travel to do so.
Destinations Should Want Safer Travelers
It’s important to be careful about who a country does and does not allow entry to defend its citizenry. Attracting travelers that pose little to no risk to a country’s people can help those economies recover in a safe and meaningful way. The entire world has been cooped up for 2020 and everyone – absolutely everyone – needs a vacation right now. Bringing travelers for some communities is essential. The safest way to do that appears to be through antibody tests. Not only due they pose no risk to the people of those destinations but they also pose no risk to themselves avoiding crowding hospitals.
Conclusion
Some economies desperately need to return travelers to their shores. Those who are of the lowest risk factor, and can demonstrate that they pose little risk should be sought after. Additionally, travelers who have a one in ten million chance of getting sick should be offered insurance at a lower cost than the general public. Concurrently, countries that require COVID-19 specific insurance should waive such requirements for those with antibodies.
What do you think? Should destinations compete for travelers with antibodies? Should there be waivers for insurance requirements?
Slippery slope.
Some background first:
I am a volunteer healthcare worker in NYC. I spent 2 months in May and June treating patience in a Covid hospital. For the most part, we were filling up refrigerated trucks with bodies. 🙁
My full time job is running a small IT company and I traveled a lot. Business was slow and I wasn’t traveling so I decided to apply my medical training and help where I could.
We all took tremendous precautions. Donning multiple layers of PPE and washing before during and after every patient encounter. The infection control was exhausting. Upon returning home, I’d enter through the basement, strip, and put all my clothing directly in the wash before taking a shower so I would not bring the virus home to my family.
During this time, I witnessed friends, family, and neighbors flouting the rules and lacking any semblance of common sense as they spread the virus and killed too many in my community. The young and strong walked around and silently killed the old and frail.
Since then, business has picked up and I’ve VERY CAUTIOSLY traveled 43 times. I wear an N95 and a face shield and wash and disinfectant my hands frequently as well as every surface I encounter. My operating assumption every moment is that I have the virus and/or every person and surface I encounter does as well.
I have yet to contract the virus.
A system that “rewards” those who have antibodies is a dangerous one. I’m not coming from the standpoint of jealousy. “Why do they get to travel and not me?” There is a great deal of the population who have antibodies because they were careless and put others in peril.
What if there is now an incentive to contract the virus because it opens up your travel options?
We should incentivize getting infected with covid-19, what can go wrong with this plan?
As a further incentive, people with antibodies should get two votes in presidential elections.
According to pareto principle 80% of medical costs are due to 20% of patients. What we need is to work on machine learning algorithms that can identify these 20% patients and we make a proposition. Take this pill and kill yourself and half of the medical costs saved are paid to anyone you choose. The money is more useful to the living than the almost dead. Win, win.
The only people that will have a problem are the medical doctors, who will talk about the hippocratic oath but what they are more worried about are their salaries. In that respect they are no better than cigarette and drug dealers. You want the subject hooked but not dead so you can keep squeezing money out of them (or their insurance.)