Your opinion on the health passport

If such documents are issued by individual airlines, any health passport may not be applicable for travel on other carriers.

A site member, or perhaps OP Veedushi, might provide a link to health passport information, so posters can reliably understand and reply to this issue.

Naturally, if a health passport is internationally honored by carriers and not overly difficult to obtain, most Expats soon to be vaccinated will probably like the idea.

cccmedia

The New York Times has just clarified this issue by publishing an article titled Vaccination Passports, Covid's Next Political Flash Point.

Times online website ... www.nytimes.com

In China, all foreigners must go to the immigration hospital and be screened. This used to only apply for Z-visa holders. But it has been expanded to include everyone. It takes from two to four hours, and costs a little under 600 RMB. Regardless to whether you have an "approved" health-related passport from your home nation, or a visited nation, you will be required to go through a full health screening after quarantine.

With that being the case, it seems rather silly to get all "worked up" and "bothered" about a passport tied to health, at least in China. Whether you have it, or you don't, you will still need to go through the medical screening procedure.

I imagine that this requirement will be mitigated somewhat as time progresses. But I do not see this situation ending in the near future.

VANNROX wrote:

it seems rather silly to get all "worked up" and "bothered" about a passport tied to health, at least in China.

No one on this thread has been acting "silly" or gotten "worked up" (overtly upset, especially in an emotional manner) about the topic of health passports.

We invite posters to express freely their opinions on the topic at hand.  The expat.com experts team and the Home Office will back your right of free expression so long as nobody, including the membership as a group, is targeted with pejorative(s).

By the way, it's not even a misdemeanor to get worked up or bothered about something on this forum.  Yours truly gets a bit bothered when he sees free speech being chilled.

Ipso facto...

Let freedom ring!

cccmedia
member of the experts team

If a health passport will necessary for entry into China it will be specified as a requirement.

Interesting.  Vaccine passports have existed for years; I still have mine from the 1970's which has been updated several times since then - I last used it when I went to Bali a few years ago.  It's a WHO issued document, introduced by the International Health Regulations 2005 (3rd edition), article 35.  You can download it from this link.  In the UK they are issued by NHS England and are linked to specific passport numbers; there is also a Wiki page (link) all about them with a picture of what looks identical to my document.

As in all such things, it's down to individual nations to adopt the measures; all members of the United Nations have agreed this Regulation.  The issue today is those of us who for whatever reason either refuse or can't take the vaccine, so will not be able to get a certificate for their passport.  It's not for me to comment on the individuals why's and wherefores, except to say that if for example one of the popular tourist destinations decides to require visitors to have such a document (that already exists), that they will feel excluded, victimised - whatever.

IATA is getting mentioned a lot in this subject; they are a trade organisation, they do not create legislation, that's down to ICAO for aviation related matters, but even then, like all of the UN sponsored bodies (there are many, i.e. the WHO are in this bunch), they have no regulatory powers.  ICAO edicts need to be enshrined in national legislation (i.e. in the UK it's the Air Navigation Order (link)).  What IATA could do is require all it's members to only carry passengers with a specific vaccine passport; in fact, the more I think of this, the underwriters of their liability insurance could well make it a requirement - whatever, probably going off topic now.

As in all Regulations, they are only good if they get enforced fairly and equally, this is where the issue will get clouded.

Hope this helps.

Cynic
Expat Team

Just to add.

For those interested in the UK aspect of this, it is being debated in Parliament on 15 March:

UK Government and Parliament Petitions wrote:

On Monday 15 March, MPs will debate vaccine passports, in response to this petition.

Watch the debate on YouTube (from 4.30pm, Mon 15 March):

Read the debate transcript from Hansard  (available shortly after the conclusion of the debate):

Follow the Committee on Twitter and join the discussion using #VaccinePassportDebate:

The debate has been scheduled by the Petitions Committee will be led by Committee member Mike Hill MP. MPs from all parties can take part, and the Government will send a Minister to respond.

If you want to support the motion to oppose the vaccine passports, you can sign the petition (British citizens or UK residents only), at this link.

Hope this helps.

Cynic
Expat Team

Whether your nation adopts the "health passport", in whatever configuration is decide upon, it will have ZERO impact on China.

A passport is a document that permits you to LEAVE the nation where you maintain citizenry.

A visa is a document that allows you to ENTER the nation you wish to visit.

China has already established a very robust screening medical procedure for entry into China. Aside from all the medical checks associated with work and residency, it also check for the THREE (x3) lethal viral agents that hit China in 2020.

They are;

COVID-19 (All strains) The "B" strain hit China, Iran, and North Korea. It causes death by seizure. The origination strain in the West is the "mild" "A" strain which is mostly a sore throat and dry cough, with less than 0.1% of the population severely impacted. But today, it has mutated and is a very concerning virus.https://lnkd.in/gBM2Fur

The vast majority of the "news" discusses this virus as if it is a singular pandemic. It isn't. It's a stew of multiple variations that are constantly mutating, and of which the Chinese, Iranians and North Koreans apparently have little natural immunity to.

The second virus that China is guarding against is the "G4 virus". This virus was discovered in Pigs in China and it has infected humans that handled the swine. It causes death to humans by severe diarrhea. There's a good write up about it HERE.

The third virus that China is guarding against is the " Alongshan virus (ALSV)". It causes death in humans by violent vomiting. There is a decent enough write up HERE.

The COVID-19 can be pre-screened for by swabbing your throat. But the two other viruses require an anal swab. What they do is when you go to the medical clinic you lie on a table on your side with your trousers down, and they insert a couple of long stick swabs and perform a rotating motion for a couple of turns. It's uncomfortable, but it is short lasting. The nurses and doctors then put the swabs into a container that they send off to be evaluated.

All foreigners entering China must go through this procedure.

Last month, there were some American embassy staff that went through this procedure. They complained vociferously. But the news died down when the US Government via far Right publication The Epoch Times (not the Chinese government)  said it must have been a mistake.

As of last week, nothing has changed. Today you must go through this procedure if you enter China as a foreigner...

China makes COVID-19 anal swabs mandatory for foreigners

All that aside, I will repeat my entry statement;

Whether your nation adopts the "health passport", in whatever configuration is decide upon, it will have ZERO impact on China. You will enter and need to follow the standard procedure that all foreigners must go through.

Once you go through the process, they will decide whether you can enter China or be denied entry. They will hand you a nice passport sized book. It will be brown in color, and if you are approved, you will have the red approval stamp on the last page.  That is how it works inside of China.

For me, I think it is a stupid step in order to force people to take the vaccine.

I hope they won't apply it.

So... what are the benefits of a health passport that might outweigh the fears of Teacher and others that it supposedly paves the way for compulsory vaccination?

Does a health passport make it significantly easier for individuals to travel and for carriers to process efficiently the passenger experience?

Does this potentially easier path mean that airlines will be able to remain solvent or at least avoid further bankruptcies?

Would a wide use of health passports encourage more trust in travel systems?

Would the benefits of a health passport encourage more people to get vaccinated and speed the way to herd immunity in many countries?

Or is it just a "stupid step," as Teacher asserted above?

cccmedia

Benefits?  They haven't changed since these things were invented back in the 60's, they enable travel and the host nation has some re-assurance that you are not going to contribute or worse, cause a medical situation in your wake.

Those who see something dark behind this are, in my opinion, seeing things that don't exist; they have been there for many countries for a long time.

Cynic wrote:

(Health passports) enable travel and the host nation has some re-assurance that you are not going to ... cause a medical situation in your wake.

Those who see something dark behind this are, in my opinion, seeing things that don't exist; they have been there for many countries for a long time.

Seeing things that don't exist?  Yes!

Saying that the use of a health passport will lead to a policy of compulsory vaxing (as Teacher did) is just that -- it is projecting without evidence that which doesn't exist.

Scare tactics.

  -- cccmedia

cccmedia wrote:

Cynic wrote:

(Health passports) enable travel and the host nation has some re-assurance that you are not going to ... cause a medical situation in your wake.

Those who see something dark behind this are, in my opinion, seeing things that don't exist; they have been there for many countries for a long time.

Seeing things that don't exist?  Yes!

Saying that the use of a health passport will lead to a policy of compulsory vaxing is just that -- it is projecting without evidence that which doesn't exist.

It's akin to saying that a gun safety bill would lead to gun confiscation.

Scare tactics.

  -- cccmedia

LOL  - now I didn't say that; vaxing is not compulsory anywhere and doing so would be politically sensitive to say the least.  My point is that the vax passport have been around for years, they are already a regulatory requirement to enter some countries; I've got one upstairs in the safe and had to use it in the past and I can confirm to the world that nothing untoward happened by my doing so.

If you don't have one, it won't make your hair fall out, but you won't be able to enter some countries, that's a fact of life today.  Their use has been expanding logarithmically for years and a new impetus (Covid) has now been added to the equation.  You may not see that as evidence, but they are the facts we have at the moment.  Spain has already announced it's intention to implement them; their is no political impetus not to, they signed up to them, just like the rest of the world did decades ago.  18 million Brits went to Spain the year before Covid because they like the sun and cheap beer, that won't change because of Covid.  In fact, all things being equal, I suspect that their will be at least 18 million new vax passports in the UK alone by 21 June this year.

Gun safety?  Let's not go there eh.

Cynic is right about two matters...

1.  He didn't say that health passports would lead to compulsory vaccinations. Teacher said that (above) -- specifically that the passports are a "stupid step" that would lead to compulsory vaxing.  I have updated my previous post to clarify who made the comment.

2.  Cynic is also right to point out that the gun-confiscation analogy is inappropriate.  I have removed that analogy from the same earlier post.  As a member of the expat.com experts team, Cynic has the power -- and hereby my permission -- to edit/delete portions of my earlier post that he cited within his recent post .. for clarity and appropriateness .. if he chooses to do so.

--

I don't agree, however, with the assertion that (covid) vaccination is not compulsory anywhere in the world.  My research indicates that this assertion is not accurate.  Google countries where covid vaccination is compulsory if you are so inclined, folks.  Multiple websites including McGill University's mcgill.ca/newsroom indicated that half the countries in the world had compulsory-vaccination policies for the covid pandemic as of late 2020.  Some airlines have been considering covid vaccination proof as in a health passport for arriving international passengers in some countries (with exceptions for certain age groups or some individuals).  I found an article on this at an AARP page.  As y'all may have noticed, Cynic appears to have posted that some countries are already blocking international arrivals of people without health passports showing a covid vaccination was performed.

cccmedia

cccmedia wrote:

..... Google countries where covid vaccination is compulsory if you are so inclined, folks.  Multiple websites including McGill University's mcgill.ca/newsroom indicated that half the countries in the world had compulsory-vaccination policies for the covid pandemic as of late 2020.  Some airlines have been considering covid vaccination proof as in a health passport for arriving international passengers in some countries (with exceptions for certain age groups or some individuals).  I found an article on this at an AARP page.  As y'all may have noticed, Cynic appears to have posted that some countries are already blocking international arrivals of people without health passports showing a covid vaccination was performed.

cccmedia

Interesting, I just did and I didn't get any.  Which in itself is interesting because it suggests that Google may be deflecting searches on a regional (or some other) basis.  So I went direct to McGill Uni's website, didn't find much there either, except for one extremely interesting article (link); now, almost a year ago, these guys were saying "Those that consume more traditional news media have fewer misperceptions and are more likely to follow public health recommendations like social distancing."

What I said was with regard to Spain in particular are that they "intend to implement them", not "are already blocking"; I should add that Spain aren't talking to themselves, this is an EU wide (27 nations?) group, plus the usual hangers on.  I should add that the power to do this already exists (see my Post 7 above).  Germany has (had?) closed it's national borders to the Czech Republic and Austria (which is a direct contravention of Schengen); it had previously done the same to the Netherlands (I stood there and watched it, it was funny); my point is these guys are taking this very seriously.

One other point and I'm saying this with a smile on my face (honest) - airlines, just like bus or train companies, don't get to decide what counts as proof for anything except the ticket (pax and freight), that's what national governments are for.  They may get to decide what happens in the cabin, but ground-side, they are at best an interested party.  The Warsaw convention (as amended by the Hague Protocol) covers air travel "things", neither make any mention of pandemics or medical requirements (except fit to fly and pregnant ladies).

Health passport?
That will go against HIPAA's Health Information Privacy.
I am skeptical the tourism industry will like that.

Jackson4 wrote:

Health passport?
That will go against HIPAA.
Health Information Privacy Act.
I am skeptical the tourism industry will like that.

The US had already agreed to them back in 1969.

Will You Need the Covid-19 Vaccine to Travel? -- That's the title of the aarp.org article I referenced above.  Easily Googled.

The article subtitle is Health Passports Showing Vaccine Status May Be Required.

The article was dated Feb. 25, 2021.

cccmedia

Here’s something interesting and sort of related:

On 5th March 2021, the US Centers for Disease Control released a report about mask-wearing and COVID-19.

(See: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/ … 10e3-H.pdf)

According to the CDC analysis, between March 1 and December 31 last year, statewide mask mandates were in effect in 2,313 of the 3,142 counties in the United States.

And, looking at the county-by-county data, the CDC concludes that mask mandates were associated with an average 1.32% decrease in the growth rates of COVID-19 cases and deaths during the first 100 days after the mask policy was implemented.

You read that correctly, they didn’t misplace the decimal: according to the US federal government agency that is responsible for managing the COVID pandemic, the difference between mask mandates and no mask mandate is only1.32% difference.

"During March 1–December 31, 2020, state-issued mask mandates applied in 2,313 (73.6%) of the 3,142 U.S. counties. Mask mandates were associated with a 0.5 percentage point decrease (p = 0.02) in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.1, 1.5, 1.7, and 1.8 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all) (Table 1)"

So given the scientific evidence that masks only prevent about 1% of cases, surely it is dangerous to give people a false sense of security by letting them think that a mask is going to protect them?

The answer is 32.

"In countries where mask use is high, case counts are low," WebMD reported in an article about the effectiveness of mask use.

The article's first sentence is:  "Yes, you should still wear a mask."

----

Mask use protects persons nearby, perhaps even more than the wearer of the mask.

The combination of mask wearing, social distancing and washing hands boosts the effectiveness of masking.  (web.md)

Beware any analysis of CDC data that indicates merely a small decrease in covid cases or of covid growth.  Much of the CDC data refers to daily rates, which fact an anti-mask poster may conveniently (or perhaps inadvertently) omit from their analysis. A daily decrease in covid over hundreds of days may be far more significant than an anti-masker analysis accounts for.

cccmedia

cccmedia wrote:

Will You Need the Covid-19 Vaccine to Travel? -- That's the title of the aarp.org article I referenced above.  Easily Googled.

The article subtitle is Health Passports Showing Vaccine Status May Be Required.

The article was dated Feb. 25, 2021.

cccmedia

Found it, eventually - thank you.  if you Google the title from a UK IP address, it doesn't come up in a Google search, I just checked City-Data.com and found out why; perhaps I need to use my VPN more.

Back on thread, I agree with what it says.  The app they discuss is also an issue on mainland Europe with the EU discussing having what sounds like an EU version.  The danger will be in that unlike the current Vaccine Passport which is accepted worldwide and the entire world has signed up to, individual nations going their own way will cause issues when, for whatever reason, one nations finds their app not scanning in another country.  It really needs a UN (WHO) approach (imo).

On the mask issue - that number, worldwide is 123 people every week not dying of a COVID related illness.

My wife and daughter are both nurses working in the Covid community, I would prefer that we all do everything we can to make their working environment as safe as possible, including masks and not use statistics to try and justify making it less safe.

The actual CDC report says it like this:

Mask mandates were associated with a 0.5 percentage point decrease (p = 0.02) in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.1, 1.5, 1.7, and 1.8 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all)

Maybe someone more able to interpret scientific studies can interpret this for us.  Because it reads to me that in days 1-20 there was a 0.5% daily decrease (still sounds VERY small to me) and then in the other bands a total of 1.1% decrease in days 22-40 in total etc.  But even if it’s daily still - 1%-2% decrease in numbers per day is still very minor in my opinion.

If I was to sell something that was 1%-2% effective each day that you used it (which means it’s 99%-98% ineffective every time I use it) I don’t think I’d sell many at all!

AndyB74 wrote:

The actual CDC report says it like this:

Mask mandates were associated with a 0.5 percentage point decrease (p = 0.02) in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.1, 1.5, 1.7, and 1.8 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all)

Maybe someone more able to interpret scientific studies can interpret this for us.  Because it reads to me that in days 1-20 there was a 0.5% daily decrease (still sounds VERY small to me) and then in the other bands a total of 1.1% decrease in days 22-40 in total etc.  But even if it’s daily still - 1%-2% decrease in numbers per day is still very minor in my opinion.

If I was to sell something that was 1%-2% effective each day that you used it (which means it’s 99%-98% ineffective every time I use it) I don’t think I’d sell many at all!

If you ignore the gobbledygook, using your numbers, the actual number worldwide every week that do not die because others are wearing a mask is 123; now you may think that is not very many people (you said VERY small), but to my way of thinking, just one person dying when they don't have to, is one to many.

So we should ban cars then?   - How many die of car accidents each day?  One life too many? 

Look, all I’m saying is there’s a lot of overreaction going on with all of this - especially when you consider the chances of dying on average from this is about 0.3% (99.7% chance of surviving).

AndyB74 wrote:

So we should ban cars then?   - How many die of car accidents each day?  One life too many? 

Look, all I’m saying is there’s a lot of overreaction going on with all of this - especially when you consider the chances of dying on average from this is about 0.3% (99.7% chance of surviving).

That's a facile argument; they do ban cars from inappropriate areas; they ban drivers who don't use them properly/safely and they ban cars that are no longer safe.

It is far from an overreaction; it's doing something to try and save wasted lives until we can come up with something that stops the need to wear a mask - be it a vaccine or something else.

AndyB74 wrote:

Maybe someone more able to interpret scientific studies can interpret this for us.  Because it reads to me that in days 1-20 there was a 0.5% daily decrease (still sounds VERY small to me) and then in the other bands a total of 1.1% decrease in days 22-40 in total etc.  But even if it’s daily still - 1%-2% decrease in numbers per day is still very minor in my opinion.

If you're a farmer with 200 apples to begin with .. and you lose 0.5 percent of your stock on Day 1, that is a loss of one apple that day.  Losing an apple a day, after the 20th day you will have lost 20 apples.  Then, the daily loss (based on the percentages Andy posted) of about 3 apples a day over the next 80 days means that you have lost all your apples along the way.

Do we now see how Andy's conclusion of "very minor" change(s) leaves something to be desired?

FYI, math whizzes, I am aware that my apples example does not account for the fact that 0.5 percent of fewer than 200 apples is different from the same percentage of 200 apples.  Simplification IMO was unavoidable to make a point...

My point is that small daily changes can easily become large changes if they occur consistently over a few months' time.

cccmedia

CCCmedia's calculation above is still besides the point. In fact, as with most things related to natural growth (or decline), we have an exponential function here:
If the number infected is reduced by 0.5% one day, these 0.5% cannot infect anyone on the following day - which means the reduction is even higher then - and so on until, on day 100, the infection rate is only (99.5%)^100 = 60.6% of what it would have been without mask use.
THAT is a reduction worth considering, for such a minor inconvenience!
And, although the typical mask protects mainly others and not the wearer, the benefits do return to the wearer in earlier loosening of other restrictions and a speedier way back to a normal life.
Anyone not wearing a mask is thus, besides being mathematically illiterate, highly un-solidaric with the rest of society (including himself).

Ok, granted there is a cumulative effect.  But you still have to admit that’s an extremely poor success rate.

If everyone drove at 5km/hr everywhere we could make the same point that you do - it would save some small percentage of lives each day that would have a cumulative effect, but we don’t, because it’s not practical.  We live with the extra deaths that road accidents may cause.

And then there’s the point that no one likes to admit which is that 99.7% of people (on average) survive Covid (inside a sliding scale, depending on age and co-morbidities).   And yet we shut down society, destroy lives and businesses and cause a silent epidemic of mental health problems and suicides.

Then let’s not mention the fact that the inventor or PCR tests explicitly said that they should not be used the way they are for Covid.  (How many false positives are there?).  And the fact that a Covid death is counted a dying within 28 days for “any cause” with a positive test - but if you die within 28 days of the vaccine, it’s only a coincidence.

No - I’m sorry, but this is all highly suspect and none of it adds up.

After a year, the cumulative effect of 0.5% reduction per day is 84% less infections, as compared to 365 days x 0.5% fixed per day resulting in just 18% reduction.
If you do not understand the underlying maths or science, it is better to believe (and support) the excellent work and results of our scientists instead of questioning it based on hearsay or gut feeling.

P.S.: Your example of traffic deaths is inaccurate, as there is no cumulative effect - or maybe even a small increasing effect, as those not killed do continue to drive and kill others.

And why don’t we reduce the speed limit on the roads to some arbitrarily small amount for the same reason?  Why just this?  For a disease that you have 0.3% chance of dying from?  Sorry - doesn’t add up.  Plus, there are plenty of  credible scientific minds that would disagree with you.

Sorry, missed your last point re my example.  Fair enough in that case.  But my point still stands - would you reduce the road speed to 5km/hr because there’s a 0.3% chance of dying?  Why are we overreacting like this?

As with all these brilliant scientific minds, people have become infatuated with proving their science and aren’t at all looking at the bigger picture.

Saving 1 person, but killing millions more.

And some data for you that Covid measures are killing people:

The ONS mortality report this morning showed that in the week ending February 26th (week 8) deaths registered in England and Wales were 9.2% above the five-year average (1,066 deaths higher).

However, drilling down into the data it becomes clear that perhaps all of those excess deaths this week are deaths caused by the lockdown not by the virus, primarily denial of healthcare.

Deaths in care homes were down to 12.6% below the five-year average (334 deaths) (down from 1.1% above the previous week). Deaths in hospitals were slightly above the five-year average at 5% (275 deaths).

Deaths in private homes on the other hand were still a huge 44.2% above the five-year average (1,147 excess deaths). There were 238 deaths involving COVID-19, leaving 909 non-Covid excess deaths (if we make the generous assumptions that all Covid deaths are excess). That’s nearly 80%.


As can be seen in the above graph, excess deaths at home have remained well above average all year and at a relatively constant rate – a sign they are not just misattributed Covid deaths. There have been 50,810 excess deaths at home since the pandemic began a year ago. 7,056 home deaths have been registered with COVID-19, leaving 43,754 non-Covid (assuming all Covid deaths are excess) and still rising at over 1,000 each week with little sign of falling off.

The UK has had, and still has, one of the strictest lockdowns in the world, and an NHS waiting list of millions to show for it as people have stayed away from hospital to “protect the NHS” and out of fear of catching Covid. The most immediate cost of this can be seen in non-Covid excess deaths from denial of healthcare, especially at home – over 43,000 and counting by this estimate (though some of these will be transfer deaths that would ordinarily have occurred in hospital). Lockdowners claim that this is a fraction of the death toll that would result from not imposing restrictions. But when places like Sweden and Florida don’t impose lockdowns and see fewer, not more, Covid deaths per million, it is very hard to credit that, whatever the models might say.

And if lockdowns don’t save lives, then what are we left with? Just tens of thousands of deaths caused by reckless Government interventions. That’s the real horror story of the past year.

Your posts are part of the general pandemic panic, which unfortunately persists on both sides for and against restrictions and does not help at all.
But you included the important keyword "denial of healthcare".
Here we have a new disease that no-one has resistance to and which is infectious enough to cause real strains on health care systems - up to actual breakdown, which some countries were close to. All measures and restrictions are geared towards preventing that and the much greater problems it would cause. Preventing individual deaths directly from the disease is a secondary benefit.
You are right to have doubts about the efficacy of some of the measures - which politicians decide on without much scientific knowledge, and scientists advise them without much understanding of the (still too new) disease. It is certainly not an enviable situation to have to make important decision while still tapping in the dark. Only time will tell (much later) what was right and what was wrong!
My own personal opinion is that less restrictions on individual freedoms, coupled with more protection of risk groups, would be a balance more compatible with Western societies. But I am thankful that others (i.e. politicians) have taken on the difficult task of making the rules and I thus follow them and only offer my opinion as small part of the decision finding (as is befitting a democratic process).

Time and history will be judge whether or not it was worth destroying the global economy and our freedoms (and everything that goes with that).

Really interesting topic ;-).

I don't think we "destroy" the global economy by setting it back a few years.
Maybe one or the other of us would even learn that money and growth is not everything.
Also, my personal freedoms only saw minor effects (like having to wear a mask in some situations, and not having a hair cut in three months) - I am still much freer and have a richer life than most of humanity (and am glad for that).

With unemployment at 6.2 percent (not great, but not catastrophic) and the Dow closing above 32,000 today (a new record), the U.S.'s economy obviously has not been destroyed .. even though the U.S. has had awful covid numbers, soon to eclipse 30 million cases.  Many other countries have maintained decent economies and all have had far fewer covid cases.

Also, a certain poster can dispense with his ad nauseam repetition of the supposed 0.3 percent covid death-rate.  We get it already.  The death rates among certain populations -- such as nursing home residents and people of color -- is more concerning than the supposedly-low overall death-rate implies.

cccmedia

The markets are soaring because of government borrowing / money printing / helicopter cash.  Does it make any sense to you that GDP has contracted in the way it has and that the stock markets are soaring?  No. None of it bears any resemblance to reality.  When inflation hits and they are forced to raise interest rates and this tips things over the edge I think you’ll see things differently.  Probably we are in for a global depression not far from now.

And on the 0.3%, as far as I am aware that is a true fact.  On average you have a 99.7% chance of surviving COVID-19.