Skip to main content

CoronaCard

Berkley MI
Tuesday

Introducing CoronaCard.

 If you’ve got the antibodies,
we’ve got the card.


Immunity is about to become a marketable asset.
It’s about to sort us, seemingly at random, into one of two new social strata: the “immunies” and the “cardless.” And which class you end up in might just determine much about your future.
There is no CoronaCard as yet, but I should probably trademark the name. Because several countries, including ours, are thinking about requiring citizens to demonstrate their immunity before they’re allowed back to work. All you have to do to qualify is survive Covid-19.
The immunies will be looking at a lot of opportunity. Restaurants will compete for their business. Merchants will shower them with deals. Airlines will upgrade them to first class on near-empty planes. They’ll be the darlings of the new economy.
The cardless, on the other hand, could be the have-nots of the next few years — and the civil liberties debate is sure to be brisk. Think about the “No Card, No Work” signs we’ll see at factory gates. Think about cardless people being evicted from apartments, banned from theaters and arenas, turned away from airline flights, or kept out of school. For people without the right antibodies, second-class citizenship looms.
But it’s the job market that will truly define the new class structure. And it could be harsh. Simply put, the immunies will be in demand. The cardless won’t.
If you’ve got the card, we’ve got the job. No skills? We’ll teach you. No experience? We’ll trust you. Pay? Name your price. If it’s a people-facing job you can perform without fear of infection — grocery clerk, bus driver, hospital worker, etc. — you’ll be hired on the spot, though you’d be crazy to take the first offer. If you’re a nurse or a doctor, you might even hold out for a signing bonus.
But if you’re cardless, you’d better hope you can work from home.
For some immunies — those who did time on a ventilator and beat the reaper — their card will be hard-won. And who among us would begrudge them?
For others, though, the ethics get murkier. Some of them, in effect, will have won the lottery. They walked around with no symptoms and now they’re in the club.
Is it fair that these asymptomatics — some of them unwitting super-spreaders — should now emerge as a privileged class? This is not an idle question, because odds are some of those super-spreaders are out in public right now, without masks, protesting stay-at-home orders. After which they’ll head back to their hometowns. Which is how hot spots get hot.
But for immunies in general, life could be quite good for some time. The rest of the population should catch up eventually, though it will take a while to develop the kind of “herd immunity” we’re all banking on. Meanwhile, a lot of people — deserved or not — will get a head start on the new economy, whatever that ends up looking like.
So CoronaCards will be coveted, and some people will take unreasonable risks to get one. We’ve already heard talk of young people considering “immunity parties,” deliberately exposing themselves in hopes of contracting a mild case. Call it Virus Roulette.
Am I being fanciful here? Perhaps. It might not play out this way at all. With a decent vaccine the curve might go totally flat. But keep in mind, the virus gets a say in this. The virus will determine how these new antibodies get produced. Or if a vaccine is even feasible. We just don’t know.
But we’re not talking about some vague future. Viable antibody tests could start arriving in the next few months. The cards could be issued soon thereafter. If not here, then in Germany. Or Italy. Or wherever.
I’m not even saying it’s a bad idea — it absolutely makes sense on many levels. The more immunies we have — both as workers and consumers — the more options we’ll have for rebooting the economy.
As for the cardless, they won’t be completely powerless. They will vastly outnumber the immunies — at least in the short term — so their voices will surely be heard.
My point is only that the consequences of immunity — both intended and unintended — won't be apparent for some time. Even so, the blurry outline of a CoronaCard society is now visible. We need to start thinking about it.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Guess Where You Can Find the Real Pedophiles

When political discourse turns to pedophilia — which it should never, ever do — it helps to separate fiction from non-fiction. The fictional narrative, widely disseminated by QAnon-addled propagandists, is that the Democratic Party is a vast conspiracy of ravenous child abusers, who just barely managed to cover up Hillary Clinton’s bloodthirsty coven in the basement of a D.C. pizza parlor. The non-fiction narrative — profusely-documented but with a much lower profile — is that both the priesthood of the Catholic Church and the ministries of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) have indulged and protected a stunningly large number of child molesters, and allowed them to enjoy long and predatory careers within their respective churches. In the last few weeks, these two stories flew somewhat under the radar, but both are worth looking at, not so much for the staggering hypocrisy of its characters — hypocrisy fatigue has long since rendered us numb — as for its legal and political i

Sex: The Abortion Origin Story

In the next month, five ultra-Catholic ideologues, unencumbered by any rational thought process, will decide that a fetus has more rights than its mother. When that happens, the legislatures in as many as 26 states will likely enact laws, under which a pregnant woman will, in effect, be legally obligated to carry to term every fetus that takes root in her body. Whether or not she was raped by a stranger, or by her father. Whether or not she miscarries. Whether or not the baby dies in her womb. Whether or not the baby is capable of life outside her womb. Whether or not that baby’s survival is likely to kill her. The rights of her fetus will, apparently in all cases, supercede hers. And her partner’s, too. Because for every beer-soaked asshole who will now be empowered to force his battered wife to carry his baby, there will be hundreds of responsible husbands legally barred from responsibly planning a family, or from ending a family-crippling pregnancy, or from choosing the life

The New York Times Is Doing Us No Favors

I am a life-long customer of The New York Times, and generally a satisfied one. For sheer news-gathering firepower, they continue to stand out in a tarnished but still important field. They’ve covered — or uncovered — virtually every major story of the last century and a half. Their investigative prowess is unquestioned. Plus, they have Paul Krugman on their op-ed page, an invaluable source of level-headed insights on a wide range of subjects. He combines a Nobel-level knowledge of economics with an astute political eye that is almost always dead on. He alone is worth the paywall, at least to me. But with all that said, the Times has lately been pissing me off. They’ve become unreasonably invested in what Krugman himself has decried as “false equivalency” — better known as “both-siderism.” They continue to pretend that our two major parties are equally engaged in reasonable discourse, and are equally responsible for the fractious and violent state of the nation. The Times scrup