I was reading up on vaccine passports this morning. What is clear is that countries are scrambling to figure this out right now, though I understand Israel is already up and running, as is South Korea, which has a system built on top of the blockchain. (This feels like a great use case for the technology.)
What is also clear (see above charts) is that many countries are highly motivated to figure this out sooner rather than later. The geographies that are weighted toward tourism dollars don't want to miss out on yet another summer travel season. And given how dominant Europe is in terms of international arrivals, I suspect that they might end up leading the way in terms of rolling out some form of internationally accepted passport system. I would imagine that true universality is going to be a challenge though.
Domestic travel in the US has already bounced back in a significant way. Looking at TSA screenings for the first half of this month (May 2021), travel right now is at about 70% of 2019 volumes. This is in comparison to just under 10% last year (May 2020). Once international travel gets streamlined in the second half of this year, I'm sure the same thing will happen on that front.
One of my predictions at the beginning of this year was that we would see an explosion in global travel, probably in the second half of the year. I stand by that view. Many/most of us have spent the last year in various forms of lockdown and many/most of us have spent the last year with almost no work-life balance (a symptom of WFH).
According to some recent data from home website Zillow, the company saw traffic skyrocket in 2020 from 1.5 billion visits to 9.6 billion visits (compared to the year prior). This is people looking at homes, and, in many cases, looking at homes that are more expensive than what they currently own. Real estate websites, you could argue, became a form of escapism last year, which is something that travel is normally pretty good at.
People are restless and ready to unplug. I reckon that's going to happen in a meaningful way later this year.
Charts: Financial Times
Smartphone user data is hugely valuable at a time like this. Which is why governments all over the world from Israel to South Korea are using aggregated telecom data to try and track how their citizens are moving during this pandemic.
Some are calling this a violation of digital rights. I don't know enough to comment on that specifically, but I do know that the value to society as a whole is clear. It strikes me that if we knew (1) who was infected (you know this by doing widespread testing), (2) where people have been, and (3) where people are today, we would be in a much better position to contain the spread.
To that end, Singapore's Ministry of Health has been publicizing a surprising amount of information regarding its cases. And that data has been in turn made into interactive maps. You can see who is infected, where they live and work, which hospital they were admitted to, and so on. Is this an overshare? Or is this price of collective health and security?
The New York Times has similarly gone and visualized the movement of people and the virus using data from major telecoms, Baidu, and other sources; though in this case it is more of a retrospective view of what went wrong as opposed to a proactive management tool. The argument they make is that Wuhan's lockdown was too little, too late.
According to the NY Times, 175,000 people left Wuhan on January 1st alone. Throughout the month of January, outbound travel from Wuhan accelerated as many started to fear a lockdown. About 7 million people left in January. Where they travelled to can be found here. Would it be too draconian to use this kind of mobile phone data to see who is obeying a lockdown and who is not?
Images: New York Times
Wired's oral history of how the London startup scene came to be is a good reminder that, typically, a city needs some great big exits (acquisition or IPO) to really kickstart an ecosystem. In the case of Silicon Valley, you could perhaps trace things back to Fairchild Semiconductor (1950s). But a more recent example of this phenomenon would be the PayPal Mafia, whose members have gone on to found Tesla, LinkedIn, YouTube, and other companies that you may have heard of.
Put simply: success begets success. When a startup does really well and the founders and employees of that company get rich, it is likely that many will go on to found/fund other successful companies in that same city. In the case of London, that catalytic startup was arguably Skype (at least according to Wired). Microsoft acquired the company in 2011 for $8.5 billion, giving birth to the Skype Mafia. Of course, that wasn't the only ingredient, but it sure helped (excerpt from Wired):
Since 2008, according to data compiled by Dealroom.co, the UK has created 60 unicorns (tech companies valued at $1bn or more) – 35 per cent of the 169 created across Europe and Israel. In the past three years, the UK has created more unicorns (25) than France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden combined (19). And London has produced 23 unicorns with a combined value of $132bn, compared with Berlin’s eight, worth $32bn.
The world has changed since Skype was founded. It's now cool to be doing a startup. But given that every city seems to be trying to establish a thriving startup scene, I think it's valuable to point out just how important a single big exit can be, not just for the people within the company, but for the broader city. Easier said than done, right?
Photo by Benjamin Davies on Unsplash