All the COVID-19 Vaccines Required by the UK Could Easily Fit into Two Fuel Tankers

The COVID-19 vaccine rollout has seen successes, stumbling blocks and inequalities.

Thinking about vaccine development, it’s quite astounding that within one year pharmaceutical companies have developed, manufactured, and distributed hundreds-of-millions of doses.

With restrictions in travel looking like they might be removed for those fully vaccinated,  I decided to take a deeper look at just how impressive this feat is.

A big shout out to those involved in the vaccine programs and everyone involved health care workers around the world — thank you!

Methodology

I first obtained a list of all approved vaccines around the world;

Name Vaccine Type Primary Developers Country of Origin Authorization/Approval
Comirnaty (BNT162b2) mRNA-based vaccine Pfizer, BioNTech; Fosun Pharma Multinational Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Aruba, Australia, Bahrain, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei, Canada, Caribbean, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, European Union, Faroe Islands, Greenland, Hong Kong, Iceland, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Maldives, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Norway, Oman, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Suriname, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, UAE, UK, US, Vatican City, WHO
Moderna COVID‑19 Vaccine (mRNA-1273) mRNA-based vaccine Moderna, BARDA, NIAID US Andorra, Canada, European Union, Faroe Islands, Greenland, Iceland, Israel, Liechtenstein, Mongolia, Norway, Qatar, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Singapore, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States, Vietnam
COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca (AZD1222); also known as Vaxzevria and Covishield Adenovirus vaccine BARDA, OWS UK Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eswatani, Ethiopia, European Union, Faroe Islands, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Greenland, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Kosovo, Kuwait, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Korea, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor Leste, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, UK, Vietnam, WHO
Sputnik V Recombinant adenovirus vaccine (rAd26 and rAd5) Gamaleya Research Institute, Acellena Contract Drug Research and Development Russia Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Bolivia, Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, India, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Mali, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, North Macedonia, Pakistan, Palestine, Panama, Paraguay, Republika Srpska, Russia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zimbabwe
COVID-19 Vaccine Janssen (JNJ-78436735; Ad26.COV2.S) Non-replicating viral vector Janssen Vaccines (Johnson & Johnson) The Netherlands, US Andorra, Bahrain, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, European Union, Faroe Islands, Greenland, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, South Korea, Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia, US, WHO
CoronaVac Inactivated vaccine (formalin with alum adjuvant) Sinovac China Albania, Azerbaijan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Cambodia, China, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, Zimbabwe
BBIBP-CorV Inactivated vaccine Beijing Institute of Biological Products; China National Pharmaceutical Group (Sinopharm) China Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Belarus, Bolivia, Cambodia, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guyana, Hungary, Iraq, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Macau, Maldives, Mauritania, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Pakistan, Peru, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Sudan, UAE, Venezuela, Zimbabwe
EpiVacCorona Peptide vaccine Federal Budgetary Research Institution State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology Russia Belarus, Russia, Turkmenistan
Convidicea (Ad5-nCoV) Recombinant vaccine (adenovirus type 5 vector) CanSino Biologics China Chile, China, Hungary, Mexico, Pakistan
Covaxin Inactivated vaccine Bharat Biotech, ICMR India Guyana, India, Iran, Mauritius, Mexico, Myanmar, Nepal, Paraguay, Zimbabwe
WIBP-CorV Inactivated vaccine Wuhan Institute of Biological Products; China National Pharmaceutical Group (Sinopharm) China China
CoviVac Inactivated vaccine Chumakov Federal Scientific Center for Research and Development of Immune and Biological Products Russia Russia
ZF2001 Recombinant vaccine Anhui Zhifei Longcom Biopharmaceutical, Institute of Microbiology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences China, Uzbekistan China, Uzbekistan”

Full table.

There are 13 approved vaccines around the world. Approval varies by country via their medical bodies.

60 vaccines are still in development at the time of writing.

For this analysis I am going to be using the vaccines approved for use in the UK (where I live), which are at the time of writing;

  • Moderna COVID‑19 Vaccine (mRNA-1273) (Moderna, BARDA, NIAID)
  • Comirnaty (BNT162b2) (Pfizer, BioNTech; Fosun Pharma)
  • COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca (AZD1222); also known as Vaxzevria and Covishield (BARDA, OWS)

Pricing of the each vaccine varies by country, so I used EU costs (which are likely to be on the lower end of the scale).

I used each manufacturers documentation to obtain dosage size.

Results

Available Vaccines

Vaccine Dosage ml Number of doses required
Moderna COVID‑19 Vaccine 0.5 2
Comirnaty 0.3 2
COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca 0.5 2

Full table.

Required Vaccine Volume (UK)

The United Kingdom 2020 population is estimated to be 67,886,011 according to UN data.

Let’s assume the average person receives a single dose of 0.5 ml (which also somewhat accounts for loss), so 1 ml for both required doses of the approved vaccines.

This gives us a total requirement of 67,886,011 ml, or 67,886.011 litres.

A fuel tanker holds roughly 36,000 litres according to this thread, meaning only two would be required to store the whole of the UK’s vaccine requirement!

Vaccine costs

EU countries pay $2.15 per dose of the Oxford and AstraZeneca vaccine according to the BMJ, much cheaper than the cost of the BioNTech and Pfizer vaccine ($14.70) and Moderna vaccine ($15).

The mean vaccine cost of these three options is $10.73** per dose ($15 + $14.70 + $2.5)/3).

Full vaccine dose (ave) cost USD

Download chart.

Rank by population Country (or dependency) Population (2020) Mean cost
1 Germany 83,783,942 $1,779,012,368.47
2 France 65,273,511 $1,385,974,216.90
3 Italy 60,461,826 $1,283,806,105.40
4 Spain 46,754,778 $992,759,786.20
5 Poland 37,846,611 $803,609,706.90

Full table.

Assuming a mean average vaccination cost, Germany with a population of almost 84 million will pay about $1.8 billion to vaccinate its entire population.

In the UK, with a population of 67,886,011, the mean average cost to totally vaccinate the entire population stands at $1,441,446,300.23.

Assuming the UK needs 67,886,011 litres of the vaccine, at a cost of $1.44 billion. That equates to $21,233.33 per litre ($1,441,446,300.23 / 67,886.011).

One tanker can therefore hold an average of $764,399,880 worth of ($21,233.33*36000), assuming EU costs. Drive safely tankers!

The UK government’s Vaccines Taskforce alone has secured early access to 457 million doses, so that’s 228,500,000 ml worth of vaccine at a cost of $4,851,816,666.67 ($4.85 billion)!.

Worldwide, that’s 15,800,000 litres of vaccine required with an estimated average cost of $167,743,333,333 ($167.74 billion!).

Improvements

This is a very rough analysis using aggregated data. It is likely raw figures will be shared over time which can be used to improve this analysis.

tl;dr

Worldwide, 15,800,000 litres of COVID-19 vaccine is required with an estimated cost of $167.74 billion!

Footnotes

  1. Data sources + data used in this post.

Passport Power Rank 2021

It has been almost three years since my last Passport Power Rank post.

To quote that post:

 every year it appears the world has changed drastically since the last.

Holds true.

Let’s see how visa-free travel has changed over the last three years.

Methodology

Each year Henley & Partners publishes a “Global Passport Index”, a global ranking of countries according to the travel freedom that their citizens enjoy.

Points are awarded to countries for the number of destinations that offer visa-free travel to their citizens. e-Visas are treated the same as visas on arrival. Where the conditions for obtaining an e-visa are straightforward (fee, return ticket, hotel reservation), a visa-free point was assigned.

The ranking is based on exclusive data from the International Air Transport Association (IATA), which maintains the world’s largest and most accurate database of travel information, and is enhanced by extensive in-house research.

There are 219 destination countries (territories) in total. The maximum attainable score is 218 (points are not assigned for a national traveling to their own country).

Analysis

Best passports for travel by country (2021)

Interactive map.

country Visa Free Destinations 2021 2021 rank
Japan 191 1
Singapore 190 2
Germany 189 3
Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of 189 3
Italy 188 5
Spain 188 5
Finland 188 5
Luxembourg 188 5
Yemen 33 194
Somalia 33 194
Pakistan 32 196
Syrian Arab Republic 29 197
Iraq 28 198
Afghanistan 26 199

Full table.

Looking at the map, it’s clear there is an East/West split in passport mobility.

Change in visa-free requirements by country (2019-2021)

2019-2021 change map

Interactive map.

country 2019-2021 % change 2019-2021 point change
Poland 5.23 9.00
Qatar 10.47 9.00
Dominica 5.93 8.00
Saudi Arabia 9.72 7.00
United Arab Emirates 3.59 6.00
New Zealand 2.78 5.00
Holy See (Vatican City State) 3.38 5.00
Macao 3.60 5.00
Colombia 4.03 5.00
Kuwait 5.49 5.00
Thailand 6.76 5.00
China 7.14 5.00
Rwanda 9.09 5.00
Vietnam 10.20 5.00
Taiwan, Province of China -0.68 -1.00
Honduras -0.74 -1.00
El Salvador -0.74 -1.00
Micronesia, Federated States of -0.84 -1.00
Paraguay -1.40 -2.00
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of -3.73 -5.00

Full table.

Qatar (86 – 95) and Poland (172 – 181) passports now have 9 extra visa-free travel destinations since 2019. Venezuelan (134 – 129) passport holders on the other hand have lost 5 visa-free travel destinations, owing largely to the ongoing political turmoil in the country.

Changes in global travel freedom (2019 – 2021)

Total Global Visa Free Access

Download chart.

369 new visa-free travel destinations in total became available to global travellers in 2021 since 2019.

Improvements

The results produced by Henley and Partners show aggregated visa data. For example, it does not show which countries have visa-free travel between them. It would be useful to track what countries are added or removed to visa-free travel lists to explain any changes.

tl;dr

The Japanese passport has the largest number of destinations its holders can travel to without a visa.

Get the data

Data sources + data used in this post.

Please Arrive at the Airport 6 Hours Before Your Flight to Clear Security

It has been a little different over the last few months.

Whilst the holiday you’ve been looking forward to since the start of the outbreak might not be going ahead this year, it will come around.

We’ll all be back flying soon. And so will the familiar, often stressful, journey from car to plane.

Wait to check-in. Wait to drop your bags. Wait until the person in front of you at security empties the backpack full of all their electronics (sorry!).

In this period of travel downtime, I decided to take a look at the best and worst performing airports for security waiting times in the UK and US. Perhaps it’ll change my decision on where to fly from once travel restrictions are lifted.

Methodology

Which? asked asked 4,499 passengers to provide an estimated wait time for security on their most recent visit to the airport in their recent annual airport survey (end of 2019). Note: this survey was conducted before any COVID-19 restrictions were put in place.

The passenger numbers from each UK airport are sourced from CAA figures published for 2018, the latest full year dataset available at the time of writing. Note, the numbers are reported per airport. I could not find individual terminal data as is reported in the waiting time data. Therefore to perform my analysis I simply divided airport passenger number by number of terminals at the airport. Clearly this is not perfect.

For US airport data, I used data from Upgraded Points, who compiled wait time data directly from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) They collected data from late Spring for every hour at each airport to calculate overall averages.

Results

Mean security wait time at UK airports
Mean security wait time at UK airports

Download chart.

This one’s personal. I used to travel to Belfast monthly. I don’t miss the queues.

Belfast International is by-far-and away the worst performing airport for security waiting times, taking on average over 22 minutes  — over 5 minutes longer than any other airport considered.

Compare that with Southend or Southampton, the latter of which I used to fly to and from Belfast coincidently, where queuing can regularly take less than 5 minutes.

Mean security wait (mins) 2019 vs UK airport size

Mean security wait versus airport size

Download chart.

Gatwick and Heathrow have the lowest average security queue times for large UK airports. They are also the only two airports in the UK whose queue targets are set externally – by the Civil Aviation Authority.

They hit their queue targets, which are to get 99% of flyers through security in less than 10 minutes (Heathrow) and 98% in less than 15 minutes (Gatwick).

For a long time, my personal hypothesis was that smaller airports would have slower security primarily due to the fact they often cater for low-cost airlines, and thus people who might not travel as regularly.

How wrong I was.

In fact, larger airports are about 2 minutes slower. When I think more deeply about this, it makes perfect sense. Larger airport, more passengers, slower security queues.

Mean security wait (mins) 2019 vs UK airport passenger number

Number of passengers to add 1 minute to security wait times at UK airports (2019)

Download chart.

Comparing wait times to the number of passengers travelling gives us a better picture of how efficient security at each airport is.

Every 2.68 million passengers adds about a minute to the security waiting times at Gatwick South terminal, making it the most efficient airport considered. The North terminal at Gatwick doesn’t fare much worse with every 2.69 million passengers adding an extra minute.

Compare that to Bournemouth where every 88,000 passengers adds a minute to the security wait times.

Comparing to US airports

Airport Mean security wait (mins) 2019 Country
Southend 5.2 UK
Southampton 5.2 UK
Exeter 6.9 UK
Cardiff 7.1 UK
London City 7.5 UK
Bournemouth 7.7 UK
Newcastle 8.1 UK
Bristol 8.5 UK
Heathrow Terminal 5 8.6 UK
Gatwick South Terminal 8.6 UK
Gatwick North Terminal 8.7 UK
Salt Lake International Airport 9.1 US
Heathrow Terminal 4 9.4 UK
Heathrow Terminal 2 9.6 UK
Liverpool (John Lennon) 10.1 UK
Heathrow Terminal 3 10.3 UK
Dulles International Airport 10.5 US
Edinburgh 10.5 UK
Boston Logan International Airport 10.6 US
Leeds Bradford 10.6 UK
Birmingham 10.6 UK
Luton 11.7 UK
Glasgow International 12.2 UK
East Midlands 12.7 UK
Minneapolis−Saint Paul International Airport 13 US
Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport 13.2 US
Charlotte Douglas International Airport 13.2 US
Philadelphia International Airport 13.3 US
Stanstead 13.7 UK
Denver International Airport 13.8 US
Los Angeles International Airport 14.2 US
Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport 14.3 US
Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport 14.7 US
Orlando International Airport 14.9 US
Chicago O’Hare International Airport 15 US
San Diego International Airport 15.5 US
Manchester Terminal 2 15.5 UK
Manchester Terminal 3 15.5 UK
Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport 15.9 US
San Francisco International Airport 16 US
John F. Kennedy International Airport 16 US
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport 16.3 US
Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport 16.9 US
LaGuardia Airport 17 US
Manchester Terminal 1 17 UK
McCarran International Airport 17.3 US
Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport 18.2 US
Miami International Airport 19.6 US
Houston Airport System 19.8 US
Belfast International 22.3 UK
Newark Liberty International Airport 23.1 US

Full table.

The best performing airports based on security wait times are all in the UK. Salt Lake International Airport is the best performing airport in the US (9.1 mins).

The worst airport, Newark Liberty International Airport in New York where average security wait times are 23.1 minutes — about one minute slower than Belfast International.

4 of the 5 worst performing airports are all in the US.

US vs UK airports average security wait times 2019

Download chart.

As a result, US airports security queues, are on average, 5 minutes slower than their UK counterparts.

Improvements

The UK figures are based on estimates. Which? collected the data by asking 4,499 passengers to provide an estimated wait time for security on their most recent visit to the airport in our recent annual airport survey.

This is far from accurate. The analysis would be much improved if I was able to use the actual figures similar to the way they are reported by the TSA in the US, although I could not find anywhere where UK airports reported these numbers.

tl;dr

Belfast International is by-far-and away the worst performing UK airport for security waiting times, taking on average over 22 minutes  — over 5 minutes longer than any other airport considered.

In the US it’s Newark Liberty International Airport in New York, where security queues are a little over 23 minutes on average.

Footnotes

  1. Data sources + data used in this post.

The £520 Million ATOL Refund Bill. Can the UK CAA Cover It?

In the UK, travel agents must pay £2.50 into the ATOL scheme for each person they book on a package holiday.

If a travel business with an ATOL ceases trading, the ATOL scheme protects consumers who had booked holidays with the firm. It will support consumers currently abroad and provide financial reimbursement for the cost of replacing parts of an ATOL protected package.

ATOL Website

If you’re in the UK, you will be well aware of the ATOL scheme (operated by the UK CAA) by now after the collapse of Thomas Cook.

The mammoth repatriation effort, dubbed Operation Matterhorn (aka the largest in peacetime history), is to bring an estimated 150,000 people back to the UK.

Government figures show that the cost of reimbursing holidaymakers who lost future bookings stands at £420 million.

This is in addition to an expected £100 million bill to return Thomas Cook passengers to Britain and tens of millions owed to hotels overseas.

Thomas Cook Group Website

Though after years as one of the leading travel agents in Europe, as the Thomas Cook Group sites still boasts (parent company of Thomas Cook UK), surely the passenger ATOL contributions must cover the mounting bills?

Methodology

Using direct and indirect data sources, I was able to obtain numbers to make some “informed estimations”.

I am using figures from Thomas Cook Airlines, as I was unable to find exact package holiday passenger numbers. This is an important distinction, as Thomas Cook Airlines also carry passengers not covered under ATOL protection (e.g. those who booked flights only). As a result, many of the figures quoted will be overestimates.

Similarly, I also use figures from the Office of National Statistics that report total UK holidays by year to work out potential ATOL contributions.

ATOL contributions in this post are assumed to be fixed at £2.50 per passenger.

Results

Thomas Cook ATOL Contributions by Year

Thomas Cook Airlines Passenger Volume and Estimated ATOL contributions (2009 - 2018)

Download chart.

Year Pax (TC airlines) ATOL contribution GBP
2009 8,202,534 20,506,335
2010 8,120,815 20,302,038
2011 7,969,569 19,923,923
2012 6,783,661 16,959,153
2013 6,043,480 15,108,700
2014 6,043,480 15,108,700
2015 6,395,623 15,989,058
2016 6,623,546 16,558,865
2017 7,319,546 18,298,865
2018 8,090,208 20,225,520

Full table.

Since 2013 Thomas Cook Airlines has been carrying an increasing number of passengers. Over 2 million more in 2018 than in 2013 (25% increase).

Assuming all these passengers were covered under ATOL protection (see methodology), Thomas Cook paid over £20.2 million to the scheme in 2018. Using the same logic, over the period between 2009 and 2018 Thomas Cook airlines paid £179 million into the scheme.

Let’s assume now that only 50% of Thomas Cook airline passengers paid in to the scheme. In 2018 they would have contributed just over £10 million, and since 2009, about £90 million.

This number is still way short of the estimated £520 million final bill, as quoted above.

Potential Total Travel Agents ATOL Contributions by Year

UK Holiday Passengers and Potential ATOL contributions GBP (1998 - 2018)

Download chart.

Year UK Holiday Passengers ATOL Potential ATOL contributions GBP @100% paid UK Holiday Passengers ATOL GBP @50% paid
1998 32,306,000 80,765,000 40,382,500
1999 35,023,000 87,557,500 43,778,750
2000 36,685,000 91,712,500 45,856,250
2001 38,670,000 96,675,000 48,337,500
2002 39,902,000 99,755,000 49,877,500
2003 41,197,000 102,992,500 51,496,250
2004 42,912,000 107,280,000 53,640,000
2005 44,175,000 110,437,500 55,218,750
2006 45,287,000 113,217,500 56,608,750
2007 45,437,000 113,592,500 56,796,250
2008 45,531,000 113,827,500 56,913,750
2009 38,492,000 96,230,000 48,115,000
2010 36,422,000 91,055,000 45,527,500
2011 36,819,000 92,047,500 46,023,750
2012 36,173,000 90,432,500 45,216,250
2013 37,149,000 92,872,500 46,436,250
2014 38,519,000 96,297,500 48,148,750
2015 42,150,000 105,375,000 52,687,500
2016 45,020,000 112,550,000 56,275,000
2017 46,636,000 116,590,000 58,295,000
2018 47,042,000 117,605,000 58,802,500

Full table.

Assuming all UK holiday makers contributed towards ATOL, the scheme would have raised £117.6 million in 2018 (47 million pax). If so, since 1998 the scheme has raised £2.13 billion (from 851.5 million passengers). ATOL stated in 1973.

Let’s assume only 50% of holiday makers were required to pay into the scheme, it would still have generated a pot of over £1 billion (ignoring other times passengers have been compensated by ATOL, see below).

We have enough to cover the £520 million now…

Repaying Thomas Cook Passengers

Thomas Cook Impact on ATOL Contributions Pot 1998-2018

Download chart.

Assuming the 50% of holiday makers since 1998 were required to pay into the scheme (£1 billion), the £520 million Thomas Cook bill would require 48.9% of the schemes contributions to refund passengers.

Thomas Cook UK are the largest agency or airline to go into liquidation, by quite some margin.

Though a number of other airlines — FlyBMI, Cobalt, Monarch, etc — are likely to have impacted passengers under ATOL protection. ATOL refunds for the collapse of Monarch added up to £21 million.

Of course, many smaller agencies will have ceased trading, requiring ATOL refunds for passengers too.

The question is, has ATOL paid out more than £520 million since 1998. I’m not so sure…

Improvements

As indicated in the methodology section (and lack of a definitive answer to the question), there are lots of estimations in this post.

To improve the accuracy of the figures estimated, I would need ATOL contribution figures by agency and all payouts over the period the organisation has been operating.

tl;dr

It is very likely that the final Thomas Cook will significantly impact the balance sheet of the ATOL protection scheme. It could easily exceed over 50% of all ATOL contributions for the last 20 years.

Footnotes

  1. Data sources + data used in this post.

Become a French Resident for Only 10 Million Euros

Visa requirements to stay in a country for longer than one month can be very restrictive. If you want to work in another country things only become more complicated.

Many countries implement point based immigration systems, others also offer random lotteries for citizenship. As the old adage states; “money talks”. Indeed, when it comes to citizenship this holds true. In a previous post I took a look at the staggering amount some countries earn through tourism visas alone.

An increasing number of countries offer citizenship for investors with big pockets looking for a new home. Such schemes have come under much controversy with many people using their new found citizenships to avoid taxes in their former home countries.

In this post I take a look at the market for citizenships, and see if I too could afford to purchase a citizenship in any of these countries (let me dream!).

Methodology

There are a number of significant differences between the terms ‘residency’ and ‘citizenship’. A citizen of a country, nation or state has rights that are not conferred on a resident. Citizens can confidently expect that they will hold that status, and those rights, for life. In addition, citizenship status can be inherited by children and grandchildren merely by proving, if they were born outside of that country, that they are close filial relatives of the citizen.

Residents have no such clear-cut security. Residency status can also, depending on the laws of that country, be separated into temporary and permanent residency. Some countries, such as the United Kingdom (UK) do not even acknowledge the term ‘residency’ but define it as ‘indefinite leave to remain’.

The IMF has produced a list of 23 countries that offer residency and citizenship programs. Using this list I examined each offering and its restrictions, for example, the time required in country to remain a resident in the program. In each country, the requirements to enter a program wildly differ. In some countries a real-estate investment is allowed, in others an investment in a business is required. To simplify things the list simply considers the cheapest investment vehicle to enter each program.

To try and understand the value of each of the programs to potential investors I compared the cost required to invest against each countries GDP in 2017, also produced by the IMF.

Results

Cost of citizenship / residency

Cost-of-citizenship-by-country

Interactive chart.

Rank cost Country Cost USD Shengen Type
23 Latvia $43,178 Y Residency
22 Dominica $100,000 N Citizenship
19 Antigua and Barbuda $250,000 N Citizenship
3 Cyprus $3,084,150 Y Citizenship
2 Australia $3,941,105 N Residency
1 France $12,336,600 Y Residency

Full list.

At $43,178 and offering entry into the Shengen travel zone, the Latvian residency program is a very attractive opportunity for non-EU citizens. This residency program looks incredibly cheap when compared to the French program costing $12,336,600!

Eligibility for citizenship

In many cases those who purchase a residency or even citizenship must wait some time before enjoying full rights.

Years-in-country-before-eligible-for-citizenship1

Interactive chart.

Rank qual. period Country Shengen Type Cost USD Residency Requirements Citizenship qualifying period
18 Cyprus Y Citizenship $3,084,150 0 0
18 Dominica N Citizenship $100,000 0 0
18 Grenada N Citizenship $250,000 0 0
18 St. Kitts and Nevis N Citizenship $250,000 0 0
18 Antigua and Barbuda N Citizenship $250,000 5 days / 5 years 0
2 Latvia Y Residency $43,178 0 10
2 Spain Y Residency $616,830 0 10
1 Switzerland N Residency $267,012 0 12

Full table.

In 5 countries you can obtain citizenship immediately without restriction. Only one of these countries, Antigua and Barbuda, has a requirement for citizens to remain in the country — although this is just 5 days over 5 years! Four of these five countries are in the Caribbean. Though for $3,084,150, Cypriot citizenship offers immediate access with no restriction to the EU Schengen travel zone.

Investment as a percentage of GDP

Citizenship-cost-as-a-percentage-of-GDP-2017

Interactive chart.

Cost GDP rank Country Cost USD GDP per capita USD Cost / GDP Shengen Type
23 Latvia $43,178.10 $15,402 280% Y Residency
22 Switzerland $267,012.50 $80,837 330% N Residency
21 Canada – Prince Edward Island $276,747.10 $44,773 618% N Residency
3 Bulgaria $616,830.00 $7,924 7784% N Residency
2 Cyprus $3,084,150.00 $24,740 12466% Y Citizenship
1 France $12,336,600.00 $39,673 31096% Y Residency

Full list.

In Latvia, citizens generate $15,402.00 each to the economy. A residency visa will cost you 280% more than this. If you think this is unreasonable, consider French residency where the cost is 31,096% higher than GDP per person.

Improvements

As noted, segmenting each program further by investment type would provide additional insight.

For comparison, other income metrics beyond GDP would be make for a interesting analysis. Each countries tax rates would be a good example.

tl;dr

Latvian residency can be purchased for just $43,178 and provides non-EU citizens with unrestricted access to the Schengen travel zone. Dominica offers the cheapest citizenship program, costing $100,000 to become a fully fledged citizen.

Get the Data

Get all the data used in this blog post on Google Sheets.

Mexicans on Minimum Wage Have to Work for 5 Weeks to Afford a Passport

Last year I needed to renew my passport. As a regular traveller I opted for the “jumbo” 48 page option with the aim of filling them all with a stamp in the 10 year period, a task that will likely be made easier when the UK leaves Europe. Sigh.

In a previous post we covered the cost of obtaining visas to enter countries, assuming your passport didn’t entitle you to visa-free entry. While some travel visa fees are eye-watering, the high cost of renewing my passport (£85.59 for the jumbo version) left me wondering how many people simply can not afford this luxury around the world, especially when factoring in the cost for a family.

While travel costs continues to decrease, it appears the cost of documents allowing you to do so is going the other way. In this post I examine the affordability of passports around the world.

Methodology

In 2010 the UK government published a comparison of costs for citizens to apply for passports in their native country.

Using this list of 52 countries I searched each governments website for the costs associated with renewing an adult passport. The definition of “adult” varies by country. In each case I selected the largest age group covering the population between 18-65. Given many countries offered different rates for passports, I collected prices for passports with the longest validity. When more than one variation was available, for example number of pages, I selected the cheapest option for comparison.

I used a list of minimum wage data by country published on Wikipedia to compare passport costs to income. 11 countries did not have a clear minimum wages and these countries were therefore omitted from the analysis.

Results

Passport costs (2018)

Passport-cost-by-country-20181

Interactive chart.

Rank USD Issuing Country Cost USD Adult: Validity of Standard Pasport (years)
41 Indonesia $11.43 10
40 India $23.24 10
39 Bulgaria $25.37 5
3 Japan $150.06 10
2 Turkey $177.47 10
1 Australia $223.43 10

Full list.

Indonesian citizens can buy a passport for just $11.43 USD. This might leave many Australian citizens wondering why they have to pay $223.43 USD. The mean average cost for a passport of the 41 countries considered is $72.48 USD.

Passport costs by year (2018)

The passports above have varying lengths of validity, from five to ten years. I analysed cost per year of each passport to get a better understanding of value.

Passport-yearly-cost-by-country-2018

Interactive chart.

Rank cost p/yr usd Issuing Country Cost /yr USD Adult: Validity of Standard Pasport (years)
41 Indonesia $1.14 10
40 India $2.32 10
39 China $2.84 10
3 Greece $20.94 5
2 France $21.34 5
1 Australia $22.34 10

Full list.

When examining passport costs by year the costs do not seem as prohibitive. Even at the most expensive end of the spectrum the Australian passport works out to cost $22.34 per year over 10 years. Perhaps passport authorities should consider charging yearly for passports.

Passport costs vs income (2018)

While cost of a passport is an important metric. It does not consider the wealth of the country and how much of a persons income is required to purchase a passport for travel. Using minimum wage data it is possible to get an idea on how the lowest paid workers must pay for the luxury to travel internationally.

Hours-worked-at-minimum-wage-required-to-buy-passport-by-country-2018

Interactive chart.

Rank affordability Issuing Country Cost USD Min wage USD Hours worked for passport Weeks (40hrs) for passport
41 Luxembourg $62.02 $13.05 4.75 0.12
40 Spain $32.25 $5.60 5.76 0.14
39 Germany $74.43 $9.99 7.45 0.19
3 Japan $150.06 $1.33 112.83 2.82
2 Russian Federation $62.05 $0.53 117.07 2.93
1 Mexico $96.93 $0.49 197.81 4.95

Full list.

A Luxembourgian on minimum wage will have to work just under 5 hours to buy a passport. Compare that to Mexico where a worker on minimum  would have to work almost 200 hours to buy a passport — that’s 5 working weeks!

Improvements

Minimum wage is concept that differs by country and is not necessarily the most accurate measure of affordability. It would be useful to compare other income metrics to passport cost, such as median or mean income.

tl;dr

The Australian passport is the most expensive to purchase, however, the Mexican passport is the most expensive when measured on minimum wage affordability.

Get the Data

Get all the data used in this blog post on Google Sheets.

Passport Power Rank 2018

Every year I write a yearly passport power post, and every year it appears the world has changed drastically since the last.

Next year will be no different. Expect this Brexit “remoaner” to be lamenting the massive reduction in the UK passport’s flexibility that currently allows holders access to 175 countries without requiring a visa.

Further from home there have been some other geopolitical issues that have directly affected citizen’s ability to travel. Last summer we saw tensions flare in the Middle East. Towards the end of 2017 Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un engaged in a nuclear war of words.

This post takes a look at how some of these events have affected citizens ability to travel compared to previous years.

Methodology

Each year Henley & Partners publishes a “Visa Restriction Index”, a global ranking of countries according to the travel freedom that their citizens enjoy.

Points are awarded to countries for the number of destinations that offer visa-free travel to their citizens. e-Visas are treated the same as visas on arrival. Where the conditions for obtaining an e-visa are straightforward (fee, return ticket, hotel reservation), a visa-free point was assigned.

The ranking is based on exclusive data from the International Air Transport Association (IATA), which maintains the world’s largest and most accurate database of travel information, and is enhanced by extensive in-house research.

There are 219 destination countries (territories) in total. The maximum attainable score is 218 (points are not assigned for a national traveling to their own country).

Analysis

Best and worst passports for travel (2018)

Passport-Power-Rank-20181

Interactive map.

rank 2018 country UN-region visa-free-2018
1 Germany Europe 177
2 Sweden Europe 176
2 Italy Europe 176
 …  …  …  …
197 Syrian Arab Republic Africa 28
198 Iraq Middle East 27
199 Afghanistan Asia and the Pacific 24

Full list.

For the fifth year in a row, Germany tops the list. German citizens can travel to 177 destinations worldwide without requiring a visa (+1 vs. 2017). The top 3 countries remain unchanged in order from 2017.

At the other end of the ranking Iraq and Afghanistan remain in position 198 and 199, respectively, unchanged from last year with the same number of visa free restrictions (+0 vs. 2017). Pakistan climes one place from 2017 to rank 196th (+1 vs. 2017). with Syria entering the bottom 3 in 197th place having lost one visa free destination (-1 vs. 2017).

Year-on-year changes (2017 vs. 2018)

Total-of-Visa-Free-Relationships-by-Year-2013-2018

Download chart.

The world is becoming more accessible to citizens. Between 2017 and 2018 there was an additional 470 visa-free relationships — the biggest increase since 2013 to 2014.

Changes in travel restrictions (2017 vs. 2018)

Change-in-visa-free-destinations-2017-2018

Interactive chart.

Ukraine has seen much political turmoil in recent years which may attribute to its low rankings in previous years (98th with 82 visa-free destinations in 2017). The country jumps to 79th in 2018 with 114 visa-free destinations (+32 vs. 2017). Citizens of Georgia now enjoy 30 fewer visa requirements to enter other countries in 2018 compared with 2017.

Between 2017 and 2018 only 8 countries saw visa restrictions increase; Syria, North Korea, Lao, Algeria, New Zealand, Mongolia, Antigua and Barbuda, and Qatar (+1 vs. 2017).

Changes in travel restrictions (2013 vs. 2018)

Change-in-visa-free-destinations-2013-2018

Interactive chart.

When looking back to 2013, citizens of the UAE are the biggest winners for reduced travel restrictions (+62 vs. 2013). 22 countries have seen visa-free travel increase to at least 30 destinations.

In contrast, citizens of 15 countries have seen visa-free travel reduced. Syrian’s have faired worse (-11 vs. 2013). War torn countries like Yemen (-8 vs. 2013), Iraq (-4 vs. 2013), and Iraq (-4 vs. 2013) have also suffered with increased travel restrictions for citizens.

Improvements

Visa restrictions can change for a wide variety of reasons: security, political, social, etc. For additional studies it would be to add such context for each country to try and better understand why visa requirements seem to change so frequently.

tl;dr

The German passport remains the most flexible passport for travel with the fewest visa restrictions imposed upon holders.

Get the data

Data sources + data used in this post.

Passport Power Rank 2017

Wow. What a year it has been since we put together the 2016 version of our Passport Power Rank.

The UK left the EU, potentially losing visa-free travel privileges within the area (and the distinctive red passport).

America voted in Donald Trump who swiftly tried to bring in a ridiculous travel ban, build a wall, …. I could go on.

How have these events effected a citizen’s ability to travel visa-free? Here is the 2017 version of our Passport Power Rank.

Methodology

Each year Henley & Partners publishes a “Visa Restriction Index”, a global ranking of countries according to the travel freedom that their citizens enjoy.

Points are awarded to countries for the number of destinations that offer visa-free travel to their citizens. e-Visas are treated the same as visas on arrival. Where the conditions for obtaining an e-visa are straightforward (fee, return ticket, hotel reservation), a visa-free point was assigned.

There are 219 destination countries (territories) in total. The maximum attainable score is 218 (points are not assigned for a national traveling to their own country).

Analysis

Best and worst passports for travel

Country-visa-free-count-2017-map

Full-size map.

 Rank 2017 Country Visa free destinations 2017
1 Germany 176
2 Sweden 175
3 Italy 174
3 Spain 174
3 Finland 174
3 United States 174
3 Denmark 174
8 France 173
8 United Kingdom 173
8 Belgium 173
8 Netherlands 173
8 Singapore 173
8 Austria 173
8 Norway 173
8 Luxembourg 173

 Rank 2017 Country Visa free destinations 2017
185 Lebanon 37
185 South Sudan 37
185 Kosovo 37
185 Sudan 37
185 Ethiopia 37
190 Palestine, State of 36
190 Nepal 36
192 Yemen 35
192 Eritrea 35
194 Libya 33
195 Somalia 30
196 Syrian Arab Republic 29
197 Pakistan 28
198 Iraq 27
199 Afghanistan 24

Full rankings.

Germany tops the list for a fourth year in a row with 176 destinations accessible without a visa for passport holders (out of a possible 219). Down one from 2016.

Interestingly, various EU Member States have varying visa free travel to non-EU countries.

Syria, Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan prop up the table, each with visa-free access to fewer than 30 countries.

Year-on-year changes

Total of Visa Free Relationships by Year 2013 - 2017

Download chart.

Visa-free travel between countries increased again between 2016 and 2017 – albeit at a much slower rate then 2015 and 2016 – by 55 extra visa-free destinations in total.

2016-2017 change in visa-free destinations count

Download chart.

86 passports had visa-free travel increased, 70 decreased, and 43 had no change at all.

Biggest visa restriction changes in 2017

Change in visa free destinations (top 8 2017)

Download chart.

The biggest mover was Marshall Islands which gained an additional 33 destinations its holders can travel to without the requiring a visa. Peru (+32 visa-free destinations), Micronesia (+31), Soloman Islands (+30), Kiribati (+30) and Tuvalu were the other signifiant movers.

At the other end of the scale was Jordan (-4), Ghana (-5) and Dijibouti (-5) had the amount of countries they could travel to without needing a travel visa decrease. Notably, India (-3), Hong Kong (-2), UK (-2) and France (-2) also saw visa-free travel privileges decrease. Perhaps a sign of things to come for the UK since Brexit.

Improvements

Visa restrictions can change for a wide variety of reasons: security, political, social, etc. For additional studies it would be to add such context for each country to try and better understand why visa requirements seem to change so frequently.

tl;dr

The German passport is the most powerful allowing visa-free travel to 176 countries. In contrast, Afghani’s can only travel to 24 countries without a visa.

Get the data

  1. Data sources + data used in this post.

China Earns 8 billion USD Each Year From Visas

The American Passport has some of the fewest foreign travel visa requirements for holders (ranked 8th for freedom of movement in 2016).

Many countries still require inbound tourist to pay for a visa for reasons from political agreements (or disagreements) to economic drivers. In some cases, transit visas are required if you’re only transiting through an airport within a country.

What country is the most expensive for tourist visas? What country earns the most from tourists?

Methodology

VisaHQ provides a service to help travellers apply for tourism visas online. Their database contains costs charged by each countries embassy for issuing travel visas to American citizens.

For this post I only considered the Embassy fee, ignoring any additional costs. As each country offers visas of differing lengths (days), conditions (number of entries allowed), and Embassy processing speeds, I used the cheapest visa provided for each country.

Visa costs and availability are always subject to change. Data was collected from VisaHQ during April 2017.

I calculated potential visa revenue using visa costs to US tourists against all inbound tourists of all nationalities (which will include nationals of the inbound country) in 2013 from a UNWTO report (“US visa cost” X “inbound tourists”).

Results

Most expensive tourist visas for Americans by county

cost-of-visa-for-american-600

Full-size map.

Rank (cost) Country alpha-3 region Embassy fee USD
1 Nigeria NGA Africa 265
2 Cook Islands COK Oceania 200
3 Pakistan PAK Asia 192
4 Congo Republic COD Africa 175
5 Afghanistan AFG Asia 160
5 Algeria DZA Africa 160
5 Bangladesh BGD Asia 160
5 Bolivia BTN Asia 160
5 Brazil BRA Americas 160
5 Gabon GAB Africa 160
5 Guinea GIN Africa 160
5 Mozambique MOZ Africa 160
5 Paraguay PRY Americas 160
5 Qatar QAT Asia 160
5 Sierra Leone SLE Africa 160
5 South Sudan SSD Africa 160
5 Uzbekistan UZB Asia 160

Full list.

Nigeria is the most expensive country for a tourist visa — $265 USD gets you a multiple-entry visa (leave and return as many times as desired) valid for 2 years.

The top 5 most expensive countries for tourist visas for American visitors spans 17 countries. 8 in this list are African nations, 6 Asian, 2 Americas, and 1 Oceanic. In total American citizens are required to pay for tourist visas to enter 89 countries.

Entry into the EU is completely free for US passport holders. In total US citizens can travel to 142 countries without having to pay for a tourist visa.

Potential visa revenue by country

Country Embassy fee USD International tourist arrivals (1000) Potential visa revenue USD
China 140 55686 7,796,040,000
Russia 123 28356 3,487,788,000
Saudi Arabia 107 13380 1,431,660,000
Brazil 160 5813 930,080,000
Turkey 20 37795 755,900,000
India 77 6968 535,839,200
Algeria 160 2733 437,280,000
Iran 90 4769 429,210,000
Qatar 160 2611 417,760,000
Uzbekistan 160 1969 315,040,000

Full list.

China could potentially earn almost $8 billion USD from inbound tourist visas (56 million tourists paying $140 USD a each). Russia and Saudi Arabia also stand to raise billions from tourist visas, $3.5 billions USD and $1.5 billion USD a piece.

121 countries raise no revenue from tourist visas (or equivalent visa-free entry) issued to Americans.

Improvements

I calculated potential visa revenue using visa costs to US tourists against all inbound tourists of all nationalities in 2013 (“US visa cost” X “inbound tourists”). Clearly this is incorrect. Many inbound tourists of other nationalities will likely be subject to different visa requirements and costs when compared to US citizens. Similarly, this figure includes citizens of the inbound country who won’t need a visa.

If I could get a breakdown of visa costs and inbound tourists by nationality the accuracy of this calculation could be significantly improved.

tl;dr

In total American citizens are required to pay for tourist visas to enter 89 countries. Nigeria charges Americans the most for a tourist visa, $265. China could potentially earn $8 billion from inbound arrivals (assuming all visitors were tourists and required to pay the same visa costs as Americans).

Get the Data

Get all the data used in this blog post on Google Sheets.

You’re Not Worth £20 Million GBP (Of Travel Medical Cover)

The explosion of insurance providers and the baffling array of cover terms they offer are at best frustrating, at worst risk leaving you without valid cover.

One of the most important things to consider is medical cover. In some countries simple medical treatments can be very expensive (I’m calling you out America).

Do most people really need the multi-millions offered by travel insurance companies?

Methodology

I decided to compare travel insurance quotes delivered by Compare The Market using 4 scenarios: trips to the US and EU, comparing standard and winter sports cover.

The trip was proposed for April 17th 2017, for 7 days. I chose a date long into the future so that readers can retrieve the same quotes for analysis. Travel insurance calculations do not seem to be affected by date of travel (I retrieved quotes for a travel date of 17th April 2016 and 2017 and quotes returned were identical).

Travel insurance quotes were provided for 27 year old male with no existing medical conditions.

Medical treatment costs for comparison were taken from a report by AXA (a travel insurance provider).

Results

Count of Quotes

Count of providers and quotes

Download chart.

43 quotes for standard cover (US & EU) seems like a lot to me – but as a customer it’s nice to have some choice so I won’t complain. Providers typically offer 3 different cover levels (i.e Bronze, Silver, Gold) within each cover type.

Cost by Defaqto rating

Average cost of cover by rating

Download chart.

Defaqto is an independent company that provides general ratings for insurance policies designed to show customers:

…where a product or proposition sits in the market, based on the quality and comprehensiveness of the features and benefits it offers.

As expected, policies tend to increase in price as the Defaqto rating increases. Though for US standard cover, you can purchase some 5* policies cheaper than some 3* and 4* policies offered.

Average price difference by rating

Download chart.

For Winter Sports policies there is a large difference between the cheapest and highest premiums. Standard insurance policies have a smaller difference. Choosing a 5* policy over a 2* for US standard cover is, on average, only £3.21 GBP more expensive. Compare that to US Winter Sports Cover where the difference is £44.82 GBP.

Cost of treatment

Average cost of medical treatment

Download chart.

Average cost of treatment map

Download chart.

The charts above shows average of estimated costs for three of the most common health claims abroad: Ear infection, Gastroenteritis, Broken bone following a slip or fall.

The US is by far the most expensive for medical treatment (£15,888) — twice that of the 2nd most expensive, Singapore (£7277). The most expensive place for treatment in Europe is Mainland Greece (£5911).

Bear in mind that these costs are for relatively common misfortunes, and that more serious incidents can lead to eye-wateringly high sums — the cost to be incurred by someone falling off a balcony and seriously injuring themselves in the US, for example, is likely to be in the region of £150,000.

Medical cover limits

Average medical cover provided

Download chart.

Most policies, regardless of their Defaqto rating, offer between £10 – 15 million GBP of cover. Only one policy offers unlimited medical cover.

Even though treatment in Greece is a third of the cost for comparable treatment in the US, medical cover offered by EU and US policies is almost identical.

Medical excess

Average medical excess by rating

Download charts.

That said, it is very unlikely you’ll ever need millions of GBP worth of medical treatment, even whilst skiing where it can cost £75 GBP per-minute flying time to be evacuated from the mountain by helicopter.

If you’re in Europe it’s very likely you will incur relatively low treatment costs — below £5,000 GBP. The cost of treatment is likely to be even less than the policy excess, especially for 2* policies with relatively high excesses (>£150 GBP).

Take 2* and 5* Standard cover in Europe that have average excesses of £188.16 GBP and £35 GBP respectively, a difference of £153.16 GBP. The average premiums for these policies are £11.16 GBP and £20 GBP, a difference of £8.84 GBP. By choosing the 5* policy you could save £144.32 GBP (153.16 – 8.84) on a claim.

Additional factors

Average baggage cover

Download chart.

Average baggage excess by rating

Download chart.

Spending a little extra on an EU Standard policy could increase your baggage cover by as much as £1,500 GBP and reduce any excess you would be required to pay by over £150 GBP.

Though beware. Many travel insurers also put a limit on the payout for individual valuable items, such as cameras and laptops. The limits vary between insurers but are typically either £250 or £500. If someone steals your cash while you are on holiday, the payout is again usually limited to £250 or £500.

Average cancellation cover by rating

Download chart.

Average cancellation excess by rating

Download chart.

Again cover and excesses are much more favourable for customers choosing Defaqto higher rated policies for cancellation cover too.

Cover, excesses, and premiums

Whilst medical cover is similar (£10-15 million GBP) for all policies, regardless of their Defaqto rating; excesses, baggage, and cancellation cover offered are much more attractive the higher the policies rating. And higher rated polices are not significantly more expensive than those with a lower rating. The more expensive US Winter Sports policies have an average difference of £44.82 GBP between 2* and 5* policies — and you will immediately make a saving by choosing the higher rated policy due to lower excesses should you need to make a claim .

All-in-all, medical cover should probably be the least of your considerations when choosing a policy. Reputable providers offer more than adequate cover.

Improvements

With enough time, deconstructing each individual policy for the differences in cover and terms would help in comparing them all (I imagine this task would take a small army to complete). Instead of using broad Defaqto ratings, I could better consider each policy against the other to see which was the most cost effective for requirements.

tl;dr

It’s very rare to need tens of millions worth of medical cover. You should be more concerned with policy excesses.

Footnotes

  1. Data sources + data used in this post.