Thus, if you go to the doctor and they measure your Vitamin D levels as sufficient, that definitely is very good Covid-risk news for you personally. If they measure your levels as insufficient, that definitely is very bad Covid-risk news for you personally.

I expect something in this direction is correct, but "definitely" and "very good... very bad" seem likely too strongly worded if you supplement Vitamin D significantly prior to this test. I expect in the relevant studies, a very small percent of people are achieving 'sufficient' Vitamin D levels via supplementation. If that is true, then the mechanism by which you're achieving the test result may be quite different than the mechanism by which Covid-risk is reduced in a way that doesn't have the same effect.

I do acknowledge that it is possible that all the gigantic correlations are a big coincidence that results from intermediation from some combination of otherwise poor health, other sunlight effects and socioeconomic status, and failing to control for such matters.

This seems to be making the point I made above. In addition to these examples, Vitamin D supplementation may only affect the test result without e.g. causing Vitamin D uptake elsewhere that matters within the body, or something like that.

The Gold Card seems great; approximately ~$100-$300 for 3 years of a second residency via a method that appears pretty simple and accessible to more people than pretty much any option I discuss above. I'm quite interested in it and going to research more. Thanks so much for sharing.

(I found your Canada experience valuable info-wise as well. It was quicker and more expensive than I'd expected, especially since you said your experience was slower and less expensive than is typical.)

I've just realized today (~5 days after posting) my footnotes did not transfer from the Google Docs draft. If you are returning to this post after previously reading it, you may want to take a brief look at the footnotes, as there are some potentially valuable resources linked in them.

Thanks for sharing. NZ is probably one of the most attractive residencies, particularly from a derisking perspective. I'd love to secure residence there, but it seems to in most cases require living and working there (or millions of spare dollars).

FWIW, it did seem to me that entering Australia with a job offer and work visa was feasible when I looked into it ~5 months ago. NZ indeed was more locked down.

I haven't investigated to what extent permanent residency vs. citizenship vs. tourism subjects you to the local laws, but I expect when in-country there is typically little difference. Outside the country, my guess is you're only subject to the laws where you are, and where you're a citizen of, but I could be wrong. The marital property instance is an interesting one, since it's a bit less obvious that would apply to non-citizens.

Thanks for linking those; I hadn't seen either of them.

I'm a bit familiar with Paraguay's program and should have included it. One likely reason it didn't come to mind is that the anecdata I've come across about Paraguay's has been pretty negative about it working in practice. That said, most, if not all, accounts I've read have been focused on permanent residency as a path to citizenship rather than permanent residency as an end in itself, and I'm unsure whether difficulties tend to arise in obtaining and maintaining the permanent residency or only in converting that to citizenship.

If the linked commenter is correct, to maintain Paraguay's you have to visit every 3 years while for Panama it is every 2 years, although in Panama you can go up to 5 years and then fill out a simple application for reinstatement.

1. This is great to note, thanks for pointing it out.
2. I didn't know that it was impossible to renounce some citizenships. A Dutch government site says "Greek and Iranian nationals, for example, cannot give up their nationality: it is not legally possible. In Morocco giving up your nationality is not accepted in practice." Interesting.
3. Do you happen to know about enforcement for this? I've read in multiple instances of some countries having a rule requiring renouncing a previous citizenship 'on the books', but in practice it never being enforced nor adhered to. On the same government site as above it also says,
   
   "Other nationalities no longer recorded in the personal records database
   
   Since 6 January 2014, second or multiple nationalities are no longer recorded in the Personal Records Database. If you have another nationality besides Dutch nationality, this will no longer be noted when you register."
   
   I'm not sure whether to take this quote as an indicator of a lack of enforcement or not.

This is really interesting; thanks for sharing. I'd actually written above that I thought the limit was 90 days, so I was particularly incorrect there. Reading the freemovement link, it seems:

1. The maximum permitted stay per visit is 180 days
2. There is no maximum time per year someone can stay in the UK. In theory, you could leave on day 180, come back on day 181, and stay again in the UK so you've spent nearly every day of the year there.
3. The main barrier to doing something like #2 is the immigration officer must assess that your entry of the UK is for a genuine, temporary, 'visit'. They likely will take into account how long you've been there in the past and how recency, as well as other factors, when deciding whether or not it is a 'visit'.

@Owain_Evans do you know of instances of people successfully spending more than 180 days in the UK without e.g. a work visa?

Thanks for the Czechia info.

There's some legislative interest in Slovak Living Abroad becoming a citizenship (rather than permanent residency) program. Check out the FB group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1454484788071370

Quoting Rob Wiblin:

"DO NOT TAKE IT OUTSIDE MEDICAL SUPERVISION: "Chloroquine is very dangerous in overdose.""

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=886113990345&set=a.509700885225&type=3&theater

Take someone in the U.S. who is heavily immunocompromised, such that their risk of death from any infection beyond a mild cold averages to 15%, and assume that their risk of death from coronavirus is 100%. Assume they've been employing social distancing tactics as a result for some time.

Is there available information or projections on whether the total risk for this person has increased or decreased as a result of coronavirus?

A key assumption/the reason it may have decreased is that we could expect that the prevalence of all other diseases is falling due to the social distancing tactics being employed for coronavirus.