London, United Kingdom – From Israel to Iceland, several governments around the world are adopting so-called passports for coronavirus vaccines as they try to reopen borders safely, derail economies from costly closures and restore a semblance of normality in social life.
Supporters of the vaguely defined certificates argue that they should play a critical role in ending the restrictions imposed to limit the spread of the pandemic, at least in countries with wide-ranging access to vaccines.
Documents showing proof of vaccination against COVID-19 could mean that the ban on travel accommodation and strict home orders could be lifted, for example to free millions and to trade.
But skeptics say they raise insurmountable scientific, legal and ethical issues – at least for now – and should not be used within individual countries or as a tool to unlock international travel.
As the debate continues, Al Jazeera has asked five experts in the UK for their opinion.
Here’s what they had to say …
Al Jazeera: Does the current scientific understanding of COVID-19 and existing vaccines support the use of vaccine passports?
Sarah Chan, a bioethicist at the University of Edinburgh: One of the major problems with vaccine passports as currently proposed is that they focus on the individual’s vaccination status as a binary indicator of risk, for themselves and others: vaccinated equals’ safe ‘, and non-vaccinated equals’ unsafe ‘.
It is true that vaccination provides some protection against COVID capture, but it is not 100 percent effective in 100 percent of individuals; and, more importantly, we do not have enough evidence to say that vaccination prevents people from transmitting the disease to others.
Although vaccination certainly reduces the risk to the individual as well as the entire population, issuing “passports” is what divides us into such black-and-white, binary categories and determines what we can do and where we can go based on it. does not seem justified. Giving people a passport saying they are ‘safe’ can cause a false sense of security, which can lead to further spread of disease.
The deployment of COVID-19 vaccines has raised hopes that the pandemic will end, but there is urgent concern that doses are not shared fairly and rather accumulated by rich countries at the expense of poorer countries. [File: Francis Mascarenhas/Reuters]
Dave Archard, Chair of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics: At present, there is insufficient evidence that existing approved vaccines significantly reduce transmission, as opposed to susceptibility to serious diseases, and this is [reduced] the transmissibility that the passport assumes is given by the vaccine. Moreover, we do not yet know enough about the length of any immunity or resistance to the new variants.
Danny Altmann, Professor of Immunology at Imperial College London: If one takes the widest possible view on a global health level, perhaps yes – people who have had an average of two doses of licensed, tested vaccine are less likely to have and transmit COVID than others.
Therefore, if we regulate our air travel / care staff / sporting events and so on in this light, we tend to be safer. It’s a bit like the long history that yellow fever vaccines are needed in many countries. If you apply it, yellow fever stops.
Al Jazeera: What are the biggest problems and risks – legal, ethical and otherwise – with the use of vaccine passports?
Ana Beduschi, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Exeter: Digital health gateways raise vital questions for the protection of data privacy and human rights as they use sensitive personal health information to create a new distinction between individuals based on their health status, which can be used to determine the degree of freedoms individuals may enjoy. .
If digital passports are needed as proof of the health status of COVID-19 for access to public and private spaces, some people can move freely – this would be the case with those who would have tested negative for COVID-19 or been vaccinated.
In contrast, those who could not access COVID-19 tests or vaccines could prove their health status. Their freedoms would therefore be de facto restricted.
For example, imagine the case of a pregnant woman who could not be vaccinated and could not afford to pay for private COVID-19 tests – she could be excluded from various places and activities. Decades of progress on women’s rights can be reversed if governments do not think about it before giving guidelines for the implementation of digital passports.
A sticker in a vaccination certificate confirms receipt of a dose of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine ‘Comirnaty’ at the Bavarian Red Cross vaccination center in Pfaffenhofen an der Ilm, Germany [File: Andreas Gebert/Reuters]
Melinda Mills, Director of the University of Oxford’s Leverhulme Center for Demographic Science: The support of any institution of a vaccine passport or certificate will require an explanation of the uses and who will be excluded if and when it is introduced.
We have to ask if it is something bad for international travel, attending a sporting event, eating in a restaurant or as a condition of service. This carries the risk that it could be used to unlawfully distinguish in the rental or access to certain places or services.
Additional concerns are whether vaccination data could be used for other unintended reasons. It is important that they ensure that individuals are not blocked from essential services or aggravate inequalities.
Altmann: [It is] a huge can of worms and very open to fraud and misconduct … [There is also] great potential to create a driven society of vaccinated, and not vaccinated.
Al Jazeera: Would the introduction of vaccine passports exacerbate existing inequalities?
Chan: I think there is definitely a worrying possibility that vaccine passports will exacerbate social inequalities. For example, if the vaccination rates among underprivileged communities are lower, then their disadvantage will get worse and worse by restricting access to people to the community on the basis of who has been vaccinated or not.
Furthermore, for people and groups who have doubts about vaccination, for whatever reason, passports as a form of coercion can be effective in strengthening mistrust and increasing resistance, rather than reducing it. The demand for vaccination has already been strongly politicized – we have seen with interventions such as wearing a mask and even complying with the restrictions of exclusion – how public health behavior can quickly align with ideological differences, and how these differences intensify and further polarized by the nature of discussion, especially on social media.
Vaccination of passports, by dividing the population into do’s and don’ts, the will and the will, is likely to lead to even greater polarization and create deeper social divisions. At a time when collective action and solidarity are more important than ever, this is the last thing we need.
Experts have warned that the introduction of vaccine passports could have detrimental consequences for minority communities already affected excessively by the COVID-19 pandemic. [File: John Sibley/Reuters]
Archard: It could very well do that. We know that the pandemic has excessively harmed certain communities and social groups that have already been harmed, for example from black, Asian and ethnic minorities (BAME). Access to the vaccine and the likely digital technology that can be used – smartphones, of course – are unequal and disadvantageous to these groups. In the worst case, a vaccine passport will stigmatize those left behind.
Al Jazeera: What are the benefits of introducing COVID-19 vaccine passports?
Mills: Stated clearly, it can open up more international travel and economies. However, if introduced, it will have an expiration date and even the potential to be revoked if emerging variants endanger existing vaccines.
Archard: It is clear that the benefits of vaccine passports are the restoration of some freedoms in society – work, social contact, travel – which they have currently refused; an assurance of greater public safety and protection against the damage of the virus; and the economic gain of allowing some to return to work.
COVID-19 exclusions have had a major economic impact, with many commercial activities coming to a standstill [File: Nacho Doce/Reuters]
Altmann: If done in a strong, robust, intelligent way and in the context of universal access to vaccines, it is [the introduction of vaccine passports] can really reopen our society safely. But the challenges of doing it well are great.
Chan: Some form of vaccination certification can be used to reduce risks and increase safety for people with high exposure, such as health and social care, public transportation or education. However, setting up ‘passports’ focuses on [an] the rights of the individual and what the individual is entitled to do, rather than keep others safe, and the collective benefits of vaccination as a social health measure. And I think that’s the wrong focus.
Al Jazeera: Israel recently released its version of a vaccine passport / certificate as part of an effort to reopen the country’s economy. What do you make of this approach, and do you see other countries following it?
Altmann: I think it can work well there [in Israel] for several reasons. It is a sophisticated, medical company where the Pfizer vaccine and uniform tests have been applied on a large scale. As also testified in their very successful testing and detection [system], it’s a society where high – tech ID systems are accepted in a way that is less tolerated in a place like the UK.
Chan: One of the most important questions here is about resources and opportunity costs. Israel is pursuing a strategy of rapid, population-wide deployment of vaccines to get as many of the population vaccinated as soon as possible, as to some extent the United Kingdom.
In such a situation, the use of vaccine passports within the country may be restricted, which means that the introduction of such a scheme would be a waste of resources. Consider that our goal is to roll out the vaccine quickly, thus getting to the point where enough of the population is vaccinated to prevent the disease from spreading; based on current figures we are doing very well against it. But once enough of the population has been vaccinated, it will be even less useful to force everyone to provide proof of their individual vaccination status.
This is the case for the government to spend money on introducing a passport scheme which, if all goes well, will be outdated within the year, will be a waste of resources and will distract attention from other, more effective ways of address the pandemic and its broader effects.
Israel has introduced a government-certified certificate, ‘Green Pass’, which enables people to prove that they have been vaccinated or recovered from COVID-19 and therefore have assumed immunity [File: Amir Cohen/Reuters]
Archard: Israel has used the vaccine passport as a way to force vaccination effectively, and it has risks and costs, such as eroding trust and being counterproductive. Those who force a vaccine on them may most likely not be willing to have it.
Not everyone in Israel has the same access to the vaccine and the government has been criticized for treating it in connection with Palestinians. The government’s claim that those who do not have the vaccine are ‘left behind’ is also worrying. Other countries may introduce vaccine certificates but not take the same measures [have the same] attitude like Israel.