Examining ‘immunity passports’ from an ethics perspective – ten reasons why they are bad idea

Abstract

The two panelists will elaborate on 'four practical problems and six ethical objections', which add up to one very bad idea, i.e., the 'immunity passport'. Such an idea is equal to restricting movement on the basis of biology threatens freedom, fairness and public health. Lessons from previous pandemics will be examined in the context of current measures being deployed, assessing practical and ethical aspects. For example, false negatives in people with few antibodies leading to immune individuals being incorrectly labelled as not immune or not having access to testing to demonstrate immunity. Additionally, the case of healthcare workers will be examined considering feasibility of testing, but also in terms of discrimination and stigma. Another aspect to be explored in detail is monitoring and how it erodes privacy, with the main aim of immunity passport controlling movement. Documentation systems are already presenting a serious risk to privacy, with China announcing the QR-code tracking systems is likely to stay in place after the pandemic ends.Access issues to testing can contribute to further discrimination, whereas labelling people on their basis of their COVID19 status would create a new measure of dividing the society to 'immunoprivileged and immonodeprived' people. A labelling particularly disconcerting in the absence of a free, universally available vaccine. Furthermore, Social and financial inequities would be amplified, whereas divisions between nations could be fueled. Already people with HIV are subjected to restrictions on entering, living and working in certain countries with laws that impinge on the rights of those from sexual and gender minorities. Governments should instead invest on pandemic damage limitation - test, trace and isolate, and apps that empower individuals to make safe choices about their own movements should be prioritized. Also, the development, production and global distribution of a vaccine for SARS-CoV-is key. Universal, timely, free access to a vaccination becomes possible could allow for ethical recording of vaccination status in the context of certain activities. Threats to freedom, fairness and public health are inherent to any platform that is designed to segregate society on the basis of biological data. All policies and practices must be guided by a commitment to social justice.