Abstract
During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, we collected over 12,000 responses from a survey of scientists, who were asked to express their opinions on immunity certificates (also called “immunity passports”) as a potential instrument to lessen the impact of the crisis. Overall, we find that scientists perceive immunity certificates as favorable for public health (50.2%) and the state of the economy (54.4%) while one-fifth (19.1%) and one-sixth (15.4%) disagree. Scientists stipulate some concerns about fairness (36.5%) and inequality (22.4%) arising from implementation of immunity certification. We find some smaller differences among scientific fields, particularly between health scientists and social scientists, with the latter being slightly more positive about the effect of immunity certification. Scholars in the United States, including health scientists, are more likely to view the immunity certificates favorably and mention fewer concerns about this policy’s effect on fairness and inequality. Female scholars are significantly less in favor of immunity certificates, while scientists with more conservative political views hold more favorable opinions. Our results reveal that given the uncertainties during an early phase of a pandemic, scientists see scope for immunity certification to lessen the general societal impacts of the crisis.
Highlights
Background and contextFirst and early evidence regarding the direct health effects of COVID-19 indicated that the high-risk group was largely comprised of elderly people and people with pre-existing medical c onditions[23,24]
About half of scientists agree that issuance of immunity certificates for the duration of immunity is good for public health (50.2%) and the economy (54.4%), while one-fifth (19.1%) and one-sixth (15.4%) disagree, respectively
About 36.5% of scholars think that issuing immunity certificates will not be fair to those who do not have immunity. 45.5% of the respondents think that immunity certificates will increase inequality in society
Summary
Background and contextFirst and early evidence regarding the direct health effects of COVID-19 indicated that the high-risk group was largely comprised of elderly people and people with pre-existing medical c onditions[23,24]. Evidence cannot exist for a new type of virus, the probability of contracting the same illness from the virus a second time within a few months or even years was considered to be small compared to a first occurrence of the illness Numerous experts such as Peter Doherty—recipient of the Nobel Prize—suggested in media reports that even if there was a reinfection, prior infection would give an individual a level of immunity, allowing them to recover q uickly[27]. To some degree this was the— seen as largely correct—prior belief
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
