Vaccine passports may be a pragmatic way of opening an economy while reducing the spread of Covid-19 (CV). Letting vaccine passports become lasting permits for living risks discord and unfairness, as well as unacceptable State control of the individual.
Lifting the draconian restrictions on freedom necessitated by the pandemic cannot come too soon, before they become a life norm. But considerable concern remains, not just among some scientists, but among the UK public, that never again must CV run riot and cause the level of suffering and other damage inflicted over the last 18 months. The vaccine passport (VP) – proving that one is double-vaccinated before undertaking an activity – represents an attractive compromise. But the VP itself creates its own restrictions and divides the vaccinated from the unvaccinated, creating two classes of citizen in a completely novel way for free societies such as the UK.Freedom-lovers shy away from the idea. Those more cautious or fearful of infection may find comfort in it. However, perhaps a VP which is imposed by law, with criminal sanction behind it, must be distinguished from a VP imposed by a private enterprise, when assessing the freedom impact.
INTERNATIONAL PROTOCOLS ESSENTIAL
Getting agreement across nations on CV for a common approach has been sadly lacking. Even within the EU individual nations have imposed their own rules and timed matters differently, and so too the four nations of the UK. Global travel has naturally been an inevitable victim of the pandemic and a common international approach is fundamental to break the impasse. While the UK has led the way in vaccine progress and faith in its programme, it has now demonstrated that faith by reducing restrictions on normal behaviour even in the face of high infection rates. It has then, logically and consistently, applied that faith to travel restrictions on entering the UK (or at least England), by now permitting people from the USA and most of Europe, who can satisfactorily demonstrate they have been double vaccinated with an approved vaccine, to enter the country, without quarantining at all. This is a unilateral decision not conditional on reciprocity, setting a leadership precedent. However, at least it is common ground that vaccine is the only solution to reach freedom of travel.
However, the travel vaccine passport may create divisions. Western nations in particular only recognise as approved certain vaccines – for example PfizerBiontech tends to be acceptable everywhere; Moderna in most places; Oxford AstraZeneca widely but notably not in the USA and it is tempting to think the smear campaign against it, when any risks associated with it are not materially different to others, is possibly a political or commercial one: could it be that countries whose pharmaceutical industries are selling vaccines at considerable profit are ready to discredit a vaccine which is sold at cost and so much cheaper to destroy competition? However, Russian and Chinese vaccines are barely approved anywhere in the Western developed world, but they are in common use in developing countries, such as in South America, and Africa and some of Asia. Will people vaccinated with such vaccines benefit at all from vaccine passports in the West at least?
Evidently also, the vaccinated will have greater travel freedoms as a result of the adoption of the VP than the unvaccinated. A VP may provide at least a short-term answer to reinvigorate travel and economies. The lifespan of immunity from double-vaccine is unknown and will vary from person to person; and people have their jabs at different times and so the “using up” of immunity will vary individually. There is talk of boosters being needed in the UK in the autumn, and so will having the booster become a condition of travel? Might the VP condition become 2 doses provided one was no longer ago than a fixed period? And of course, it is likely boosters will go first to the oldest and the most vulnerable, with big timing differences between the youngest and oldest being boosted. If so, once again with CV remedies, the young would be prejudiced against the older. A travel VP which depends on the level of dosage will exaggerate that prejudice.
In a number of nations, such as the UK and in Europe, the VP status will not be enough unless a person also takes mandatory tests for travel by air. So, for example for a UK traveller going abroad to Europe, a negative PCR test is typically required before leaving the UK, before leaving to return to the UK and then within 48 hours of arrival in the UK. These tests are administered mostly by private organisations at considerable cost, and it seems high profit margins, prices ranging from say £50 to £200. This inevitably creates a further sociological rift, rendering foreign travel out of reach for people who cannot afford the extra cost. Might not Governments be expected to ensure costs are controlled for this special circumstance?
VACCINE PASSPORTS ARE NOT A LONG-TERM ANSWER
Anti-vaxxers and other campaigners have successfully made a number of people distrustful of vaccine. The younger generations are more reluctant to accept vaccination as, perhaps wrongly, they do not see themselves as at risk. Some ethnic minorities, particularly in more deprived areas of the UK, are less willing to be vaccinated than others. While in the UK there is a very high percentage of vaccine take-up among adults, herd immunity would be so much more effective if the under 30s were as willing as the over 80s! The unvaccinated are now at risk, in varying ways in Western societies, of being prejudiced by the VP approach. In France, nurses and care workers must be vaccinated. President Macron wants only the vaccinated to be able to use bars, restaurants and public transport. Where might that end? Italy has gone a similar way, and their green pass for the vaccinated will bar the unvaccinated from big public events like football matches. Germany is talking similarly if the new Delta wave becomes prolific for infection. The adoption of the VP to different degrees among different EU countries could create more class and social and national divisions, weakening unity. Perhaps more protests across more countries are to be expected against this health authoritarianism.
In the USA, the VP is becoming more common state by state. Certain companies are making vaccination mandatory for employees to attend the workplace, such as Google and Facebook, although many are saying the opposite. Meanwhile in the UK, there is a growing debate and concern over how the VP is being considered. UKGOV’s announcement that in October admission to nightclubs will depend on vaccination has stirred the hornets’ nest around civil liberties: was this just an attempt at blackmailing the young to get vaccinated? A Minister or two have been encouraging the VP idea, but so far UK employers seem to have little appetite for what has been called “jabs for jobs”. If any discrimination can be alleged due to a vaccine passport approach, employers are likely to steer clear.
However, this week saw the start of the Proms at the Albert Hall: proof of double vaccination or a negative test supplement the usual ticket for entry. Private enterprises may well decide that using VPs will maximise customer take-up, as the fearful will be comforted, and they may otherwise stay away. It is possible that UKGOV will impose VPs, beyond the international travel arena, if they seem popular, but bowing to popular demand could be a big mistake. As mentioned, as far as travel is concerned, VPs will create serious inequities, and they will be hard to remove once established. They are not a new normal that is desirable. If to be seriously considered, a wide public debate is needed, including in Parliament. If any are to be adopted for extreme situations, they should at least be time limited. It is hoped that the European approach of VPs for bars and restaurants never takes off in the UK, as that would be an affront to liberty, and more division is not the medicine required. The learning to live with Covid has to get embedded in culture, with individuals deciding how to cope for their circumstances.
Getting the UK 100%, or as near as possible to 100%, vaccinated remains the critical path. Persuading, and possibly incentivising, the reducing number of reluctant participants to “get the jab” remains the most powerful method to achieve the goal. It is also the way to respect freedom, which is at risk of being underrated.
