No abstract

Twenty-four congenitally blind children between 3 and 9 years of age were studied for the prevalence of "autistic-like" features, as assessed by teacher reports and by systematic observations of the children's behaviour. A comparison between the 15 blind children who had IQs over 70 and 10 sighted children group-matched for age and verbal ability revealed that a number of autistic-like features were more common in the blind. When the nine blind children who had IQs less than 70 were compared with nine group-matched autistic children, the picture that emerged was of substantial overlap in clinical presentation, despite subtle differences on clinical impression. Similar results were obtained when blind subgroups were reconstituted according to the children's nonautistic or autistic-like clinical presentation, rather than IQ. These findings are discussed in relation to competing theories concerning the development of autism and "theory of mind".

There is much debate about the use of immunity passports in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Some have argued that immunity passports are unethical and impractical, pointing to uncertainties relating to COVID-19 immunity, issues with testing, perverse incentives, doubtful economic benefits, privacy concerns, and the risk of discriminatory effects. We first review the scientific feasibility of immunity passports. Considerable hurdles remain, but increasing understanding of the neutralising antibody response to COVID-19 might make identifying members of the community at low risk of contracting and transmitting COVID-19 possible. We respond to the ethical arguments against immunity passports and give the positive ethical arguments. First, a strong presumption should be in favour of preserving people's free movement if at all feasible. Second, failing to recognise the reduced infection threat immune individuals pose risks punishing people for low-risk behaviour. Finally, further individual and social benefits are likely to accrue from allowing people to engage in free movement. Challenges relating to the implementation of immunity passports ought to be met with targeted solutions so as to maximise their benefit. Context of the debateAt this point in the COVID-19 pandemic, how or when our lives might return to normality is unclear. One strategy proposed to help this resumption is the identification and documentation of immunity: so-called immunity passports. These passports are a potential tool for recording and sharing the immune status of an individual. The introduction of immunity passports is being considered by several countries, including the UK, Estonia, Italy, and Chile; although as yet, there is no information on the effects of their use. [1][2][3] Health certification for public health purposes is already used in other contextseg, in the management of yellow fever. 4 Passports could take different forms, such as a wristband, smartphone application, or certificate, and be used to confirm to others that a particular individual is at a low risk of acquiring or transmitting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). During periods of lockdown, immunity passports could allow immune individuals to follow less stringent requirements around physical distancing and travel, perhaps permitting them to return to work, care for those at risk, visit friends and relatives, or undertake other activities that expose them to the virus. Whether this strategy should be pursued depends on both scientific evidence and ethical reasoning.