Immunity passports, fundamental rights and public health hazards: a reply to Brownet al

Abstract

In their recent article, Brown et al analyse several ethical aspects around immunity passports and put forward some recommendations for implementing them. Although they offer a comprehensive perspective, they overlook two essential aspects. First, while the authors consider the possibility that immunological passports may appear to discriminate against those who do not possess them, the opposite viewpoint of immune people is underdeveloped. We argue that if a person has been tested positive for and recovered from COVID-19, becoming immune to it, she cannot be considered a hazard to public health and, therefore, the curtailment of her fundamental rights (eg, the right to freedom of movement) is not legitimate. Second, they omit that vaccine distribution will create similar problems related to immunity-based licenses. Vaccine certificates will de facto generate a sort of immunity passport. In the next phases of the pandemic, different immunity statuses will be at stake, because the need to identify who can spread COVID-19 is unavoidable. If a person does not pose a threat to public health because she cannot spread the infection, then her right to freedom of movement should be respected, regardless of how she acquired that immunity.

Variants, vaccines and vaccination passports: Challenges and chances for travel medicine in 2021

“…The ethical counter-argument [ 17 ] relates to the restriction of free movement for individuals, potentially including those vaccinated who may be at low risk of transmitting COVID-19 and therefore pose little or no public health risk. The 1950 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is a legal tool that defends individual rights and freedoms in all signatory countries, stating that everyone has a right to freedom of movement that cannot be restricted but ‘for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases’.…”

COVID-19 vaccination: the reality after clinical trials

“…La restricción de la libertad de circulación y reunión está amparada por la Convención de Protección de Derechos Humanos y Libertades Individuales de Roma [50], que la permite para evitar la dispersión de enfermedades infecciosas. Desde el inicio de la pandemia ha existido debate sobre el levantamiento de restricciones a personas en las que se pudiera acreditar la inmunidad, ya que, si esas personas no suponen un riesgo de contagio, no existe fundamento para restringir sus derechos [51], a la vez que se daña la economía [52,53]. Desde ese punto de vista, los pasaportes de inmunidad no serían alternativas a la libre circulación normal, sino un camino intermedio entre las medidas de aislamiento radicales y las aperturas indiscriminadas [53], sobre la base de que en salud pública es obligado optar por la medida menos restrictiva [54].…”

“…La campaña de vacunación ha reanimado el debate, más vivo todavía, por el interés de permitir una apertura de actividades, principalmente el turismo, de enorme repercusión económica y social. Sin embargo, la cuestión no debería ser si debe haber "pasaportes de inmunidad", sino decidir qué pruebas o antecedentes pueden permitir levantar qué restricciones, y cuáles deben ser las prioridades para ello [51].…”

Immunity Passports and Entrepreneurial Opportunities in the COVID-19 Era

“…as discussed in [8]) as well as issues such as Fairness, Social Cooperation, Civil Liberties. Stigmatization and corollary Unintended Harms [10][11][12][13]. Also, laws that aim to prevent discrimination come in contrast with issues of equality and participation in economic and business environments.…”

“…Also, laws that aim to prevent discrimination come in contrast with issues of equality and participation in economic and business environments. Furthermore, the validation of false-positive and false-negative results, might influence a person's life [10][11][12]. People may not be able to participate in social activities, pressure may be imposed on them from their working environment, not to mention the cost and discrimination based on socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic inequities related to who can have access to such a certificate [11].…”