CV-19 immunity passports - good or bad idea?
Discussion
"Immunity passports" is putting it a bit high, perhaps. But assume for now that:
- a person who has had CV-19 and recovered has antibodies against it
- those antibodies can be reliably tested for
- those antibodies protect against reinfection to a predictable and reliable standard
- any second or subsequent wave will be the current virus, and not a mutation which a would require the body to start its defences from scratch.
Based on those ground rules, if an immunity passport was available which, say, meant that you could go to work, didn't have to socially distance, could take flights without going into quarantine/self isolation at your destination, and in general terms would enable you to live your pre covid 19 life so far as what's now open allowed you to, would immunity passports be a good thing?
FWIW I ended up concluding that there is a bit more to this than there appears to be on first blush.
- a person who has had CV-19 and recovered has antibodies against it
- those antibodies can be reliably tested for
- those antibodies protect against reinfection to a predictable and reliable standard
- any second or subsequent wave will be the current virus, and not a mutation which a would require the body to start its defences from scratch.
Based on those ground rules, if an immunity passport was available which, say, meant that you could go to work, didn't have to socially distance, could take flights without going into quarantine/self isolation at your destination, and in general terms would enable you to live your pre covid 19 life so far as what's now open allowed you to, would immunity passports be a good thing?
FWIW I ended up concluding that there is a bit more to this than there appears to be on first blush.
pequod said:
The contact tracing App could be adapted to provide the 'passport' you suggest!
You want to go shopping, show me your green App before entering.
You want to dine in a restaurant, with social distancing tables, show me your green App.
Office/school environments ....
Etc.
This is essentially the system they're using in China. A health score on a mobile app, related to contact tracing. Forgive me if that association leads me to treat any suggestion of a similar system with a degree of suspicion.....!You want to go shopping, show me your green App before entering.
You want to dine in a restaurant, with social distancing tables, show me your green App.
Office/school environments ....
Etc.
I think they will have to do something like this and soon , people seem to be losing patience with being couped up and the economy is going down the toilet , testing everyone so we know who has had it or not will soon be critical to maintain public order , and prove the continuing need for any restrictions if still necessary ... IMHO
pequod said:
The contact tracing App could be adapted to provide the 'passport' you suggest!
You want to go shopping, show me your green App before entering.
You want to dine in a restaurant, with social distancing tables, show me your green App.
Office/school environments ....
Etc.
Reward the dirty little pigs that have allowed themselves to get infected? Sure, as long as it comes with a good beating as well.You want to go shopping, show me your green App before entering.
You want to dine in a restaurant, with social distancing tables, show me your green App.
Office/school environments ....
Etc.
pequod said:
The contact tracing App could be adapted to provide the 'passport' you suggest!
You want to go shopping, show me your green App before entering.
You want to dine in a restaurant, with social distancing tables, show me your green App.
Office/school environments ....
Etc.
Risks driving the wrong behaviours.You want to go shopping, show me your green App before entering.
You want to dine in a restaurant, with social distancing tables, show me your green App.
Office/school environments ....
Etc.
How do you know it is their phone?
If excluded, people will seek to get infected in order to re-engage and get access?
People with symptoms will avoid entering in into the app
vaud said:
Risks driving the wrong behaviours.
How do you know it is their phone?
If excluded, people will seek to get infected in order to re-engage and get access?
People with symptoms will avoid entering in into the app
So can we conclude that the OP's suggestion is unworkable without the consent of the people, which will not be forthcoming?How do you know it is their phone?
If excluded, people will seek to get infected in order to re-engage and get access?
People with symptoms will avoid entering in into the app
The Spruce Goose said:
Sounds like discrimination to me, why should the at risk and uninfected be penalised for just being 'at risk' or not yet infected. Things can be adapted.
This^^^^.This discriminates against certain people, those without a smart phone, those who havent been tested (through choice or circumstance)or who simply havent had it yet.
Its a legal minefield looking for somewhere to happen.
Id suggest its not going to happen like that.
This would be akin to deny a disabled person access to something - on the basis they are disabled.
BlackTails said:
"Immunity passports" is putting it a bit high, perhaps. But assume for now that:
- a person who has had CV-19 and recovered has antibodies against it
- those antibodies can be reliably tested for
- those antibodies protect against reinfection to a predictable and reliable standard
- any second or subsequent wave will be the current virus, and not a mutation which a would require the body to start its defences from scratch.
Based on those ground rules, if an immunity passport was available which, say, meant that you could go to work, didn't have to socially distance, could take flights without going into quarantine/self isolation at your destination, and in general terms would enable you to live your pre covid 19 life so far as what's now open allowed you to, would immunity passports be a good thing?
FWIW I ended up concluding that there is a bit more to this than there appears to be on first blush.
There will always be a group of people who for whatever reason will not catch it... bit unfortunate for them... it will never happen...Uman rights lawyers would have a field day... Our very own BV would be rubbing his hands in glee at the amount of cash he would earn... He would be able to buy the Island he was living on... - a person who has had CV-19 and recovered has antibodies against it
- those antibodies can be reliably tested for
- those antibodies protect against reinfection to a predictable and reliable standard
- any second or subsequent wave will be the current virus, and not a mutation which a would require the body to start its defences from scratch.
Based on those ground rules, if an immunity passport was available which, say, meant that you could go to work, didn't have to socially distance, could take flights without going into quarantine/self isolation at your destination, and in general terms would enable you to live your pre covid 19 life so far as what's now open allowed you to, would immunity passports be a good thing?
FWIW I ended up concluding that there is a bit more to this than there appears to be on first blush.
vaud said:
If excluded, people will seek to get infected in order to re-engage and get access?
I see this as the core of the problem. In principle, a system that allows those who are immune (built into the question is the premise that infection brings immunity) ought to be able to get back to work, free of restrictions. And in principle those who aren't in that position ought to be happy, or at least indifferent, that other people are doing what they can to get the economy moving.
But having read a bit about this general idea, and thought about it a bit, I ended up landing on the view that it's not workable, and ultimately destructive.
First, you've got the problem that science is not entirely trusted. So a test that claims to identify anotbodies with a high degree of confidence won't be trusted. Nor will a claim that antibodies give immunity. There's room for legitimate doubt around the edges of both of those claims, but the real world doubt will outstrip the legitimate doubt tens times over before lunch.
Secondly, you create a society which is two-tiered. Haves and have nots. It just won't work. Those who don't have the passport won't trust those who do to have acquired it legitimately. If a passport brings legitimate tangible benefits, the black market in fakes will explode.
And the temptation to seek out infection so as to be able to gain a passport would be high. Some of those who deliberately infect themselves might end up in hospital: elective overwhelming of the NHS. Also: sources of infection will become commodities to be bought, sold or hired. Assuming they are genuine, and not just fakes.
So I don't think it would work. Not because of technical challenges, but because of human nature, which is depressing.
Doubly so, because I've had it (not tested at the time, but 90% sure) as has my immediate family, so the attractions of the upside are considerable to me on a personal level.
Oh well.
Cold said:
Sounds like the people who have been complicit with the rules and guidelines and thus haven't contracted the illness are going to be penalised.
Likewise one could say that the measures of social distancing and enforced 2 weeks quarantine penalises those who have had the disease.There's no way that everyone will be happy with this, but for example its 99.9% that I had it (no test, come on uk....) and I tend to travel a lot. This has now become impossible for me. If I can prove that I've had it and have antibodies, why should I be locked up for 2 weeks on arrival? forget calling it a passport, or app or anything else 'contentious'. I am providing you with the medical test result, showing you that I am now immune to this disease, and despite that you want to force me to stay at home, just in case I have the very disease that Im proving to you that I cant possibly have.
vaud said:
Indeed. It is complex.
The upside is that the govt were surprised how well people observed lockdown. The propaganda and messaging was incredibly effective.
Yep, we now need a similar Project Unfear in the run up to relaxing the regulations so Angry Karen doesn't go into a complete frenzy every time someone eats a pizza in the park. The upside is that the govt were surprised how well people observed lockdown. The propaganda and messaging was incredibly effective.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff