[ad_1]
Certificates around the world begin to consider certificates that prove a person has had coronavirus and acquired immunity, but there are controversies about its viability and its consequences.
Like many other things in this pandemic, so-called “passports or immunity certificates” seem to be out of science fiction movies.
It is an initiative already considered in several countries: United States, Germany, United Kingdom, Spain and Chile, for example.
Sebastián Piñera’s government in Chile could soon become one of the first in the world, in addition to China, to implement this initiative at the national level.
But what is the “immunity passport”?
The general idea is simple: check if someone has already had SARS-Cov-2 and is immune to the virus, and give that person an identification document, such as a passport or certificate.
The proposal is that the document allows the person to return to work or not to comply with some of the restrictions imposed by the pandemic, as a way to get out of the crisis and lead a more normal life.
But its implementation faces several challenges and risks, according to experts consulted by BBC News Mundo, the Spanish service of the BBC.
‘Reckless’ plan
For starters, they warn, we don’t know enough about the virus, nor do we have the right tools.
“From the point of view of viability, today it is unwise to use this,” says Ildefonso Hernández, former director general of Public Health in Spain (2008-2011) and current spokesperson for the Spanish Society of Public Health.
The expert explains that rapid antibody tests, which are proposed to determine immunity, “have limited precision.”
Therefore, it may happen that we grant certificates to many people who are not actually immune. Or we can tell many people that they are not immune, when in fact they can be.
“It is risky in many ways. It has problems of feasibility and interpretation that can make mistakes more serious,” warns Hernández.
Another important unresolved issue, and central to this proposal, is how much immunity a person can develop for SARS-Cov-2 and for how long.
“Name [passaporte de imunidade] a hypothesis is revealed that may be false, “says I. Glenn Cohen, a specialist in health law and bioethics policy at Harvard University in the United States.
“We still don’t know if antibody tests actually detect immunity to covid-19. It may be partial immunity, immunity of uncertain duration, and there are several other unanswered questions.”
Integral plan
Experts are analyzing the experience with other coronaviruses and the immunity developed in these cases to make estimates, but emphasize that more data is still needed to be conclusive in their recommendations.
For this reason, some bet on the use of immunity passports in very specific areas and within a carefully designed reopening plan.
“It is important to do this as part of a series of interventions, so that everyone can lift the restrictions gradually and in a controlled way, to see if the people in question have developed immunity,” says Rifat Atun, professor of Global Health Systems at Harvard , advisor to the World Bank, the World Health Organization (WHO) and different governments.
The expert, who has advised the Chilean government for more than 25 years, suggests increasing tests, not only for antibodies, which determine if the disease has passed, but also for so-called PCR (polymerase chain reaction), which indicates if anyone is infected.
“No country should suddenly lift all restrictions, which would be tremendously dangerous. But, as part of a gradual and coordinated increase, this [passaporte de imunidade] it would give us crucial information to build future policies. “
China has created an app that states whether a person can walk freely, be isolated for 7 days, or quarantined for two weeks.
Image: Getty Images via BBC
Liberties
In addition to the feasibility of creating an immunity passport, what about individual liberties and privacy?
This is another aspect of concern, given the stringent measures taken by China and other Asian countries in their fight against the pandemic.
In the second largest economy in the world, applications have been developed with QR codes that determine the condition in which a person uses three colors and that can impose restrictions on movement.
The green code allows the person to move freely; someone in yellow may have to stay home for seven days. And Code Red establishes a two-week quarantine.
In addition, there are other technological tools to establish where a person is and for how long.
According to BBC Mundo, the control has become so intense that the location data of a person in real time or their movements are already fundamental requirements on a daily basis in some companies.
Western countries’ own legal systems hinder access to personal data, and governments are looking at the issue with caution, although it is not the first time that a crisis has caused a loss of freedom or privacy in favor of security.
“It is a tool that must be analyzed in detail (…) Every time a fundamental principle is violated, a fundamental right, we run the risk that many others will be left behind,” warns Hernández.
Immunity, a privilege
Furthermore, there is a risk of increasing inequality in the world, a problem that the pandemic has highlighted again.
If passports “are used to determine who can return to work or who can return to public life, it is essential that we do not abandon those who do not have antibodies (…) We do not want to encourage people to be exposed to the virus”, Cohen says.
It may sound crazy, says the Harvard expert, but “if you tell people that they or their families will lose their home or starve to death if they don’t have antibodies, we can put people in an unsustainable situation.”
History repeats
In a recent article in The New York Times, Stanford University history professor Kathryn Olivarius reviewed what happened in the 19th century in New Orleans, USA. USA, with yellow fever.
He warned of the dangers of the “privilege of immunity,” which deepened racial discrimination and the divide between rich and poor.
“The immunity analyzed on a case-by-case basis allowed the economy to grow, but unevenly: for the benefit of those already at the top of the social ladder and at the expense of everyone else.”
“We have already seen what happens when people with immunity to a fatal disease receive special treatment. It is not a beautiful thing,” he summarized.
Do we insist on the same error?
There is no reason, says Cohen, “but as we have seen some of these patterns before, we must be doubly aware.”
