[ad_1]
Not right now: the Ethics Council rejects a Covid 19 immunity card. However, when it comes to looking to the future, the 24-person committee is divided.
By Birgit Schmeitzner, ARD capital studio
The ethics council has justified its position on the Covid 19 immunity cards in about 50 pages. If they are sensitive, ethically justifiable, fair and safe to implement. Result: At this time, the members of the advisory council unanimously advise against such certificates.
They justify it like this: it cannot be reliably proven that and for how long a recovered person is immune. The addition: “at present” is decisive. Hopefully the medical situation will change and at some point it will be possible to show that someone is immune and cannot infect others. In this case, at least some of the councilors would abandon their rejection.
A “yes and no” as a future scenario
Looking ahead, twelve of the 24 members of the Ethics Council would find immunity certificates useful under certain conditions. However, not all inclusive, but in stages, limited in time and only for certain areas. For example, so that professional groups that hang out a lot with other people can work. Experts argue “in case of doubt in favor of individual freedom”, they believe that people should have the opportunity to exercise their basic rights without restrictions. That could also help mitigate negative economic consequences.
All this is related to many requirements: a simple entry in the vaccination book is not enough, the certificate must be tamper-proof. And: an immunity card should not release you from the obligation to wear a daily mask on local public transport.
Over-the-counter corona testing warning
The other part of the committee, however, says: No, the practical, ethical and legal concerns about an immunity card are simply too great. Such certificates would highlight the rights of a few and put the general public at risk. Another concern is that credential holders may become negligent in dealing with the broader epidemic and become poor role models for those who are not immune.
When it comes to looking to the future, members of the ethics council are divided. However, they have made joint recommendations for the current situation: they believe that more clarification is needed about how careless behavior in the corona epidemic affects oneself and others. They ask for more research, more information on the power of antibody tests. And: stricter regulation of over-the-counter tests that are supposed to test for immunity. Board members’ judgment on such tests is harsh: they are of “dubious reliability” and this results in potential danger.
