Home https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/smyrwpoii/p2/ World https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/smyrwpoii/p2/ “Immunity passports” are a terrible idea that could provoke a fiery reaction, experts warn

“Immunity passports” are a terrible idea that could provoke a fiery reaction, experts warn

The lack of some antibodies will mean that you do not have an “immunity passport” and are therefore not allowed to go out in public. Those who have them will be issued certificates for roaming and restarting the economies – so that the vulnerable stay at home.

“So many flaws that it’s hard to know where to start,” said molecular biologist Natalie Kofler, founder of the global Nature Editing initiative, and Canadian bioethicist Francoise Baileys in a commentary published in Nature.

They listed the reasons why they considered this unfeasible and unfair:

So many unknowns: For starters, they wrote, it is unclear whether people develop any kind of lasting immunity after a coronavirus infection. The World Health Organization has warned governments not to issue immune passports, saying there is no evidence that people who have recovered from Covid-1

9 are protected from a second coronavirus infection.

Tests cannot be trusted: Then there is the fact that although antibody tests have been crucial in determining past coronavirus exposure, not all available antibody tests are reliable. Some antibody tests have had a high degree of false-positive results in screenings performed by a consortium of California laboratories. A false positive means that someone will be notified that they have previously been exposed to a coronavirus when they have not.
Nor are they available to everyone: There are not enough tests for everyone who needs them. In the United States, more than 1.5 million people have tested positive for coronavirus. The current calculation is almost certainly a shortage, said Dr. Peter Hottes, a professor at Baylor College of Medicine.

Not enough survivors: If only coronavirus survivors are allowed to contribute to the economy, there will not be enough manpower to hum. “The low prevalence of the disease, combined with limited testing capacity, not to mention highly unreliable tests, means that only a small fraction of each population will be certified as free to work,” they wrote.

Privacy is an issue: There is also the issue of confidentiality. Ethically, they argued, watching their personal lives erode.

So is marginalization: Observing people to see what immunity is would affect already marginalized groups. We already saw this during this pandemic, when more blacks and Spaniards were arrested for violating the laws of physical distancing in New York. “Increased monitoring comes with increased policing, and with it the higher risks of profiling and potential harm to racial, sexual, religious or other minority groups,” they wrote.

And labeling too: This will create even more divisions. “Labeling people based on their Covid-19 status would create a new measure to separate ‘having’ and ‘not having,'” they added.

More discrimination: New forms of discrimination may emerge, as any immunity certification program may be extended to include other forms of personal health data. “Today’s immunity passports could become tomorrow’s comprehensive biological passports,” they wrote.

Volitional infections: Finally, immune passports could encourage people to become infected on purpose. “If access to certain social and economic freedoms is given only to people who have recovered from Covid-19, then immunity passports could encourage healthy, non-immune individuals to deliberately seek infection – exposing themselves and others.” , they wrote.

Better approaches include the old-fashioned identification and tracing of infected people and their contacts and the development of a vaccine, Kofler and Baylis argued.

Vasco Cotovio, Sarah Dean, Susan Gargiulo, David Culver and Nectar Gan contributed to this report.

Source link