Debate swirls on make use of virus 'immunity passports'
05 May, 2020
Governments and organizations all over the world are mulling the application of hotly-debated "immunity passports" aimed at easing pandemic-related lockdowns and restrictions on movements.
The certificates could identify people with antibodies that decrease the risk of they'll spread the deadly coronavirus, helping them to resume activities and go back to work.
But global health authorities and authorities are urging caution, pointing to concerns over the accuracy of antibody tests and privacy fears and the potential for abuse.
Backers of the theory say the persons who qualify could receive digital certificates displayed like smartphone boarding passes, or in writing.
"If this example lasts half a year or nine months, or when there is another wave, you can assume persons would want to leave their homes," said Husayn Kassai, chief executive of the digital identity startup Onfido.
"There should be some mechanism to verify someone's immunity. The immunity passport, if it works effectively, is much more likely to help people adhere to residing at home."
Onfido, which has experienced talks with the British government and other authorities, said immunity will be dependant on a home testing kit similar to those used for pregnancy tests and validated by health authorities.
These could flash as green for fully immune, amber for partly immune or red for risky. The results could possibly be modified in a database if needed, according to Kassai.
British-based startup Bizagi has a "CoronaPass" developed for businesses to screen employees, but CEO Gustavo Gomez says "it might help far more people" go back to activity.
French tech startup Socios is developing an immunity pass for sporting events in order that "only fans who are in low or zero health risk are at first in a position to attend matches," according to its website.
Chile this month commenced issuing certificates to persons who've recovered from COVID-19; talks on similar efforts are ongoing in Germany and elsewhere.
The World Health Organization recently issued a warning that there is "not enough evidence" to give persons "risk-free certificates," but hours later appeared to backpedal with a modified statement.
In the follow-up, WHO said it expected that persons who are infected with COVID-19 "will establish an antibody response which will provide some degree of protection" but added that "what we don't yet know is the degree of protection or how long it'll last."
Claire Standley, a research professor focusing on public health at the Georgetown University Center for Global Health Science and Security, said she was skeptical of the certificates partly because of the "insufficient certainty over the extent to which antibodies offer protection against reinfection."
University of California-San Francisco pathologist Alan Wu also sounded a note of caution.
"Everybody really wants to be believe that easily have antibodies, I'm immune," said Wu. "Well, we can not be certain of that. The antibody test for this virus was not around long enough showing that nobody will get infected again if they have antibodies."
The idea of immunity certificates isn't new. Children who get vaccinations for measles, polio and other diseases often must show certificates to wait schools.
The adult film industry used something for quite some time called SxCheck that provided certificates showing performers were free from HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.
Some fear a stigma against those people who are not immune, from systems developed in China in which a person's status is displayed on a device.
But firms focusing on digital identity maintain that it's feasible to create immunity certificates without sacrificing privacy.
Kassai said that privacy could possibly be maintained by using QR codes, read by a scanner and connected with a person's photo.
"Immunity passports illustrate that you are who you claim to be and the test outcomes belong to you. You don't need to share any longer information," said Kassai.
Dakota Greuner, executive director of ID2020, a consortium of digital identity organizations and focused on privacy, said any recognition program ought to be done "using identity technology that places control of private data in the hands of the average person."
But the passports could create other issues -- such as for example, according to Standley, a perverse incentive for individuals to deliberately infect themselves to secure a certificate, allowing them to go back to work or normal activity.
"There are people who are legitimately struggling, economically and socially," she said. "The longer the restrictions continue, the much more likely it is, I'd think, that persons may consider risking their own health if indeed they see a potential way to avoid it of lockdowns. "
The deployment of immunity certifications will be "a spectacularly unsuitable path that's unlikely to be useful and is likely to be harmful," said Jules Polonetsky, leader into the future of Privacy Forum, a Washington advocacy group.
"If people want to go back to work there are huge incentives for cheating or determining how to share a code or consider using a certificates to allow them to work," he said.
Source:
TAG(s):