The Covid-19 pandemic lockdown has caused great damage to the way people lead their lives and the economy. It is in the interests of both society and individuals to lift the lockdown. One way this might be done would be by the issuing of covid-19 immunity passports. According to Olivia Kates the path to reopening public life should be set by expert health officials, with close attention to justice and equity, and at no point on that path should anyone be stopped and asked, “Show me your passport”, see Hastings Center . In this posting I want to argue that the introduction of covid-19 passports would be fair in certain circumstances should be accepted.
What conditions would need to be satisfied before we could consider the introduction of covid-19 immunity passports? Firstly if a fully tested vaccine became available which offered a high degree of protection and that those vaccinated couldn’t pass on the virus to others. If this condition is meet then it would be feasible to introduce a covid-19 passport. Secondly if it is ascertained that those who have had covid-19 have develop antibodies which protect them from reinfection for a reasonable period of time. In addition a test must have been developed which can tell whether someone has acquired these antibodies. If either of these conditions can be meet then it would also be feasible to introduce a covid-19 passport for a limited period dependent on how long the immunity lasts.
What reasons can be advanced for the introduction of these passports? Firstly it should allow passport holders greater freedom to go to the places they want because they won’t pass the virus on to others and won’t become a burden on our health services. Secondly if the number of passport holders was large enough this might help revive society and the economy quicker without risking another peak of infections. In certain settings social distancing isn’t feasible. For instance when eating out or going to the theatre or attending large sporting events. If during the pandemic only passport holders were able go to restaurants, to attend the theatre or large sporting events then perhaps these place could benefit. Lastly let us assume that an effective vaccine becomes widely available. In these circumstances the extreme pressure on society and the economy might lead some to propose mandatory vaccination. In these circumstances covid-19 passports might relieve this pressure whilst causing less damage to personal autonomy. In light of the above reasons exist for the introduction of covid-19 passports.
Let us assume that an effect vaccine becomes available. Let us also assume that the vaccine will be made available to all. In these circumstances would we still have reasons to introduce corona virus passports? I will now argue that we have two reasons to introduce passports. Firstly any vaccination will take time. The introduction of passports might enable restaurants, sporting venues and theatres to reopen earlier than would be possible otherwise. Such earlier reopening would benefit the institutions involved and permit greater freedom to passport holders. Secondly some people such as anti-vaxxers might not want to become vaccinated and passports would offer an incentive to do so. It would appear that even with the advent of an effective corona virus vaccine that we still have reasons for a temporary introduction of passports. What reasons can be advanced for their non-introduction?
First it might be argued that covid-19 passports would lead to a divided society, those who have passports and those who don’t. It might then be argued a divided society is a bad society. A divided society need not be a bad society unless this division is unfair. If the purpose of covid-19 passports only benefits passports holders then it might be argued that non-passport holders are being treated unfairly because they are being denied the benefits available to passport holders. Clearly passport holders might benefit from their passports by being able to engage more fully in society. For instance they may work where social distancing is impossible, travel more widely and attend the theatre. However even if passports enable the holders to enjoy these benefits they don’t deny these benefits to non-passport holders. If everyone during the pandemic wasn’t able to work where social distancing was impossible, travel widely and attend the theatre then these jobs would cease, widespread travel would be impossible and theatres would remain closed. Driving licences benefit those who hold them by allowing them to drive on public roads but such licences, passports, don’t seem to be unfair on those who don’t hold them. Fairness isn’t simply about benefitting people equally it is about benefitting people equally when this is possible. I would suggest the above would hold even if supplies of vaccine are limited provided these supplies are allocated fairly. If supplies are limited are fairly allocated then passports could benefit those who are vaccinated but limited supplies mean others couldn’t benefit so the question of fairness doesn’t arise.
The above argument is based on the premise that a divided society is a bad society only when it is an unfair society. Some might reject this premise. They might argue that a divided society creates envy, jealousy and anger and these unhealthy emotions lead to an unhealthy society. Those who don’t have passports become envious and jealous of those who do. Let us accept that we should do our best to mitigate these emotions this isn’t the same as eliminating the cause of these emotions. Let us also accept that it is wrong to disable someone to benefit others. The introduction of covid-19 passports would enable some people to avail themselves of some benefits. I would suggest that preventing someone from enabling himself is a form of disablement and hence wrong. For instance denying someone education which would enable him to better himself would be a kind of disablement. I would further suggest that a divided society is a better society than any society which considers disabling some of its members.
It might be objected that my argument is flawed. It is
flawed because my suggestion that, preventing someone from enabling himself is
a form of disablement, is too simplistic. My objector might then suggest that
enabling is a form of enhancement. I am prepared to accept his objection. I
accept that there is a difference between someone enhancing himself and being
enhanced. There is a difference between someone having the capacity to enhance
oneself and being enhanced by being given the capacity to enhance oneself. For
instance there is a difference between someone enhancing himself by learning
and being enhanced by pharmacological means. In one case the capacity to
enhance oneself is already present, in the other it is introduced. With these
differences in mind I accept, for the purposes of this argument, that preventing
someone from being enabled by being given additional capacities isn’t a form of
disablement. However I would still suggest that preventing someone from
exercising some capacity which he already possesses is a form of disablement. I
would further suggest that banning covid-19 passports which would enable some
people to avail themselves of some benefits falls into the latter group and as
a result is a form of disablement. Accepting the above means even if the
introduction of covid-19 passports leads to a more divided society this doesn’t
mean it would be wrong to do so.
I have argued that it would be morally permissible to
introduce covid-19 passports in two scenarios. However this is an applied
philosophy blog and the question must be asked would their issue be useful.
Issuing such passports would only be useful if it both opened up society whilst
at the same time controlling the infection. Let us accept that the issue of
civid-19 passports would open up society. However would their issue be
effective in preventing another peak in infection? Their effectiveness might be
undermined by two factors, the presence of fakes and a lack of proper scrutiny.
I would argue the problem of fakes is unlikely to undermine the passports
effectiveness. After all fake driving licences and normal passports exist but
these don’t cause major difficulties. Perhaps the introduction of some
government approved app might reduce this risk. The problem of a lack of
scrutiny is more difficult. Scrutiny in workplaces shouldn’t be difficult but
the same wouldn’t be true of the entrances to theatres and sporting events. At
such events time pressure might lead to a lack of proper scrutiny. However once
again the introduction of an effective app might reduce this danger.
