Cargando…

Public views about COVID-19 ‘Immunity Passports’

IMPORTANCE: Discovery of effective vaccines and increased confidence that infection confers extended protection against coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have renewed discussion of using immunity certificates or ‘passports’ to selectively reduce ongoing public health restrictions. OBJECTIVE: To determi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hall, Mark A, Studdert, David M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8271136/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34258019
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab016
_version_ 1783720935705018368
author Hall, Mark A
Studdert, David M
author_facet Hall, Mark A
Studdert, David M
author_sort Hall, Mark A
collection PubMed
description IMPORTANCE: Discovery of effective vaccines and increased confidence that infection confers extended protection against coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have renewed discussion of using immunity certificates or ‘passports’ to selectively reduce ongoing public health restrictions. OBJECTIVE: To determine public views regarding government and private conferral of immunity privileges. DESIGN AND SETTING: National on-line survey fielded in June 2020. Participants were randomly asked about either government ‘passports’ or private ‘certificates’ for COVID-19 immunity. PARTICIPANTS: Adults from a standing panel maintained for academic research, selected to approximate national demographics. MAIN OUTCOMES/MEASURES: Level of support/opposition to immunity privileges, and whether views vary based on: government vs. private adoption; demographics; political affiliation or views; or various COVID19-related attitudes and experiences. RESULTS: Of 1315 respondents, 45.2% supported immunity privileges, with slightly more favoring private certificates than government passports (48.1% vs 42.6%, p = 0.04). Support was greater for using passports or certificates to enable returns to high-risk jobs or attendance at large recreational events than for returning to work generally. Levels of support did not vary significantly according to age groups, socioeconomic or employment status, urbanicity, political affiliation or views, or whether the respondent had chronic disease(s). However, estimates from adjusted analyses showed less support among women (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.51 to 0.80), and among Hispanics (0.56; 0.40 to 0.78) and other minorities (0.58; 0.40 to 0.85) compared with whites, but not among blacks (0.83; 0.60 to 1.15). Support was much higher among those who personally wanted a passport or certificate (75.6% vs 24.4%) and much lower among those who believed this would harm the social fabric of their community (22.9% vs 77.1%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Public views are divided on both government or private uses of immunity certificates, but, prior to any efforts to politicize the issues, these views did not vary along usual political lines or by characteristics that indicate individual vulnerability to infection. Social consensus on the desirability of an immunity privileges programs may be difficult to achieve.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8271136
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82711362021-07-12 Public views about COVID-19 ‘Immunity Passports’ Hall, Mark A Studdert, David M J Law Biosci Original Article IMPORTANCE: Discovery of effective vaccines and increased confidence that infection confers extended protection against coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have renewed discussion of using immunity certificates or ‘passports’ to selectively reduce ongoing public health restrictions. OBJECTIVE: To determine public views regarding government and private conferral of immunity privileges. DESIGN AND SETTING: National on-line survey fielded in June 2020. Participants were randomly asked about either government ‘passports’ or private ‘certificates’ for COVID-19 immunity. PARTICIPANTS: Adults from a standing panel maintained for academic research, selected to approximate national demographics. MAIN OUTCOMES/MEASURES: Level of support/opposition to immunity privileges, and whether views vary based on: government vs. private adoption; demographics; political affiliation or views; or various COVID19-related attitudes and experiences. RESULTS: Of 1315 respondents, 45.2% supported immunity privileges, with slightly more favoring private certificates than government passports (48.1% vs 42.6%, p = 0.04). Support was greater for using passports or certificates to enable returns to high-risk jobs or attendance at large recreational events than for returning to work generally. Levels of support did not vary significantly according to age groups, socioeconomic or employment status, urbanicity, political affiliation or views, or whether the respondent had chronic disease(s). However, estimates from adjusted analyses showed less support among women (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.51 to 0.80), and among Hispanics (0.56; 0.40 to 0.78) and other minorities (0.58; 0.40 to 0.85) compared with whites, but not among blacks (0.83; 0.60 to 1.15). Support was much higher among those who personally wanted a passport or certificate (75.6% vs 24.4%) and much lower among those who believed this would harm the social fabric of their community (22.9% vs 77.1%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Public views are divided on both government or private uses of immunity certificates, but, prior to any efforts to politicize the issues, these views did not vary along usual political lines or by characteristics that indicate individual vulnerability to infection. Social consensus on the desirability of an immunity privileges programs may be difficult to achieve. Oxford University Press 2021-07-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8271136/ /pubmed/34258019 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab016 Text en © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Duke University School of Law, Harvard Law School, Oxford University Press, and Stanford Law School. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Original Article
Hall, Mark A
Studdert, David M
Public views about COVID-19 ‘Immunity Passports’
title Public views about COVID-19 ‘Immunity Passports’
title_full Public views about COVID-19 ‘Immunity Passports’
title_fullStr Public views about COVID-19 ‘Immunity Passports’
title_full_unstemmed Public views about COVID-19 ‘Immunity Passports’
title_short Public views about COVID-19 ‘Immunity Passports’
title_sort public views about covid-19 ‘immunity passports’
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8271136/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34258019
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab016
work_keys_str_mv AT hallmarka publicviewsaboutcovid19immunitypassports
AT studdertdavidm publicviewsaboutcovid19immunitypassports