During this period, humanity is undergoing an unprecedented global vaccination campaign, which is also proving to be the greatest moral test of our time.
The covid-19 vaccine is the only solution at the moment, but once discovered, it generates a new concern, namely the "vaccine passports".
The idea of creating such passports leads to a split in society and provokes contradictory debates. Some consider these passports to be the "Golden Ticket of Humanity", while others reject them completely.
However, in some countries this concept already works in the form of a "Digital Vaccination Passport" (China) or a "Digital Green Certificate" (European Union).
Given the current situation, these passports seem inevitable, especially for people who want to travel to certain countries, either for tourism purposes or in the interests of work.
Some European countries have already announced that their borders will be opened this summer for immunized travelers, who can prove that they have been vaccinated against COVID-19. Among these countries are: Greece, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Portugal, Croatia, Spain, etc.
Unlike the EU, the US has rejected the requirement for such "vaccination certificates" on the grounds that citizens' rights and freedoms must be protected. However, several US campaigns are already developing digital vaccination certificates for smartphone apps.
In addition, the World Health Organization does not support the introduction of vaccination passports because it is not known for sure whether vaccination prevents transmission of the virus, and also because of some concerns about equity.
From all the information I've studied about "vaccine passports", I've tried to determine their positive and negative sides. Let's analyze them together.
Pro arguments
It's the safest way to start traveling again.
This is the only opportunity to rebuild the tourism sector, one of the worst hit by the pandemic.
These "passports" will facilitate the organization of sports competitions, cultural events, and reintegration into social life.
They can also be used for scientific purposes to gain insight into the evolution of the virus as well as possible side effects.
The "vaccine passport" does no harm to anyone.
Anything that would unblock the economy, by reducing quarantine and multiple testing, is better than the current situation.
Cons arguments
They can be considered as grounds for discrimination against persons who cannot be vaccinated for one reason or another.
They can lead to the division of the population into "vaccinated" and "unvaccinated".
There is an increased risk of falsification of vaccination certificates.
"Digital vaccination passports" cause privacy concerns.
In the case of "digital vaccination passports", people who do not have smartphones are not taken into account.
They can be interpreted as an obligation of immunization, which is not officially imposed.
As long as there are no vaccine doses for everyone, it is not right for vaccinated people to have benefits.
As you can see, the arguments fall into two groups. There are both positive and negative aspects to such a "vaccine passport". Whatever the final decision of the authorities, we can only continue to respect the preventive and protective measures, wear masks and hope for a change in the situation.
With or without a ''passport'', the main thing is to be healthy.
