With the roll-out of vaccines commencing across the globe, several countries are gradually inching towards a sense of normalcy. However, there continue to be numerous unanswered questions about domestic and international travel. Several countries have touted vaccine passports as a necessary step to resume recreational and business-related travel. It is thought that this measure to kickstart social and economic mobility will provide a layer of trust protection while countries remain wary about the spread of the virus. However, the fragmented approval system for COVID-19 vaccines severely complicates the implementation of this bold vision.
Some international actors, like Israel and the European Union (EU), have already begun rolling out their vaccine passports. Several international organisations, like the G20 and the International Transport Associations, are also discussing the best approach to successfully implement this system.
However, there are doubts about how to apply these strategies across the globe. Much of the scepticism of vaccine passports has centered around ideological issues, with critics highlighting that they could create a “two-tier” society that discriminates between vaccinated and non-vaccinated individuals. This claim rests on shaky ground when it comes to people who are able but unwilling to get unvaccinated. However, it does hold water when considering how certain countries have barely even begun their inoculation drives due to the inequitable distribution of vaccines. Many of these countries are the most economically vulnerable countries and thus require a more expedited return to normalcy than vaccine passports allow for.
Yet, even assuming that countries across the globe can achieve miraculous and accelerated success with their vaccine drives in the coming months, there are still discrepancies in what some countries consider to be ‘effective’ vaccines. The seamless implementation of vaccine passports is undermined by the fact that vaccines produced by certain nations, that have already been used to vaccinate millions people across the globe, aren’t recognised, either due to political differences or scientific concerns.
This issue has primarily been brought on by the variances in the vaccine approval processes. There are 14 vaccines that are in use globally. However, merely six have received the green signal from the World Health Organisation. Kazakhstan’s locally-produced vaccine, for instance, is only being circulated in its own country and has not received approval elsewhere.
In fact, millions around the world have been forced to turn to substandard, locally-produced vaccines because of the inequitable distribution of WHO-approved vaccines. For example, the Pfizer and AstraZeneca jabs, which are commonly cited as examples of vaccines that will be used as a pre-requirement for vaccine passports, are only available in 72 and 74 countries, respectively.
Even among the vaccines that have received WHO approval, though, certain vaccines, like the ones developed by Pfizer and Oxford-AstraZeneca, are more widely accepted globally than others. For example, the Sinopharm and the Sinovac vaccines have not been recognised by the EU.
The Chinese vaccines, in particular, have been viewed with severe scepticism due to the lack of information surrounding the trials and their relatively lower efficacy rates. In fact, Gao Fu, the head of the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, admitted that the Chinese vaccines do not have “very high protection rates.” Not only does this affect the 200 million Chinese citizens who have taken the jab, but it also impacts 115 million others across 70 countries to whom China has exported the vaccines.
Most countries in Europe continue to be hesitant to approve China-made vaccines, and the EU has said that it will only approve the entry of individuals who have been vaccinated with jabs approved by the European Medical Agency. In this light, with China being the second-largest travel partner of the EU, the failure to admit the China-made vaccines could result in a severe blow to the European tourism industry. In fact, Chinese tourists represent a huge source of revenue for several countries around the globe, yet only 45 countries have approved at least one of the Chinese vaccines, suggesting that the hope that vaccine passports could revitalise the travel industry is currently misplaced.
Furthermore, many countries have restricted their vaccination programmes to include only locally-produced jabs. For instance, earlier this year, Beijing announced that only recipients of China-approved vaccines would be allowed to enter the country, thereby incentivising citizens to only opt for locally produced jabs to travel to and from the country freely.
Making permissions to enter countries contingent upon the type of vaccine administered will force individuals to be more selective in terms of the jab they choose to receive. For example, in Hong Kong, where both the Pfizer and the Sinovac vaccines are available, those with personal and professional ties to mainland China have opted for the Sinovac vaccines. Meanwhile, those who frequently travel to the United Kingdom or other western countries opted for the Pfizer vaccine. In either case, people are being forced to make choices over which vaccine to take without keeping their health at the forefront of their considerations. Moreover, despite the fact that the vaccines are in part intended to return the world to ‘normalcy’, any choice people make is laden with sacrifices in terms of their freedom of movement.
Given that China accounts for such a large proportion of the world’s population, and the fact that its vaccines are being exported to so many countries, vaccine passports cannot achieve their full objective of restarting the world economy unless: China’s existing vaccines are approved; China begins using one of the other vaccines; or China develops new vaccines that satisfy the efficacy requirements for global recognition. However, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian said last month that the Chinese government’s recognition of other vaccines is contingent on “mutual recognition,” Beijing is evidently pushing for its existing vaccines to be greenlighted for vaccine passports.
Even if these concerns about mutual vaccine recognition are addressed, however, there are still discrepancies in how the vaccine passports will be used. As it stands, each country has its own procedures for travellers entering their countries. For instance, people arriving in China, irrespective of whether or not they have been vaccinated, will be forced to quarantine for two weeks. On the other hand, Israel's version of the vaccine passport named the ‘Green Pass’, not only allows you to travel into the country without any quarantine requirements but also allows entry into indoor restaurants, swimming pools, and other public facilities. In Estonia, the VaccineGuard pass will enable individuals to take the ferry to travel to Finland.
Even within the EU, which has allowed member states to set their own list of accepted jabs in addition to those approved by the European authorities, there is a vast difference in each country’s vaccine requirements for travel. For example, Germany is only permitting travellers who have received EU-approved jabs. On the other hand, Greece is allowing even those who have received the Sputnik V vaccine and three China-produced jabs. This fragmented system becomes even more problematic for those travelling within the EU from countries like Hungary, which has already inoculated a significant proportion of its population with the Russian and Chinese vaccines.
Vaccine passports may inevitably become a necessity for international travel. However, the implementation of such a system must guard against discrimination between vaccines and against people who are unable to access jabs due to lack of availability. Authorities must adopt a cautious and science-based approach to approving and recognising vaccines. In such a scenario, it is inevitable that certain vaccine candidates will be deemed inadmissible for a vaccine passport.
Therefore, the vaccine passport strategy must be complemented by accelerating the equitable distribution of approved vaccines to less developed countries. As some developed countries near the completion of their vaccination programmes towards the end of this year and become able to export a bigger proportion of their excess doses, vaccine passports may become easier to implement. Between now and then, authorities must work to develop a more rigorous and uniform vaccine passport strategy that allows for more passport holders so as to more effectively reinvigorate the travel industry and the world economy.
Vaccine Passports Won’t Work Without Mutual Recognition of Vaccines
With scepticism surrounding certain vaccines making countries wary of approving them for domestic use, any system for vaccine passports needs to be complemented with mutual recognition of vaccines.
May 20, 2021
SOURCE: ECONOMIC TIMES