The availability of effective vaccines means that those most vulnerable to covid-19 are highly protected from serious illness. Over 90% of people aged over 16 years old across the four nations have received a first dose, and approximately 94% of the population has antibodies (ONS)

The available vaccines are not able to prevent infections or transmission of the virus - but data shows they are successfully cutting hospitalisations and deaths from the virus.

Therefore, during a wave of infections, transmission of the virus is highly likely in vaccinated-only environments. A paper by researchers at Oxford University found that peak viral load of the Delta strain of the virus is similar in unvaccinated people as it is in vaccinated people, meaning there is a similar risk in an infected vaccinated person spreading the virus as an infected unvaccinated person.

The Government’s own covid certification review in July 2021 concluded that the “burden” of covid passes would be “disproportionate” to any benefits, and that they should not be mandated. Since then, vaccination rates have only increased – so it is unclear what the Government’s policy change is in aid of. If the Government’s analysis is that the situation is worse now than it was in July, the case for vaccine passes would be weakened further still, as vaccination coverage is considerably greater than it was in July.

Mass testing is not the answer. The MHRA, senior advisors at the Department of Health, and the Royal Statistical Society have all voiced concerns about the Government’s use of mass testing. Lateral flow tests (LFTs) suffer from inaccuracy and miss the majority (60%) of asymptomatic infections – the very purpose they would be deployed for. The Innova LFTs, which the Government has spent £3bn on, do not meet the acceptable standards set by the WHO for confirming or ruling out COVID-19 whilst the FDA issued an urgent recall of the tests due to accuracy issues and urged people to put them “in the trash”.

The recent Cochrane meta-analysis, carried out by an international, independent team of experts, concluded that there is “virtually no evidence for mass screening of asymptomatic individuals using rapid antigen tests in people with no known exposure.” Read more in our summary briefing on test certification.

Moreover, if community prevalence were high, people being tested could be exposed to the virus between tests and the events in question – e.g. on public transport to the event or pubs.

As PACAC concluded, there is no justification for covid passes in science and none in logic.

There is no silver bullet out of the pandemic. Free and fair access to vaccines, healthcare, quarantine support, test and trace, and proportionate safety measures are needed to protect public health.

Segregating society according to vaccination status discriminates against:

• young people, since there has been lower and slower vaccine uptake as young people are both generally at a low risk of serious illness from the virus and last in line to be offered a vaccination. Further, if vaccines are required annually/periodically, young people could be discriminated against on a cycle as they will always be last in line to receive vaccines.
• disabled people, as some medical conditions prevent or obstruct individuals from receiving a vaccination;
• pregnant women, as many women remain cautious about vaccination whilst pregnant, breastfeeding or trying to conceive;
• religious groups and groups with other protected beliefs, where hesitancy may be higher than average and if certain beliefs deter vaccination.
• ethnic minority groups, particularly black and Asian people, where vaccine access may be lower, hesitancy higher, and the risk of exclusion higher. The exclusionary impact on migrants would also be significant. Although the Government committed to ensuring everyone can receive Covid vaccinations regardless of immigration status, an investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that 76% of GP surgeries in the UK refuse to register undocumented migrants, making vaccines difficult to access.

Research shows that people on lower incomes are the most ‘hesitant’ or unlikely to receive Covid vaccines. The poorest in our society have been at disproportionate risk during the pandemic, working in sectors that broadly remained open whilst others worked from home. As a result, millions of working class people were exposed to the virus and acquired natural immunity, which research suggests is longer lasting than vaccine-induced immunity.

We cannot simply erase histories and experiences of discrimination and hostility that have created distrust – in fact, vaccine segregation would only deepen discrimination and alienate people even more. This would be disastrous for trust in public health authorities when trust is desperately needed.

Finally, it is important to remember that there are millions of citizens of the world who simply will not have access to Covid-19 vaccines for years to come. Only 1.8% of people in low-income countries have received at least one dose. As we emerge from the pandemic, disproportionate vaccine requirements should not unfairly impede their freedom of movement and close the world to them.

Given that the NHS Covid Pass currently allows a negative test result instead of presenting vaccine status, some have argued that this bypasses any discrimination. However, with shortages of tests and indications that lateral flow tests will not remain free indefinitely, people who have not been vaccinated may be forced to pay for their passes.

Further, the Government’s repeated U-turns and ‘review’ into vaccine passports has done little to foster trust. Many people are now understandably preoccupied with protecting their right to freely choose vaccinations, anxious about how it could affect their employment, and worried about the threat of social exclusion, rather than building a positive association with their free choices over covid vaccines. Warranted distrust in proposals for an unprecedented system of vaccine checkpoints could rapidly blend into distrust of the whole vaccine programme.

There is some precedent in the UK on vaccine compulsion. In 1853, the Vaccination Act made smallpox vaccinations of infants compulsory; in 1867, vaccinations were made compulsory for all under-14s. The new laws resulted in fines, prosecutions, court challenges and even a mass protest of 100,000 people. The policy had sparked an anti-vaccination movement and the emergence of the National Anti-Vaccination League. Eventually, in 1898, the law was changed so that vaccines were no longer mandatory and the anti-vaccination movement subsided. Today, the Public Health Act 1984 specifically prohibits forced vaccinations – and we have some of the highest vaccine uptake rates in Europe. It would be backwards and counter-productive for the UK to make the same mistakes of coercive Victorian medicine policies.

In fact, when arguing against ID cards in 2003, Michael Gove – who led the Government’s review of Covid Status Certificates - said:

“We as free citizens devolve power upwards. We don’t operate at the license or leisure or pleasure of those who happen to govern us at any given point (…) The idea that we should be licensed to exist by the state is, as a matter of principle, wrong.”

However, covid passes do precisely that – they are a license to exist.

Proposals for Covid Status Certificates must be viewed in the context of the ever-growing surveillance state and growing problems with data exploitation. In particular, we have been observing and challenging moves by political and corporate powers towards biometric surveillance systems for border control, law enforcement and generalised surveillance.

For many, covid passes rely on facial recognition on the NHS app. If the whole population is forced to accept this, it may not be too long before facial recognition checks come off our phoness – after all, not everyone has a smart phone – and onto facial recognition cameras at so-called “seamless” checkpoints. There are already reports of this being trialled in some care homes.

Tech vendors claim facial recognition is necessary to prevent vaccine pass fraud, and also that it makes the certificate “more private” than an ID card as it won’t need to show other personal details like your name and address. But this couldn’t be further from the truth. In reality, biometric health passes could easily be like ID cards on steroids. Having your private medical data digitally connected to permanent, unchangeable, biologically identifying data like your facial biometric can be dangerously more intrusive than an ID card. Facial recognition opens the possibility of us all becoming walking ID cards, whose data can be accessed with or without our choice.

If people accept the claim of authorities that Covid passes are the only way for us to get our freedom back, taking them away will create insecurity. Similarly, over-bearing airport security theatre and many of the excessive counter-terror laws enforced post-9/11 have never been rolled back, but expanded.

And, it’s not even just about controls from authorities – it’s also about the severely divisive social impact covid passes would have. The segregation of vaccinated and unvaccinated people will lead to fear, hatred, and a sense of entitlement among some to be abusive to others who are suspected of being a ‘risk’. A national policy allowing or encouraging such division could severely fuel and exacerbate hostility between social groups.

We are experiencing one of the greatest challenges the world has faced since WWII. The best way we can get through this is together – with compassion, care and community. However, Covid Status Certificates would force people apart, leading to division and discrimination.

However, Covid passes, alongside new mandatory vaccine laws for health and social care staff, clearly cause some people to feel coerced, rather than supported, to receive vaccines. They have a similar effect to mandatory vaccine policies, which are typically imposed by exclusion or penalties for those who decline vaccines. The penalty of reduced liberties for otherwise healthy individuals who refuse medical treatment or testing marks a serious change in our public health system.