Question: I was just reading that the Governor of Florida signed a bill banning vaccine passports, which got me thinking about the issue all over again.  What are the pros/cons of the “vaccine passport” approach?

Answer: Many scientists and ethicists have written about this issue.  Travel eligibility has been the main focus of the discussion/debate, but use of passports to regulate access to a variety of activities is increasingly in the spotlight.  For example, Israel’s “Green Pass” and New York’s “Excelsior Pass” permit entry to indoor social events (like concerts) that would otherwise be restricted.  A paper recently published in New England Journal of Medicine, “Vaccine Passport” Certification — Policy and Ethical Considerations, offers an overview of some of the issues.  I’ve used that paper to synthesize the main arguments for and against vaccine passports (aka digital health passes) (Table).  Generally, I think such passes could be good for access to services that are not vital (like going to an indoor concert or crowded sporting event)– here, they could be a behavioral nudge to get the vaccine.  On the flip side, if such passes were mandated by the government and/or used to access vital services/commodities/opportunities (like housing), they could increase inequality, increase anti-government sentiment, and increase vaccine hesitancy.  As the Council on Foreign Relations recently reported in its recent synthesis of vaccine passports, “President Joe Biden’s administration said the federal government will not require vaccine passports, though private businesses and schools could do so.”  This approach is likely the most palatable given the current nature of the debate in the US.  

Table. Arguments for and against Vaccine Passports

Figure. Race/ethnicity of people who have received at least one vaccine dose (from CDC)