The vaccine brand, passport to enter Europe or not: a new form of discrimination?

Green digital certificate o Green Pass. This is the “COVID passport” which has just entered into force in the European Union (EU) and allows people who have been fully vaccinated, tested for the negative virus or who have recently recovered from the disease, to travel to the within the block. But pay attention to the first part of the requirements.

Most Argentines who have been vaccinated – of course, who do not have European citizenship or who have not been vaccinated abroad with the appropriate markings – they will not be able to access this passport without covid enter europe.

So far, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has only approved Pfizer / BioNTech, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines. Neither the Chinese Sinopharm (nor Sinovac, which does not apply here), nor the Russian Sputnik V. Nor the Covishield, which has the same formula as AstraZeneca but the EMA considers it different because of its production location, in a laboratory still under construction to evaluate in India.

Precisely, Chinese and Russian vaccines are those administered mainly in Argentina, and Covishield of 580,000 applied doses which arrived in February. Marks not approved by the EU have also been applied in Mexico, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Brazil and Peru. Thus, Latin Americans with these vaccines are now unable to enter most European countries.

Is this discrimination? Is it the right of a bloc to protect its community? Is inequality of access to vaccines taken into account and that in Argentina, for example, you can’t choose which one to apply? In this note, some answers from the highest health authorities in the region, bioethics, constitutional law and, also, sociology.

What OPS says

Does the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) Recommend Health Passports? No. Or not as a sole measure. And he’s asking the EU to approve all the vaccines they approve. It should be remembered that Sputnik is not yet one of those approved by the World Health Organization (WHO). Yes, it is Sinopharm and, in this case, European countries can allow entry of vaccinees, but are not obliged to do so.

“Proof of vaccination should not be required to travel. For several reasons. One is that we know that even if people are fully vaccinated, there is a risk of contagion and contagion. A vaccination passport could create a false sense of security. On the other hand, there are many countries that do not have sufficient access to vaccines, and requiring this passport from travelers will increase inequalities, “they detail PAHO before the consultation. Bugle.

The answer becomes ambiguous in relation to the specific case of the European Union. “The Green Pass is a less strict selective travel enforcement measure that was introduced by closures that have been in place for a long time. However, applying this measure only in terms of restrictions is not enough,” they add. PAHO has always found it more effective isolation and screening of travelers than any other instrument for tourism.

The debate merges between bioethical recommendations and legal recommendations in the area of ​​Human Rights. The 2005 UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights establishes that States should promote a fair access advances in medicine, science and technology and their rapid use.

Its article 15 punctually marks that during a pandemic, everyone should be able to benefit from the science that allows them to be saved. In times of coronavirus, that translates to a dose or two.

Another hot spot that arises is the promotion of public health over individual and business interest. And the question of individual freedoms (which is directly linked to the lively local controversy over the stock of flights to avoid the entry of the Delta variant) is quite a subject. Are you limited with a passport without covid?

“The European Union is a bloc that works with common policies. If they don’t approve a vaccine, for whatever reason, the response is en bloc: ‘Here, those who have the vaccines that I have recognized will come in. With others, no This is a theme of sovereign decision of the EU. After that, what is happening in each of the countries, such as Argentina, where Pfizer has not entered, the European Union cannot take over, ”said constitutional expert Andrés Gil Domínguez.

Double standard

Although the Covid passport may appear to pursue a legitimate aim, Ignacio Maglio, lawyer and board member of the UNESCO Bioethics Network, says it needs to be stopped and precisely analyzed. Because it can also be an instrument of discrimination.

“This can establish a double standard: that there are citizens with a human right, such as free movement, and other people without these rights,” he begins. In terms of a universal human rights system, it is not just a separation of health, it is “negative discrimination”.

“This implies an exclusion and it does not have the necessary elements, according to the United Nations (UN), for an act not to be considered in terms of discrimination, ”continues Maglio. These elements are: to be “reasonable, objective and to pursue a legitimate aim”.

Why is it not legitimate, if it has been decided to protect the citizens of a certain community? The expert looks up from his Argentinian navel and reflects on the challenge of the world.

“There are over 100 countries where not even a single dose of vaccine has been applied. This is the first thing one could say. Although the European Union says it is not going to become a problem for free movement. If not, why is it happening? Argentina does not have the same access to vaccines, as a universal good, as other countries, this is essential. Behind it all, there are always the limitations of people who cannot get the vaccine, ”he says.

What does sociology say about this kind of epidemiological visa? Daniel Feierstein, who in addition to being a sociologist has a doctorate in social sciences from the UBA and author of the book Pandemic, a social and political assessment of the Covid-19 crisis (FCE), specifies that “it is very complex to answer”. But it is encouraged.

“The general creation of a Covid passport makes sense. What happens to those who do not have the requirements because they do not have such vaccines? They should be given the option to vaccinate them or offer them the option of quarantining them in hotels. So that it is not only a question of controlling, but also of offering alternatives. If not allowed, it is worrying», He specifies. Why ? Because vaccines accepted by the EU, he says, are not necessarily the most effective, but those produced in western countries.

“With the level of application of Sputnik and Sinopharm in our country, there is evidence of efficacy. That they are not accepted today shows the geopolitical use of vaccination procedures, ”he asks.

Before any immune passport, in the Zoom of universities or conferences of Bioethics and Law, the debate relates first to the release of vaccine patents, which would lead to breaking down the barrier of “stocks” of production of a formula by a given laboratory or country and allow its manufacture and distribution free of charge. This, which was once considered a possibility, never happened.

What has been kept is the promise to have a paper – or a QR – which allows Migrations to pass depending on the liquid that has entered your arm.

AS