PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Hall, Mark A.
AU  - Studdert, David M.
TI  - U.S. Public Views about COVID-19 “Immunity Passports”
AID  - 10.1101/2021.01.26.21250184
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.01.26.21250184
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/01/27/2021.01.26.21250184.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/01/27/2021.01.26.21250184.full
AB  - Importance Discovery of effective vaccines and increased confidence that infection confers extended protection against COVID-19 have renewed discussion of using immunity certificates or “passports” to selectively reduce ongoing public health restrictions.Objective To determine public views regarding government and private conferral of immunity privileges.Design and Setting U.S. national on-line survey fielded in June 2020. Participants were randomly asked about either government “passports” or private “certificates” for COVID-19 immunity.Participants U.S. adults from a standing panel maintained for academic research, selected to approximate national demographics.Main Outcomes/Measures Level of support/opposition to immunity privileges, and whether views vary based on: government vs. private adoption; demographics; political affiliation or views; or various COVID19-related attitudes and experiences.Results Of 1315 respondents, 45.2% supported immunity privileges, with slightly more favoring private certificates than government passports (48.1% vs 42.6%, p=0.04). Support was greater for using passports or certificates to enable returns to high-risk jobs or attendance at large recreational events than for returning to work generally. Levels of support did not vary significantly according to age groups, socioeconomic or employment status, urbanicity, political affiliation or views, or whether the respondent had chronic disease(s). However, estimates from adjusted analyses showed less support among women (Odds Ratio, 0.64; 95% Confidence Interval, 0.51 to 0.80), and among Hispanics (0.56; 0.40 to 0.78) and other minorities (0.58; 0.40 to 0.85) compared with whites, but not among blacks (0.83; 0.60 to 1.15). Opposition was much lower among those who personally wanted a passport or certificate (24.4%) and much higher among those who believed this would harm the social fabric of their community (77.1%).Conclusions and Relevance Public views are divided on either government or private use of immunity certificates, but these views do not vary along usual political lines or by characteristics that indicate individual vulnerability to infection. Social consensus on the desirability of an immunity privileges programs may be difficult to achieve.Question What are the public’s views on government or private use of immunity “passports” to selectively lift COVID-19 restrictions?Findings Views are divided and do not vary substantially according to political views or many demographic factors. Support is greater among men but lower among Hispanics and those who believe that immunity privileges would harm the social fabric of society.Meaning Social consensus will be difficult to achieve on the appropriateness of immunity privileges.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementSupport was provided by the Brookings InstitutionAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The Wake Forest University Institutional Review Board determined that this study meets their human subjects research requirements. The study does not collect of have access to any identifying information. In addition, all participants are adults who previously have agreed to be part of the survey panel, and who consented to participate in this particular survey after being told its purpose, content and length. Finally, participants were allowed to withdraw at any time.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData is available by contacting the corresponding author