We need to talk about vaccine passports
We identify six personas in the debate. Which one are you?
Six degrees of separation
While surveys show a broad level of support, they mask a strong debate about the pros and cons of vaccine passports. By analysing thousands of tweets on the issue we have tapped into the national conversation to shine a light (and at times a little light relief) on what Britain really thinks about vaccine passports.
Our analysis shows that there are six different personas in the debate, each having very different opinions. Some of these are rooted in deeply held beliefs. Others are just odd.
Which one are you?
The Freedom Fighter
The most vocal of the bunch, the Freedom Fighter puts personal freedoms front and centre of the debate. But this is no 'woke' lefty libertarian defending our basic human rights. No, the Freedom Fighter is concerned more about defending the economy by upholding British values of never surrendering, being free and fighting the enemy. War imagery peppers the debate but so too does the flag waving patriotism and nationalism that has become more prominent recently in politics.
Freedom Fighters are not just against vaccine passports; they are against all Covid restrictions. The risks to the economy and society (but mainly the economy) are too great to carry on as we are. Now is the time to open up and get back to normal. Dunkirk spirit and all that.
The Ethical Objector
The Ethical Objector might be on the same side as the Freedom Fighter but they are a very different person. The Ethical Objectors argue that a vaccine passport is discriminatory and divisive. It pitches those who haven't got a vaccine against those who have. It pitches young against old. It divides the vaccine hesitant and those who distrust medical decision makers from the rest of society.
They argue that vaccine passports discriminate against those who cannot have the vaccine due perhaps to illness, pregnancy or being unable to leave home. How is it fair, the argument goes, that these members of society are excluded?
There is a further line of argument that states if staff in health and care are required to have had a jab then this could discriminate indirectly against women and staff from an ethnic minority backgrounds who tend to form a significant proportion of workers in this industry.
Specific and Limited
Members of the Specific and Limited group hold a view somewhere between Ethical Objectors and Freedom Fighters. They do not believe that people should have a vaccine passport to go to the pub or hairdresser or to do anything that is part of everyday life. They believe, however, that vaccine passports will be necessary but limited to specific things: international travel and frontline health and care staff.
They take great issue with Ethical Objectors when it comes to frontline health and care workers. Health workers, they argue, have a duty of care both to their patients and themselves. This group use reports of some vaccine hesitancy among health workers as evidence of the need for passports to prove that staff have been vaccinated. The passport is proof that they are protecting the most vulnerable from the virus as well as themselves.
There Is No Alternative
TINAs on the one hand have sympathy with the arguments of Ethical Objectors but on the other hand reject them. Yes, they say, there are ethical considerations and a risk of division but vaccine passports are a necessary thing. If we want to get back to some form of normality then the passport has to be introduced.
In backing up their arguments TINAs point to Israel's 'green pass' system. The 'green pass' is a smartphone app that records whether the user has been vaccinated, has had a recent Covid-19 diagnosis meaning that they will have antibodies in their system or a recent negative test. If any of these conditions are met they are allowed into venues including gyms, swimming pools, restaurants and cafes, hotels, sports venues, theatres, cinemas and exhibitions.
TINAs want the 'green pass' introduced into the UK as soon as possible to get life back to normal. After all, there is no alternative.
Conspiracy Theorists
Almost matching Freedom Fighters for Twitter noise, Conspiracy Theorists are a mistrusting lot and probably spend too much time on the socials.
Conspiracy Theorists are superspreaders of views that are a little bit outside the orbit of normal people. For example, Covid-19 is a bioweapon deliberately let loose by the Chinese government. Alternatively, Big Pharma RELEASED THE VIRUS TO MAKE BILLIONS FROM VACCINES. Oh yes, they use capital letters a lot. Oh and of course vaccines don't work and in fact cause more harm than good because some bloke who is at Harvard, or went there, or at the very least lives nearby IS AN EXPERT AND HAS PROOF.
Governments only want to introduce vaccine passports to control and monitor their citizens. Covid doesn't exist and if it does is no worse than flu. You don't need to wear a mask. And so on and so on. And breathe
Dedicated Followers Of Science
Dedicated Followers Of Science know all the facts. They know their R from their elbow. They know the difference between an mRNA vaccine and an inactivated one. They have become truly expert in the detail of infection rates, vaccination rates, lockdown roadmaps and Chris Whitty.
But what do they think of vaccine passports? Next slide please.
