One of the measures to reintegrate the population into the ‘new normal’ proposed by the Government of the Community of Madrid has been the proposal of a ‘COVID card’, a kind of immunity passport that certifies whether a person has passed or not the disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, and that also report the immunity status of said person; This booklet would have the objective of serving as a ‘passport’ to access certain venues, private premises, or even certain jobs.
Some experts in social networks and the media have been dissatisfied with this proposal, asserting that it is not very useful until it is “nonsense”. However, the measure has enjoyed the support of the infectious disease specialist at the Can Ruti Oriol Mitjà Hospital, who recommended it to the Catalan Government. However, neither the Minister of Health nor the WHO, nor any official scientific body has been in favor of this measure.
Why do scientists believe that a COVID card, in the style of a vaccination card, can be harmful? We have spoken with two experts.
Argument 1: we are not yet able to detect much of the immunity
To begin with, we must understand that there are different types of immunity . The immunity that the tests carried out in hospitals on the general population are capable of analyzing are antibody tests, a type of protein generated by the immune system. The tests can measure whether we have antibodies or not; but not the quantities.
On the other hand, there is the immunity that comes from the cellular response: T and B lymphocytes, cells in charge of the body’s longest-lasting immunity. To measure whether there is this type of cellular response to coronavirus, more specific, complex and expensive tests are needed, as explained by Guillermo Quindós Andrés, professor of Medical Microbiology at the Department of Immunology, Microbiology and Parasitology at the Faculty of Medicine and Nursing of the University of the Basque Country.
During a SARS-CoV-2 infection, the B lymphocytes respond with antibodies, IgM, and then IgG antibodies will be produced, in a much finer and more efficient response; and for this to occur, we need T lymphocytes. “An important part of immunity, modulated by T lymphocytes, is still not capable of detecting it with generalized methods in the hospital, but rather a laboratory is needed. These tests take time and are expensive ”, explains the expert.
This means that, although a person does not present immunity in the tests, it may be that it does exist, only that it is undetectable. “Between 10 and 20% of people who have passed COVID-19 no longer have detectable antibodies after two months, according to current detection methods; but that does not mean that they do not have immunity, but rather that it is not detectable with the usual tests ”, explains Quindós.
” With the knowledge we now have of the disease, it is not wise to do this because we could cause more harm than good ,” he concludes.
Argument 2: we don’t know how long immunity lasts
Another problem that a primer of this type would have is that, although we know that the coronavirus generates some immunity, we still do not know how long it lasts.
According to the neuroscientist and popularizer Pablo Barrecheguren: “Having a disease does not imply making yourself immune to it. Everyone understands that having a cold does not exempt you from catching it again. Therefore, if there is a document, we would have to renew it from time to time . That measure cannot do any good, ”he explains.
Furthermore, as Barrecheguren reminds us, immunity is a slow process, which is forged in the human body over years. “The data that we can have on the immunity of this coronavirus is a compilation of studies of three or four months, so it is outrageous to take them as solid. It’s too soon”.
With all new pathogens, there is a habituation time among the population. And after a few years, the process balances out. “Therefore, during the process, a booklet does not assure anything,” he continues. “Maybe it would be useful with another virus or pathogen of which, at least, we had very well studied immunity, with years of reviews, as with vaccines, we know when we have to inoculate booster doses, and so on. But this is not the current situation with this virus “, sentence.
Argument 3: the primer could incite reckless behavior
This is an argument made by other experts in networks and the media.
Since it is understood that having passed the disease would guarantee a certain immunity (although we already know the problems of this) and, therefore, the safe conduct to access certain privileges, such as entering premises or accessing certain jobs, some people may feel tempted to get it on purpose, especially younger ones, who would feel they have a lower risk of serious complications.
“We cannot allow a young person to risk trying to catch it, thinking that a mild illness is going to happen. The reason is that, in addition to being in contact with a certain number of people later, it is an unnecessary danger, for oneself and for the rest, ”Quindós answers.
“The state of health, moreover, is a private matter; in this case, you are almost forcing people to expose their situation ”, he adds.
For now, no scientific society has spoken out in favor of this measure. For the moment, with the data we have, we can conclude that a COVID card would be useless because it could mislabel people using confidential data, wasting time and health resources, in addition to encouraging reckless behaviors that would favor the spread of the disease and would put danger to public health.
