Republish
Follow science to ensure parity in COVID-19 passport criteria
We love that you want to share our stories with your readers. Hundreds of publications republish our work on a regular basis.
All of the articles at CalMatters are available to republish for free, under the following conditions:
-
- Give prominent credit to our journalists: Credit our authors at the top of the article and any other byline areas of your publication. In the byline, we prefer “By Author Name, CalMatters.” If you’re republishing guest commentary (example) from CalMatters, in the byline, use “By Author Name, Special for CalMatters.”
-
- Credit CalMatters at the top of the story: At the top of the story’s text, include this copy: “This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you are republishing commentary, include this copy instead: “This commentary was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you’re republishing in print, omit the second sentence on newsletter signups.
-
- Do not edit the article, including the headline, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. For example, “yesterday” can be changed to “last week,” and “Alameda County” to “Alameda County, California” or “here.”
-
- If you add reporting that would help localize the article, include this copy in your story: “Additional reporting by [Your Publication]” and let us know at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- If you wish to translate the article, please contact us for approval at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations by CalMatters staff or shown as “for CalMatters” may only be republished alongside the stories in which they originally appeared. For any other uses, please contact us for approval at visuals@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations from wire services like the Associated Press, Reuters, iStock are not free to republish.
-
- Do not sell our stories, and do not sell ads specifically against our stories. Feel free, however, to publish it on a page surrounded by ads you’ve already sold.
-
- Sharing a CalMatters story on social media? Please mention @CalMatters. We’re on X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and BlueSky.
If you’d like to regularly republish our stories, we have some other options available. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org if you’re interested.
Have other questions or special requests? Or do you have a great story to share about the impact of one of our stories on your audience? We’d love to hear from you. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org.
Follow science to ensure parity in COVID-19 passport criteria
Share this:
By Noah Kojima
Dr. Noah Kojima is a resident in internal medicine at UCLA Health, nkojima@ucla.edu.
Jeffrey D. Klausner, Special to CalMatters
Dr. Jeffrey D. Klausner is a professor of medicine, population and public health sciences at Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, JDKlausner@med.usc.edu.
Mandates for COVID-19 vaccine passports have been contentious with many states banning the practice and a handful endorsing it. California has not yet made vaccine passports a requirement, however it has rolled out a vaccine verification system.
Many think that California will endorse COVID-19 vaccine passports as private venues, workplaces, academic programs and governments are now requiring proof of vaccination.
While the intentions might be good, it will be extremely important for governing bodies to determine what is considered COVID-19 immune and COVID-19 vaccine exempt.
Governing bodies must ensure they follow the current science to maximize public safety without creating spurious mandates. For example, there is growing systematic and peer-reviewed evidence that those with prior documented SARS-CoV-2 infection have equal or greater protection against COVID-19 as those who were not previously infected but vaccinated.
The prominent journal, Science, even highlighted an Israeli study that found that people who once had a SARS-CoV-2 infection were much less likely than those vaccinated to get infected, develop symptoms or become hospitalized with the highly contagious Delta variant.
Given that natural immunity may provide equal or better protection against infection than vaccination, many physicians might consider prior infection as a bona fide medical exemption to President Joe Biden’s newly proposed vaccination requirements.
It is also important to ensure that people who cannot get a vaccine, i.e., those with potentially life-threatening allergic responses to vaccine ingredients, can find ways to access public services without being discriminated against for their medical condition.
COVID-19 passports are meant to increase public safety. With the knowledge that prior infection is as good as if not better than vaccination to protect an individual from COVID-19, it is reasonable that those with prior infection should qualify for a passport. However, to properly implement that, lawmakers must be careful to ensure that only people who have had documented SARS-CoV-2 infection qualify for COVID-19 passports because there are already many cases of counterfeit vaccination cards.
Those with prior COVID-19 infections need to be able to prove they had a documented infection with either a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test or a positive antibody test. While there might be some concern about loss of antibody positivity over time, it has been found that people with prior COVID-19 and a negative antibody test still have durable protection against infection.
With the continuation of the COVID-19 pandemic, we agree that passports are reasonable. However, the implementation of COVID-19 passports must be done judiciously and scientifically. With our current knowledge, it would be disingenuous for lawmakers to exclude people who have recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection from COVID-19 passports.
_____
Dr. Jeffrey D. Klausner has also written employer vaccination requirements, California’s decision to reopen outdoor playgrounds, early adoption of the COVID-19 vaccine, when it was time to end the state of emergency, and ending the shelter-at-home policy.