Institute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
J Med Internet Res. 2022 Feb 16;24(2):e34385. doi: 10.2196/34385.
The recent introduction of COVID-19 certificates in several countries, including the introduction of the European green pass, has been met with protests and concerns by a fraction of the population. In Italy, the green pass has been used as a nudging measure to incentivize vaccinations because a valid green pass is needed to enter restaurants, bars, museums, or stadiums. As of December 2021, a valid green pass can be obtained by being fully vaccinated with an approved vaccine, recovered from COVID-19, or tested. However, a green pass obtained with a test has a short validity (48 hours for the rapid test, 72 hours for the polymerase chain reaction test) and does not allow access to several indoor public places.
This study aims to understand and describe the concerns of individuals opposed to the green pass in Italy, the main arguments of their discussions, and their characterization.
We collected data from Telegram chats and analyzed the arguments and concerns that were raised by the users by using a mixed methods approach.
Most individuals opposing the green pass share antivaccine views, but doubts and concerns about vaccines are generally not among the arguments raised to oppose the green pass. Instead, the discussion revolves around the legal aspects and the definition of personal freedom. We explain the differences and similarities between antivaccine and anti-green pass discourses, and we discuss the ethical ramifications of our research, focusing on the use of Telegram chats as a social listening tool for public health.
A large portion of individuals opposed to the green pass share antivaccine views. We suggest public health and political institutions to provide a legal explanation and a context for the use of the green pass, as well as to continue focusing on vaccine communication to inform vaccine-hesitant individuals. Further work is needed to define a consensual ethical framework for social listening for public health.
包括引入欧洲绿色通行证在内，最近几个国家引入了 COVID-19 证书，这引起了一部分人的抗议和担忧。在意大利，绿色通行证被用作激励接种疫苗的推动措施，因为进入餐馆、酒吧、博物馆或体育场需要有效的绿色通行证。截至 2021 年 12 月，有效的绿色通行证可以通过接种批准的疫苗、从 COVID-19 中康复或接受检测获得。然而，使用检测获得的绿色通行证有效期较短（快速检测为 48 小时，聚合酶链反应检测为 72 小时），并且不允许进入几个室内公共场所。
本研究旨在了解和描述意大利反对绿色通行证的个人的担忧、他们讨论的主要论点及其特征。
我们从 Telegram 聊天中收集数据，并通过混合方法分析用户提出的论点和关注点。
大多数反对绿色通行证的人都持有反疫苗观点，但对疫苗的怀疑和担忧通常不是反对绿色通行证的论点之一。相反，讨论围绕法律方面和个人自由的定义展开。我们解释了反疫苗和反绿色通行证话语之间的差异和相似之处，并讨论了我们研究的伦理影响，重点是将 Telegram 聊天用作公共卫生的社会倾听工具。
很大一部分反对绿色通行证的人都持有反疫苗观点。我们建议公共卫生和政治机构提供绿色通行证使用的法律解释和背景，同时继续专注于疫苗沟通，以告知对疫苗犹豫不决的个人。需要进一步工作来定义一个用于公共卫生的社会倾听的共识伦理框架。
