Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Oct 28;19(21):14105. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192114105.
The recent health crises (e.g., COVID-19, Ebola and Monkeypox) have pointed out huge disparities in vaccine accessibility across the world. Nonetheless, certain governments have instituted vaccine passport policies (VPPs) to manage public health, raising mixed concerns from the public. Focusing on COVID-19 outbreak as an example, this review and commentary article utilises an institutional theory perspective to uncover the factors contributing to the global vaccine divide. We also explore the wider impact of VPPs to determine whether such tools promote freedom or social exclusion. Our insights shed light on a controversial and increasingly divisive policy with an international dimension and institutional implications. For instance, while some argue that VPPs may be relatively better than the blunt instrument of lockdowns, VPPs also implicate access and discrimination concerns. Given the various reasons for global vaccine disparities, a hybrid policy that combines vaccine passports with other public health practices (e.g., rapid lateral flow/affordable polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests and good hygiene) may be more viable. Furthermore, while VPPs may not be desirable and acceptable domestically, they may be inevitable for international travel.
最近的健康危机（例如 COVID-19、埃博拉和猴痘）凸显了全球疫苗可及性方面的巨大差距。尽管如此，某些政府还是制定了疫苗护照政策（VPP）来管理公共卫生，这引起了公众的混合担忧。本文以 COVID-19 疫情为例，利用制度理论视角揭示了导致全球疫苗鸿沟的因素。我们还探讨了 VPP 的更广泛影响，以确定这些工具是否促进了自由或社会排斥。我们的观点揭示了一个具有国际层面和制度影响的有争议且日益分裂的政策。例如，虽然有人认为 VPP 可能比封锁这一生硬手段相对更好，但 VPP 也涉及到获取和歧视问题。鉴于全球疫苗差距的各种原因，将疫苗护照与其他公共卫生措施（例如快速横向流动/负担得起的聚合酶链反应（PCR）测试和良好的卫生）相结合的混合政策可能更可行。此外，虽然 VPP 在国内可能不受欢迎和不可接受，但对于国际旅行来说，它们可能是不可避免的。
