The World Health Organisation and the European Union yesterday announced their collaboration on global digital vaccine passports at a joint press conference in Geneva.
According to the press release posted on the WHO website:
In June 2023, WHO will take up the European Union system of digital COVID-19 certification to establish a global system that will help facilitate global mobility and protect citizens across the world from on-going and future health threats, including pandemics. This is the first building block of the WHO Global Digital Health Certification Network (GDHCN) that will develop a wide range of digital products to deliver better health for all.
WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said:
Building on the EU’s highly successful digital certification network, WHO aims to offer all WHO Member States access to an open-source digital health tool, which is based on the principles of equity, innovation, transparency and data protection and privacy. New digital health products in development aim to help people everywhere receive quality health services quickly and more effectively.
Based on the EU Global Health Strategy and WHO Global strategy on digital health, the initiative follows the November 30th 2022 agreement between the EU and WHO to enhance strategic cooperation on global health issues.
“This further bolsters a robust multilateral system with WHO at its core, powered by a strong EU,” the press release states.
Thierry Breton, EU Commissioner for Internal Market, said:
With 80 countries and territories connected to the EU Digital COVID-19 Certificate, the EU has set a global standard. The EU certificate has not only been an important tool in our fight against the pandemic, but has also facilitated international travel and tourism. I am pleased that the WHO will build on the privacy-preserving principles and cutting-edge technology of the EU certificate to create a global tool against future pandemics.
According to the WHO press release, “one of the key elements in the European Union’s work against the COVID-19 pandemic has been digital COVID-19 certificates”, and now the WHO will “allow the world to benefit from convergence of digital certificates”.
The scheme is set to be expanded to include all the vaccinations covered by the ‘yellow card’ International Certificate of Vaccination or Prophylaxis.
WHO will not have access to any underlying personal data, which would continue to be the exclusive domain of governments, the press release claims.
The WHO and the European Commission will “work together to encourage maximum global uptake and participation”, it adds.
Vaccine passports are controversial, even in the United Nations, of which the WHO is an agency. On June 30th 2021, as the movement for Covid vaccine passports gained momentum, the UNESCO World Commission for the Ethics of Science and Technology and the UNESCO International Bioethics Committee released a joint statement warning that “any COVID-19 certificate should be introduced and implemented with great caution” and “should account for scientific uncertainty regarding the degree of protection that specific vaccines, past infections and negative COVID-19 test results provide”. Vaccine passports should also “not work against sustainable development”.
In light of these concerns, the UN agencies proposed that “a research programme should be developed to assess their impact on society and public health, and the risks they might bring”.
The new press release from the WHO and EU makes no mention of the progress of this research programme, or whether it has been established at all. Is it not necessary to ascertain the effectiveness and cost-benefit profile of an intervention before rolling it out globally and making it permanent?
Given how leaky Covid vaccines are, and how short-lived any protection offered by them might be – some studies even show the vaccinated suffering higher infection rates than the unvaccinated – it’s hard to imagine that vaccine passports delivered any real limitation of disease transmission. But the WHO and EU don’t appear to regard this as a relevant question to ask. Is that because they blindly assume they are beneficial, or because they have other reasons for wanting to roll out this restrictive technology globally?
An internet search failed to bring up any assessment of the epidemiological and societal impacts of Covid vaccine passports. If readers are aware of any such research please post it in the comments below or email us here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“liberation and equality officer”
Translation
Which finder general!
OK, which one?. The witch finder one perhaps?
The only ‘hate’ is being directed at anyone who doesn’t bend their knee to these Fascists. Well tough luck.
Not sure about that. I hate these people with a passion. These people that set the dogs on us for not bending to their will. These people that will sacrifice children for profit. These people that want to enslave us. I would gladly see them all hang.
✅ 👍
Garotted on prime time telly?
More entertaining than what passes for comedy now.
Stalin & Goebals would be proud of this shower of SH1T !…
Indeed. This is beyond parody now. It’s like Goebbels with a gerbil shoved up where the sun don’t shine, lol.
Retards in NY suing a website run by Englishmen….flock off.
NY Times is the Queen of hate speech, propaganda and disinformation. It can start by suing itself.
The Democratic Party – which runs New York – would like nothing better than to scrap the First Amendment. Indeed, they tried to do something like that in the U.S. Senate back in 2014, in a move which Forbes rightly described as “terrifying”.
Indeed. The US is a totalitarian nightmare.
Careful, the word “ret*rd(ed)” is probably considered “hate speech” now, lol.
All the idiotic NPI bans and controls on airline passengers were struck out across the US, but NYC still wanted people to wear masks. Thick as the proverbial planks.
Thanks for this. Kind of frightening that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC was only decided 5-4 in favour of freedom of speech, and needed the then-swing vote of Kennedy.
I wasn’t aware of the “magnificent Supreme Court brief in Novak v. City of Parma submitted by The Onion” which is indeed a hoot, as well as being very solidly argued.
Yes. How can one distinguish “media” from “non-media” sources of speech? Why should the New York Times, an incorporated entity, have different speech rights to Citizens United, another incorporated entity? It simply makes no sense.
Glad you enjoyed the Novak filing!
Well I guess I am biased but none of the “liberal” rulings of the US Supreme Court and none of the “liberal” arguments in the highest profile cases make much legal sense to me. They most seem like elaborate attempts to rationalise personal opinions on what the law should be.
Yeah. It’s called “legislating from the bench”. It happens a lot, all over the world, and it’s pernicious.
Arguments in favour of “originalism” as set out by the incomparable Justice Scalia seem hard to contradict. There’s only any point to a written constitution if it’s hard to change, and the only defensible way to interpret it is based on the meaning it had when it was adopted by the people. And of course the left have named this “originalism” as if it was some kind of weird outlier of an idea rather than what had been orthodoxy since the US legal system started.
Time to write a hateful comment:
Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! HATE!
’Hateful’, ‘Misinfirmation’, Disinformation’ = anything that exposes the lies and deceit of Governments, experts and operators in the victimology industry.
Wow, that is insane! As a New Yorker myself, I really hope they strike it down!
My word they are completely and utterly insane. Next it will be anyone who disagrees with them, the real haters, being turfed off the comments section. I’ve never actually hated anyone, even Fauci , Soros, Biden and Gates, I just can’t stand the smug, sanctimonious, slimy little sh*ts and what they and their ilk are doing to the world. And that includes this Attorney General of NY. Perhaps she would like to define ‘hate’. Would it, perchance, be anything to do with trying to shut up and penalise all those people who disagree with her and her brand of virtue signalling nonsense?
The proposed New York law is basically similar to the UK government’s Online Harms Bill.
Isn’t it interesting how these measures that attack the foundations of the West, are all pushed through in international lockstep?
As soon as the US democrats come up with some policy, their international fanbase of US democrat cosplayers starts imitiating it. That’s why there’s BLM in Germany despite the country has neither a sizable minority of black people nor any ties to the so-called atlantic slave trade.