Coronavirus THL’s Mika Salminen thoroughly investigates the corona passport: a former passport would now do more harm than good

Government has announced that it wants the corona passport back for use in mid – February, when the peak of the current epidemic is expected to be ignored. Since then, fundamental rights issues and legal issues in passports have once again been discussed. Less has been said about the benefits of a passport in the spring.

Director of Health Safety, Department of Health and Welfare (THL) Mika Salminen says the answer has changed since Omikro ousted Delta from the mainstream.

The aim of the passport has been to get services open and the wheels of the economy to spin without the epidemic going wild.

“The passport was enacted in the fall with the idea that it would reduce infections. The virus does not move when only vaccinated or tested are present. This worked for Delta, ”says Salminen.

The situation is different with Omikron.

In a statement on the coronary passport to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (STM), THL assessed that the protection of vaccinations after six months 65-75% of the second vaccination was against delta infection, but only zero to ten% against self-infection.

Omikron therefore infects vaccinated almost as easily as non-vaccinated ones. It takes the base out of an old passport.

STM: n Head of Safety and Health Taneli Puumalainen justifies the usefulness of the passport by e – mail, saying that a passport holder who has been vaccinated or has a disease is still at a lower risk of infecting people than an unvaccinated person.

According to Salmis, the risk of infection and the duration of infection are so much lower that, for example, the caregivers’ obligation to vaccinate is well justified.

But if the services were opened in February, the passport would not rule out the risk of accelerating infections, Salminen said. If the use of a passport increases contacts, it will accelerate the epidemic.

“With an old passport, the curves go up pretty sure,” says Salminen.

The third dose of the vaccine will increase protection against infections for some time, but according to Puumalainen, it is not possible to require three doses of the vaccine in the passport when only less than half of the adults have been able to receive the third vaccination.

Serious however, the form of the disease is still effectively controlled by vaccinations. Thus, according to Salminen, a corona passport can prevent serious illnesses – but only if the passport is not issued to unvaccinated people.

In the autumn, the bar was accessed with a passport obtained by two vaccinations, a coronary illness or a recent negative test result.

When such a crowd gathers, those vaccinated are well protected from serious disease. Instead, those who come on a negative test say there is a risk of getting the virus from those vaccinated, getting seriously ill, and ending up in the hospital.

Unvaccinated people are expected to become infected anyway, but if they did not get a bar or crowd with a passport, the rate of illnesses requiring hospitalization would be slower. The passport would therefore protect the carrying capacity of healthcare by protecting the unvaccinated – against their will.

“At THL, we are unable to assess whether this is a sufficient basis in the opinion of the Constitutional Affairs Committee,” says Mika Salminen. It is up to lawyers and parliament to assess whether such a passport would be too violating the rights of unvaccinated people.

The alternative is simply to open services without a passport and accept the consequent increase in serious cases.

Others in the wake of the argument, the passport has been shown to encourage vaccination. That is what it has done to some extent.

“In other countries, it has been seen that the passport encourages those who for some reason have not yet been vaccinated,” says Salminen.

The effect has also been seen in some studies. A recent yet peer-reviewed study According to the Commission, the introduction of a corona passport in the summer increased vaccination coverage, at least in France, Germany and Italy.

In another, In a study published in the Lancet it was found that the passport increased the uptake of vaccinations, mainly in countries where vaccination coverage was below average at the time of passporting, especially among young people.

Salminen points out, however, that a passport does not increase vaccination for those who oppose or put pressure on the vaccine.

“Their attitudes are tightening.”

According to Salminen, THL fears that sharpening the confrontation will increase vaccination in general.

“It’s such a big price to think about.”

The population of Finland has been very vaccine-friendly compared to, for example, many Central European countries, where various epidemics of pediatric diseases are already breaking out due to low vaccination coverage.

Problems the use of a passport also results from the fact that patients do not receive a passport without a test-confirmed infection. They are required to receive medically unnecessary vaccinations.

The disease is crowned with sufficient certainty when the symptomatic is positive in home tests or when an infection is confirmed in the immediate vicinity and at the same time others become ill. Doctors constantly make diagnoses for other diseases without test results, and Salminen believes that a doctor’s coronary diagnosis should be enough.

Even if Finland decides to give up the corona passport altogether, it is still a condition for traveling. An official test result is required as a precondition for a common EU corona passport. Finland alone cannot do anything about it.

“This should be negotiated. Finland is not the only country with this problem. ”

Salminen believes that the corona passport will remain in use in the EU during the spring.

“However, one could start a serious discussion about the real benefits of a passport.”

EU thanks to the coron passport, Salminen mainly sees politicians daring not to close borders. The movement of people from one country to another does not have much of an effect on the disease situation when the disease is already circulating in each country.

Omikron was not initially held by the EU passport and, in addition, by the various restrictions imposed in various countries. In Salminen’s opinion, the attempt to stop the more contagious transformation was hopeless from the beginning.

“When a modification is found to be more contagious, it’s already so common that it’s too late to prevent it.”

Any even scientific surveillance cannot stop a virus variant which, because of its infectivity, has a clear advantage over others.

“Even if all infections are sequenced, no one will be able to know in advance which of the mutations detected is dangerous. New variations come every day. So are the borders being closed every day? ”

Psychologically, restricting movement has remained on top, but the logic cannot stand a critical examination, Salminen says.

“The question could be raised on the table if it is needed. Or is it said that this is here? ”

Salminen says there are interesting times right now. Infection rates have remained at the same level in Finland for several days, and the same can be seen in several countries.

“Is a turning point happening? Next week it will be clear, ”says Salminen.

The situation is not over. There may be setbacks, but such a large part of the Helsinki Metropolitan Area is now suffering from the disease that the next spike may be milder, Salminen estimates.

All considering Salminen, is it no longer worth the effort to adjust the Finnish corona passport?

“Yes it is,” he suddenly replies.

“It is not known if it is the last variant of omikro. It is advisable to create a passport so that it can be used if the need arises. ”