Suchergebnisse

Abstract: Background: Covid-status certification – certificates for those who test negative for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, test positive for antibodies, or who have been vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 – has been proposed to enable safer access to a range of activities. Realising these benefits will depend in part upon the behavioural and social impacts of certification. The aim of this rapid review was to describe public attitudes towards certification, and its possible impact on uptake of testing and vaccination, protective behaviours, and crime. Method: A search was undertaken in peer-reviewed databases, pre-print databases, and the grey literature, from 2000 to December 2020. Studies were included if they measured attitudes towards or behavioural consequences of health certificates based on one of three indices of Covid-19 status: test-negative result for current infectiousness, test-positive for antibodies conferring natural immunity, or vaccination(s) conferring immunity. Results: Thirty-three papers met the inclusion criteria, only three of which were rated as low risk of bias. Public attitudes were generally favourable towards the use of immunity certificates for international travel, but unfavourable towards their use for access to work and other activities. A significant minority was strongly opposed to the use of certificates of immunity for any purpose. The limited evidence suggested that intention to get vaccinated varied with the activity enabled by certification or vaccination (e.g., international travel). Where vaccination is seen as compulsory this could lead to unwillingness to accept a subsequent vaccination. There was some evidence that restricting access to settings and activities to those with antibody test certificates may lead to deliberate exposure to infection in a minority. Behaviours that reduce transmission may decrease upon health certificates based on any of the three indices of Covid-19 status, including physical distancing and handwashing. Conclusions: The limited evidence suggests that health certification in relation to COVID-19 – outside of the context of international travel – has the potential for harm as well as benefit. Realising the benefits while minimising the harms will require real-time evaluations allowing modifications to maximise the potential contribution of certification to enable safer access to a range of activities.

This guidance offers recommendations for interventions that can be used to encourage and enable physical distancing. The target behaviour for this guidance document is physical distancing, defined as staying 1–2 metres (depending on national guidance)apart from people in the same location. We are using the term 'physical distancing' as opposed to 'social distancing', in line with the World Health Organization and our earlier guidance. Physical distancing is important when viruses are airborne, such as the virus that causes Covid-19. Remaining at a physical distance from others reduces the risk of aerosols and droplets entering the eyes, nose or mouth and therefore reduces the risk of spreading infection, particularly with physical distancing of 1 metre or more3. Many governments and health agencies have recommended people adhere to a physical distance of between1 metre4 to 2 metres5 from people who are not in their household or 'bubble'. In general, people typically stand a little less than 1 metre away from familiar people and 1.3 metre away from others6. Whilst many people have started to physically distance, standing metres away requires breaking strong habits. Even where regulations do not require physical distancing, people might still be encouraged to distance where possible, in regions where transmission rates are rising or high. This guidance is based on a systematic review of the evidence for interventions to encourage physical distancing and summarises the approaches that are effective in helping people to maintain physical distance from others. This included six papers, reporting 14 interventions with over 5500 people. There may be other approaches that could be effective but at present there is no evidence for or against them. It is important to note that some of the evidence reports influences on intention to distance physically rather than the action of physical distancing itself.