BACKGROUND
The recent introduction of COVID-19 certificates in several countries, including the introduction of a 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, since a valid green pass is needed to enter restaurants and 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 PCR test) and does not allow access to several indoor public places.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to understand and describe the concerns of anti-green pass individuals in Italy, the main arguments of discussion, and their characterization.
METHODS
We collected data from Telegram chats and analysed with a mixed-methods approach the arguments and the concerns that were raised by the users.
RESULTS
Most individuals opposing the green pass share anti-vaccine views, but doubts and concerns about vaccines are generally not among the arguments raised to oppose the green pass. Instead, the discussion revolves around legal aspects and the definition of personal freedom. We explain the differences and similarities between anti-vaccine and anti-green pass discourses, and we discuss the ethical ramifications of our research, focusing on the use of Telegram chats as social listening tool for public health.
CONCLUSIONS
A large fraction of anti-green pass individuals share anti-vaccine 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 hesitant individuals. Further work is needed to define a consensual ethical framework for social listening for public health.
CLINICALTRIAL