{"id":49040,"date":"2022-01-19T16:18:15","date_gmt":"2022-01-19T06:18:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/billmitchell.org\/blog\/?p=49040"},"modified":"2022-01-19T16:18:15","modified_gmt":"2022-01-19T06:18:15","slug":"research-on-vaccine-certificates-finds-positive-outcomes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/billmitchell.org\/blog\/?p=49040","title":{"rendered":"Research on vaccine certificates finds positive outcomes"},"content":{"rendered":"

\t\t\t\tIt’s Wednesday and so some short discussion and news then some jazz, the latter being the highlight. I read an interesting research paper yesterday from the – Conseil d’Analyse \u00c9conomique (CAE)<\/a> – which is an French-based organisation that brings together professional researchers “to enlighten the government’s choices in economic matters by comparing points of view and analyses”. It operates under the authority of the French Prime Minister. Its latest public report under its – Focus<\/a> – series – The effect of COVID certificates on vaccine uptake, health outcomes, and the economy<\/a> (published January 18, 2022) – presents some very interesting empirical results pertaining to the impact that the enforcement of Covid vaccination certificates has had on the rate of vaccination uptake, on health outcomes (short-term) and on GDP growth rates. I consider the research (methods etc) to be credible and the results are in accord with an array of evidence that other researchers are coming up with.
\n<\/p>\n

The effect of COVID certificates on vaccine uptake, health outcomes, and the economy<\/h2>\n

I know that many people think that research results are manipulated as part of a conspiracy (by whom?) and that we cannot believe the data, and all the rest of that.<\/p>\n

The point I make is that when one person comes up with results that are disagreeable to a particular viewpoint you need to be careful with them.<\/p>\n

But it is hard to maintain a conspiracy when many diverse researchers come up with results that point in the same direction.<\/p>\n

While there are some researchers who are crooks, my experience is that most professional researchers are serious-minded in their work and so constant reinforcement of results gives one confidence.<\/p>\n

The study I cited in the Introduction is sound in my judgement – given I understand the advanced statistical techniques being used and the datasets are verifiable.<\/p>\n

They realise that the topic is controversial and the use of vaccine certificates has been opposed by some on “ethical and political” grounds.<\/p>\n

There is room to debate the practice on those grounds.<\/p>\n

But they seek to enlighten us on several research questions relating to the practice of vaccine certificates:<\/p>\n

1. Have vaccine certificates increases the rate of vaccination and reduced the rate of hesitancy?<\/p>\n

2. Have the certificates impacted on health outcomes – number of hospital admissions and deaths?<\/p>\n

3. Have the certificates reduced the loss of GDP as a result of the pandemic?<\/p>\n

Using counterfactual and synthetic control techniques, they find:<\/p>\n

1. “The effects of COVID certificates on vaccine uptake turned out to be sizeable.”<\/p>\n

2. “More precisely, we attribute 13.0 (95% CI 9.7\u201014.9) percentage points (p.p.) for France, 6.2 (2.6\u20106.9) p.p. for Germany, and 9.7 (5.4\u201012.3) p.p. for Italy uptake to the incentives created by COVID certificates.”<\/p>\n

3. “The overall effect is significant in France and Italy, but only from end of November 2021 onwards in Germany, when the use of COVID certificates was extended to workplaces.”<\/p>\n

4. “The results are in line with studies analysing the immediate period after the intervention in various countries using cross\u2010country or state comparisons.”<\/p>\n

5. “Importantly, the effect of COVID certificates on vaccine uptake was also sizeable among the older population.”<\/p>\n

6. In terms of the “the number of hospital admissions and deaths that would have occurred from the announcement of COVID certificates until the end of 2021”, they found that “In France, an additional 32,065 (26,566\u201035,306) hospital admissions would have occurred, in Germany 5,229 (\u20101,774\u20106,822), and in Italy 8,735 (2,999\u201012,261). Additional deaths in France would have been 3,979 (3,453-4,298), in Germany 1,133 (\u2010312\u20101358), and in Italy 1,331 (502\u20101,794). Thus, from the introduction until the end of 2021, the expected number of hospital admissions (and deaths) would have been 31.3% (31.7%) higher in France, 5.0% (5.6%) higher in Germany, and 15.5% (14.0%) higher in Italy.”<\/p>\n

7. “By the end of 2021, without the policy intervention, weekly GDP would have been 0.6 (0.5\u20100.8) % lower in France, 0.3 (0.1\u20100.4) % lower in Germany, and 0.5 (0.3\u20100.6) % lower in Italy, amounting to GDP losses across the second half of 2021 of \u20ac6.0 (5.9\u20106.1) billion in France, \u20ac1.4 (1.3\u20101.5) billion in Germany, and \u20ac2.1 (2.0\u20102.2) billion in Italy.”<\/p>\n

In summary, for France, the Covid certificates have saved 3,939 lives, increased vaccine uptake by 13 per cent, and reduced GDP losses of \u20ac6 billion.<\/p>\n

For Italy, the Covid certificates have saved 1,331 lives, increased vaccine uptake by 9.7 per cent, and reduced GDP losses of \u20ac2.1 billion.<\/p>\n

for Germany, the Covid certificates have saved 1,133 lives, increased vaccine uptake by 6.2 per cent, and reduced GDP losses of \u20ac1.4 billion.<\/p>\n

They conclude that the certificates have had:<\/p>\n

\n… a visible, robust positive effect on vaccination rates, health outcomes, and the economy in France, Germany, and Italy.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Further questions remain (such as what about Omicron) and why people are distrustful of the science.<\/p>\n

But as it stands, these results are very interesting.<\/p>\n

Recent podcast with Real Progressives<\/h2>\n

A few weeks ago I recorded a new podcast – Duality with Bill Mitchell<\/a> – with the team at Real Progressives (the title was their choice).<\/p>\n

It was quite a long session but I think the discussion was interesting.<\/p>\n