Tag Archives: health

Five Truths About Your Target Audiences

This post explains what “pillar pages” are, the pros and cons of Bredemarket’s pillar pages, what I’ve learned from the “Target Audience” pillar page that I created, and how this can help your business deliver effective, converting messages to your prospects.

What are pillar pages?

I’ve been working on “pillar pages” for the Bredemarket website for over a year now.

By Rama – Own work, CC BY-SA 2.0 fr, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=638837

As I stated before in an April 2022 blog post, a “pillar page” is simply a central “cluster” page on your website that discusses an important topic, and which is linked to other pages that provide more detail on the topic.

Think of a wheel with a hub and spokes. The pillar page is the hub, and the related pages are the spokes.

By Zereshk, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=171752

How can Bredemarket’s pillar pages be better?

As of July 5, 2023, I have created five pillar pages, which I label as “topics of interest” on Bredemarket’s “Information” page.

Now these pillar pages aren’t as mature as I’d like them to be.

  • I haven’t really multi-layered my keywords that link to the pillar; currently things are fairly simplistic where benefit “spoke” blog posts link to the benefits “hub” pillar. I haven’t explicitly optimized the “hub and spokes” for people who search for, say, features.
  • Similarly, the organization of each pillar page is fairly simplistic. Each pillar starts with a brief discussion of the topic in question, and is then followed by excerpts from and links to blog posts that provide more detail on the topic. (And the blog posts themselves link back to the pillar, providing bidirectional…um, benefits.) It’s functional, but perhaps you’d be better served if the pillars grouped subtopics together, rather than listing all the blog posts in reverse chronological order.

But the pillars do their work in terms of navigation and search engine optimization. If you want to find out what Bredemarket says about a topic such as benefits, it’s fairly easy to find this.

What have I learned from the Bredemarket Target Audience pillar page?

This post delves into the fifth of my five pillar pages, the Target Audience page.

By Christian Gidlöf – Photo taken by Christian Gidlöf, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2065930

I’ve recently worked on beefing up this pillar page by linking to more Bredemarket blog posts that discuss target audiences. And in the process of making these additions, I’ve realized some things about target audiences that I wanted to summarize here. (Repurposing content refocuses the mind, I guess.)

In the process of improving my pillar page, I’ve gleaned five truths about target audiences:

  1. You need to define at least one target audience.
  2. It’s not illegal to have multiple target audiences.
  3. Different target audiences get different messages.
  4. You can create personas, or you can not create personas. Whatever floats your boat.
  5. Target audience definition focuses your content.

I’ll discuss each of these truths and suggest how they can improve your firm’s content.

One: You Need to Define At Least One Target Audience.

The first and most important thing is that you need a target audience before you start writing.

By David Shankbone – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2786722

If you have no target audience, who is receiving your message? How do you know what to say?

For example, the primary target audience for THIS blog post is anyone from any type of company who could use Bredemarket’s marketing and writing services. It’s not limited to just the identity folks, or just the Inland Empire folks. If it were, I’d write it differently.

Here’s another target audience example that I used in an October 2022 blog post:

  • If you’re a lollipop maker and you’re writing for kids who buy lollipops in convenience stores, you’ll write one way.
  • If you’re a lollipop maker and you’re writing to the convenience stores who could carry your lollipops, you’ll write another way.
From https://bredemarket.com/2022/10/30/six-questions-your-content-creator-should-ask-you/

Do you see how target audiences influence what you write?

Two: It’s Not Illegal to Have Multiple Target Audiences.

I recently criticized myself in jest because my self-promotional LinkedIn post identified two target audiences: companies who could use my services as a full-time employee, and companies who could use my services as a Bredemarket contract consultant.

This does have some drawbacks, since if I had chosen one or the other, I could have streamlined my post and made my message stronger.

But in this particular case, I chose to “muddy the waters.” Mary, grab the baby, targets rising.

Not Limp Bizkit. From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhF7gnRZBpY

The content addressed two target audiences at the same time, although this post prioritized the companies looking for full-time employees.

As long as you know in advance what you’re going to do, you can define multiple target audiences. Just don’t define a dozen target audiences for a 288-character tweet.

Three: Different Target Audiences Get Different Messages.

Perhaps you are writing a single piece of content that must address multiple target audiences. A proposal is an example of this. For example, a proposal in response to a request for proposal (RFP) for an automated biometric identification system (ABIS) affects multiple target audiences.

By Love Makes A Way – https://www.flickr.com/photos/lovemakesaway/15802177909/, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=101171928

Here’s an example of multiple target audiences for a theoretical Ontario, California ABIS proposal, taken from a May 2021 Bredemarket post:

  • Field investigators.
  • Examiners.
  • People who capture biometrics.
  • Information Technologies.
  • Purchasing.
  • The privacy advocate.
  • The mayor.
  • Others.

That’s a lot of target audiences, but if you’re submitting a 300 page proposal that answers hundreds of individual questions, you have the ability to customize each of the hundreds of responses to address the affected target audience(s).

For example, if the RFP asks about the maximum resolution of captured latent fingerprint images, your response will address the needs of the “examiner” target audience. Your response to that question won’t need to say anything about your compliance with city purchasing regulations. (Unless you have a really weird city, which is possible I guess.)

At the same time, if the RFP asks if you comply with E-Verify, this is NOT the time to brag about supporting 4,000 pixels per inch image capture.

Four: You Can Create Personas, Or You Can Not Create Personas. Whatever Floats Your Boat.

If you haven’t read the Bredemarket blog that much, you should know that I’m not very hung up on processes—unless my client (or my employer) insists on them. Then they’re the most important thing in the world.

If you find yourself trapped in a room (preferably padded) with a bunch of certified marketing professionals, they’ll probably toss around the word “persona” a lot. A persona helps you visualize your target audience by writing to someone with a particular set of attributes. Here’s an example from the October 2022 post I cited earlier:

Jane Smith is a 54 year old single white owner of a convenience store in a rural area with an MBA and a love for Limp Bizkit…

From https://bredemarket.com/2022/10/30/six-questions-your-content-creator-should-ask-you/

If I’m going to write a particular piece of content, this persona helps me focus my writing. As I write, I can picture Jane in my mind, fetching the giant cups for the soda dispenser, planning her next trip to the big city, and wondering if her customers would mind if she started blasting this song.

Not the Seldom Scene.

Having this persona in my mind can be an excellent writing support.

  • What would Jane think about a list of target audience truths?
  • What would Jane think if a Limp Bizkit song appeared in the middle of the list? (She’d like that.)
  • Most importantly, would that post about target audiences induce Jane to explore the Bredemarket 400 Short Writing Service?

So you can create personas, either on the fly (take a LinkedIn profile of a real person and change a few facts so that the persona becomes Jim, a 35 year old product/content marketer who specializes in healthcare) or through an extensive and expensive persona research program.

By Idaho National Laboratory – Flickr: Microscopy lab, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=16101131

But what if you escape from the padded room, run away from the marketing professionals, and swear up and down that you will never ever create a persona?

Will your marketing efforts die?

No they won’t.

You can still target your writing without inventing demographic information about the person reading your content.

It depends upon the effort you want to invest in the task.

Five: Target Audience Definition Focuses Your Content.

I kind of already said this, but I wanted to explicitly repeat it and emphasize it.

Regardless of whether your target audience is defined by an expensive research effort, a tweak of a real person’s LinkedIn profile, or the simple statement “we want to target latent fingerprint examiners,” the simple act of defining your target audience focuses your content.

By Lookang many thanks to author of original simulation = Fu-Kwun Hwang author of Easy Java Simulation = Francisco Esquembre – Own work http://weelookang.blogspot.com/2015/05/ejss-thin-converging-diverging-lens-ray.html, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=40429189

Your text addresses the target audience, and doesn’t go off on tangents that bear no relation to your target audience.

This makes your message much more effective.

But is the message of this post resonating with companies needing content creators?

If you’re still reading, I guess it is.

Bredemarket can help you define your target audience for your content, and can help you define other things also that are necessary for effective content.

Would you like to talk to me about the content you want to create, and the message you want to deliver to your target audience?

Are you ready to take your firm to the next level with a compelling message that addresses your target audience(s) and increases awareness, consideration, conversion, and long-term revenue?

Let’s talk today!

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to cross-reference this blog post with my Target Audience pillar page.

From EUDCC to GDHCN: The Evolution of Vaccine Certificates

Back in 2021, it seemed that I was commenting on the EU Digital COVID Certificate (EUDCC) ad nauseum. The EUDCC is the “vaccine passport” that was developed to allow people in member EU countries to prove their COVID vaccination status in another EU country.

From the EC site.

My most recent post on the EUDCC was written on August 30, 2021, and discussed the International Air Transport Association (IATA) endorsement of the EUDCC as a global standard. But did it matter? I took a look at how global standards are adopted (hint: brute force):

If a lot of people like something, it’s a standard.

If a trillion dollar company likes something, and I like something different, then the thing that the trillion dollar company likes is a standard.

If two trillion dollar companies like two different things…it can get messy.

From https://bredemarket.com/2021/08/30/iata-endorses-the-eudcc-but-will-it-matter/

August 2021 was the last time that I wrote about the EUDCC in the Bredemarket blog. Until now.

Enter…WHO?

You know how standards are adopted by brute force from big players? Well, one big player has forced itself into the discussion. That player is the World Health Organization, commonly known as WHO.

It seems to me they give these vaccine certificates now-a-days very peculiar names. By Public Domain – Snapshot Image – https://archive.org/details/ClassicComedyTeams, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=25914575

But according to Masha Borak at Biometric Update, the WHO is just recognizing that the “EU” Digital COVID Certificate has expanded far beyond the EU.

Stella Kyriakides, the European commissioner for health and food safety (announced) that the voluntary certificate program has already been taken up by almost 80 countries.

From https://www.biometricupdate.com/202306/united-nations-taking-over-eu-covid-certificate-program-july-1

Last I checked there were not 80 countries in the EU. So this health standards thing took off after the initial hiccups. Although the Wikipedia list of non-EU adopting countries does not include two big players—the United States and China (the same two countries I cited in my August 2021 post).

Therefore, it made sense for WHO to get in on the act with its Global Digital Health Certification Network, allowing worldwide responses to post-COVID issues.

WHO’s Global Digital Health Certification Network is an open-source platform, built on robust & transparent standards that establishes the first building block of digital public health infrastructure for developing a wide range of digital products for strengthening pandemic preparedness and to deliver better health for all….

The GDHCN is builds (sic) upon the experience of regional networks for COVID-19 Certificates and takes up the infrastructure and experiences with the digital European Union Digital COVID Certificate (EU DCC) system, which has seen adoption across all Member States of the EU as well as 51 non-EU countries and territories. The GDHCN has been designed to be interoperable with other existing regional networks (e.g., ICAO VSD-NC, DIVOC, LACPass, SMART Health Cards) specifications. 

From https://www.who.int/initiatives/global-digital-health-certification-network
From https://www.who.int/initiatives/global-digital-health-certification-network

On the surface it sounds great, but we’ll see what happens when it goes live (Borak states that the go-live date is July 1).

And we’ll see how it expands:

To facilitate the uptake of the EU DCC by WHO and contribute to its operation and further development, WHO and the European Commission have agreed to partner in digital health.

This partnership will work to technically develop the WHO system with a staged approach to cover additional use cases, which may include, for example, the digitisation of the International Certificate of Vaccination or Prophylaxis. Expanding such digital solutions will be essential to deliver better health for citizens across the globe.

From https://www.who.int/news/item/05-06-2023-the-european-commission-and-who-launch-landmark-digital-health-initiative-to-strengthen-global-health-security

And most importantly, we’ll see which countries participate—and which countries don’t.

The difference between biometrics and biometrics

(Part of the biometric product marketing expert series)

By Dina Regine – https://www.flickr.com/photos/divadivadina/465006384/, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=8022602

We’ll get to Bob a little later. But let me start off by telling you something.

AAABWTCI.

That stands for “acronyms are a bad way to convey information.”

But you didn’t know that.

Many of us like to use acronyms to quickly convey information, but we need to remember that different people use acronyms in different ways.

For example, in my circles, people generally understand “FBI” to refer to the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation.

By I, Aude, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2438142

But try telling that to the Faith Bible Institute, or to an employee of Frontier Booking International. (I’ll admit that the founder of the latter company, Ian Copeland, chose the company name deliberately. After all, his brother Miles founded I.R.S. Records, and their father worked for the Central Intelligence Agency.)

It’s best not to use acronyms at all and instead use full words. Because if you use full words, then (as Ed McMahon would say) you will ensure that EVERYONE knows exactly what you mean.

By photo by Alan Light, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3048124

Allow me to play the Johnny Carson role and say that Ed was WRONG.

By Johnny_Carson_with_fan.jpg: Peter Martorano from Cleveland, Ohio, USAderivative work: TheCuriousGnome (talk) – Johnny_Carson_with_fan.jpg, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=12750959

After all, the great English philosopher Robert Plant (I told you we’d get to Bob eventually) noted,

“You know sometimes words have two meanings.”

“Stairway to Heaven.” https://genius.com/Led-zeppelin-stairway-to-heaven-lyrics

Take the word “biometrics.” In my circles, people generally understand “biometrics” to refer to one of several ways to identify an individual.

By Dawid Weber – Praca własna, CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=102148689

But for the folks at Merriam-Webster, this is only a secondary definition of the word “biometrics.” From their perspective, biometrics is primarily biometry, which can refer to “the statistical analysis of biological observations and phenomena” or to “measurement (as by ultrasound or MRI) of living tissue or bodily structures.” In other words, someone’s health, not someone’s identity.

From https://www.biometricsociety.org/home

Fun fact: if you go to the International Biometric Society and ask it for its opinion on the most recent FRVT 1:N tests, it won’t have an answer for you.

The terms “Biometrics” and “Biometry” have been used since early in the 20th century to refer to the field of development of statistical and mathematical methods applicable to data analysis problems in the biological sciences.

Recently, the term “Biometrics” has also been used to refer to the emerging field of technology devoted to the identification of individuals using biological traits, such as those based on retinal or iris scanning, fingerprints, or face recognition. Neither the journal “Biometrics” nor the International Biometric Society is engaged in research, marketing, or reporting related to this technology. Likewise, the editors and staff of the journal are not knowledgeable in this area.  

From https://www.biometricsociety.org/about/what-is-biometry

This can confuse people when I refer to myself as a biometric proposal writing expert or a biometric content marketing expert. I’ve been approached by people who wanted my expertise, but who walked away disappointed that I had never written about a clinical trial.

Despite this, there are some parallels between biometrics and biometrics. After all, both biometrics and biometrics take body measurements (albeit for different reasons), and therefore some devices that can be used for biometry can sometimes also be used for identification, and vice versa.

But only sometimes. Your run-of-the-mill optical fingerprint reader won’t contribute to any medical diagnosis, and I’m still on the fence regarding whether brain waves can be used to identify individuals. I need a sample size larger than 50 people before I’ll claim brain waves as a reliable biometric.

Of course, a biometric device such as an Apple Watch can not only measure your biometrics, but also your geolocation, which is another authentication factor.

By iOS, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=33398892

IATA endorses the EUDCC. But will it matter?

In a Bredemarket blog post in February 2021, I quoted something that I wrote in 2013 in one of my personal blogs, Empoprise-BI.

I’m sure that many people imagine that standards are developed by a group of reasonable people, sitting in a room, who are pursuing things for the good of the world.

You can stop laughing now.

As I noted back in 2013, and again in February, there are many instances in which standards do not evolve from a well-designed process. In reality, standards emerge via that process that I referred to in February as “brute force.”

By イーストプレス – 「ゴング格闘技」＝1951年のブラジル地元新聞からの転載, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=13320163

For those who are not familiar with the “brute force” process, I’ll provide two illustrations.

  • If a lot of people like something, it’s a standard.
  • If a trillion dollar company likes something, and I like something different, then the thing that the trillion dollar company likes is a standard.

If two trillion dollar companies like two different things…it can get messy.

Back in February, I was just beginning to talk about something that I called “health passports” at the time. Later, I personally decided that “health passports” is a poor choice of words, and have instead gravitated to using the phrase “vaccine certificate.”

Regardless, my concern back in February was that there were all sorts of these things floating around. Even back then, Clear had its own solution, IATA had one, IBM had one, iProov had one, Daon had one, and there were many, many more.

So what happens if I have a Clear vaccine certificate but the airline or building that I’m approaching supports the iProov certificate? Can the iProov certificate read the Clear certificate? Or do I have to get multiple certificates?

This post looks at a new development in the vaccine certificate brouhaha. I’m not talking about what vaccines are honored by the vaccine certificate, but about acceptability of the vaccine certificates themselves. In particular, I’m talking about acceptance of one certificate, the EU Digital COVID Certificate (EUDCC).

Because one big player is getting behind it.

From https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/attachment/868508/Digital%20Green%20Certificate_en.pdf.pdf

How do international air transport folks feel about the EUDCC?

While the EUDCC can conceivably be used for a number of use cases, such as entering a private business like a restaurant, one of the most popular use cases for the EUDCC is to board an airplane that is crossing an international border.

So if there was an organization that was dedicated to the business of flying airplanes across international borders, and if that organization thought that the EUDCC was pretty cool, then that endorsement would have as much pull as Google (and Facebook) endorsing a web image format.

Enter the (drumroll) International Air Transport Association, which issued a press release on 26 August.

The title?

“IATA Backs European Digital Covid Certificate as Global Standard.”

From https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/2021-releases/2021-08-26-01/

Now those who read my February post will recall that IATA was one of those groups that was already developing its own vaccination certificate. So how does the EUDCC compare with the the IATA Travel Pass?

The DCC…is fully supported by IATA Travel Pass.

But in addition to mere self-interest, there is another reason why IATA is endorsing the EUDCC: it’s supported by a lot of countries inside the EU, and other countries are looking at the EUDCC as a model.

The EU DCC is implemented in the 27 EU Member states and a number of reciprocal agreements have been agreed with other states’ own vaccination certificates, including Switzerland, Turkey, and Ukraine. In the absence of a single global standard for digital vaccination certificates, up to 60 other countries are looking to use the DCC specification for their own certification. 

Oh no, I’m just looking

However, it’s one thing to be “looking” at something, and another thing entirely to actually “do” something.

Before assuming that the EUDCC will become the de facto DCC, consider how two countries in particular will approach it.

This image or media was taken or created by Matt H. Wade. To see his entire portfolio, click here. @thatmattwade This image is protected by copyright! If you would like to use it, please read this first. – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5004719

One of those countries is my own, the United States of America. While one can argue whether or not the U.S. enjoys the same level of power that it enjoyed immediately after the end of the Cold War, it is still a major player in world economic and travel affairs. And regardless of who the President of the United States is at any given time, the U.S. has often decided to go its own way. Couple this with the power of individual U.S. states in my country’s federal system, and it’s quite possible that even if the U.S. goes along with IATA, and some form of the EUDCC is adopted by our Transportation Security Administration, that does not necessarily mean that the same certificate can be used as it is in Europe to grant access to museums, sporting events, and concerts.

By Severin.stalder, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=39661035

The other country that may have an issue with the EUDCC is China. If the United States is potentially a waning world power, China is potentially a gaining world power. The relationship between China and the rest of the world varies from time to time and from issue to issue. China may decide that it’s not in its best interest to adhere to an international standard for certifications of COVID vaccination, testing, or contraction. And if it’s not in China’s best interest, China won’t do it.

So before declaring that IATA endorsement of the EUDCC settles the issue…we’ll see.

Update on Covishield and the EUDCC, as long as you can prove you were born

It’s been a while since I looked at issues regarding the European Union Digital COVID Certificate (EUDCC).

From https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/attachment/868508/Digital%20Green%20Certificate_en.pdf.pdf

And there are a ton of ramifications and unintended consequences.

Covishield and the EUDCC

When I last looked at the EUDCC, I examined its effect on travel from people outside of the European Union. The question at the time was what would happen to people who were vaccinated with something other than the European Medicines Agency-approved vaccines, thus rendering them ineligible for the EUDCC.

In particular, people who were vaccinated with the Covishield vaccine were not eligible for the EUDCC. Depending upon whom you asked, Covishield is either just the same as the EMA-approved AstraZeneca vaccine (now referred to as “Vaxzervria” in EU-speak), or it has a radically different manufacturing process that disqualifies it from automatic acceptance.

This non-recognition of Covishield has a great impact on African nations, because that vaccine is popular there. However, EUDCC disapproval has been offset by the actions of several individual countries to recognize Covishield as a vaccine. For example, Greece recognizes ten vaccines (including Covishield) as opposed to the EU’s four. Of course, you have to go through additional paperwork to get authorization to enter a specific country.

But Joseph Atick notes that there’s another issue that adversely impacts the ability of Africans to enter Europe.

Linking a vaccination to a person

Assume for the moment that you have received an EU-authorized vaccine. This is only part of the battle, because the act of vaccination has to be tied to you as a person.

Dr. Joseph Atick of ID4Africa. From https://id4africa.com/the-general-secretariat/

And Atick notes one complicating factor in making that link:

One of the biggest barriers to setting up these systems—and one that could greatly complicate digital health certificates – involves traceability, which for an official digital ID means documenting one’s birth event.

In Africa, not everyone has a birth certificate, and many struggle to trace their identity to the birth event.

If you cannot prove to the satisfaction of the European Union (or whoever) that you were the actual person who received a vaccine, then you may face barriers to entering Europe (or wherever).

And what are the ramifications of this?

A digital health certificate has appeal as an efficient and effective way to manage COVID-19 risks. But if we don’t pause now to consider the implications of getting it wrong and look for ways to get it right, these marvellous digital innovations could also be supremely effective at creating a binary world of those who can prove their COVID-19 risk status and those who cannot.

The requirement for a digital identity

Oh, and there’s another issue that Atick didn’t address, but which bears noting.

All of the health vaccination solutions listed above assume as a given that people will be the owners of a unique, government-authorized digital identity.

As I’ve noted elsewhere, there are people who are fervently opposed to this.

In my country, both some people on the left and some people on the right believe that “governmental digital identity” naturally equates to “governmental digital surveillance,” and that governments shouldn’t be abusing the data that they can obtain from all the vaccinations you get, all the places you travel, all the things you buy, and all the other things that you do.

(Well, except for voting. Some on the right fervently believe that government identities are essential to voting, even if they’re not essential to any other activity.)

But are people truly banned from travel?

So where does this leave the people who cannot prove that they were vaccinated with an authorized vaccine, or perhaps were never vaccinated at all?

In many cases travel for the unvaccinated is not banned, but they have to go through additional hoops to travel. Using one example, unvaccinated U.S. citizens can travel to Austria if they “have recovered from COVID-19 in the past 180 days; or present a negative COVID-19 PCR or antigen test result procured within 72 or 48 hours of travel.” For more country-by-country specifics as of August 13, click here.

But how will the unvaccinated get to Europe, or anywhere else?

But on the other hand, a vaccination in and of itself is not a guarantee that you can travel. Norway has a long list of requirements that an incoming person must satisfy, vaccination or not. This isn’t the time for an American to go on a sightseeing tour to Oslo.

Or Pyongyang.

So a binary division into the “travels” and “travel nots” may not become a reality. Instead, it will be a gradation of travel allowances and non-allowances, based upon a variety of factors.

The EUDCC and Covishield

Well, that was unexpected, at least by me.

I figured that discussion of the European Union Digital COVID Certificate (EUDCC) would focus on use of the certificate by residents of the EU.

However, the big debate right now is about how citizens of countries outside of the EU are affected. While the EUDCC is primarily designed for EU citizens, the EU has an interest in getting people from outside of the EU to travel to Europe and spend lots of euros and make everyone happy.

By Avij (talk · contribs) – Own work, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=30112364

However, some of the regulations that govern the EUDCC and the EU’s COVID response are actually hampering travel from outsiders.

And when words like “equitable” are being bandied about, people are going to take notice.

Let’s start by examining the list of vaccines that are approved in the European Union.

Four vaccines are currently approved for use in the EU: Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson. Another four are under “rolling review” for possible approval: Russia’s Sputnik, China’s Sinovac, Germany’s CureVac and Novavax of the United States.

From https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/overview/public-health-threats/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/treatments-vaccines/covid-19-vaccines

So if you received one of the first four vaccines, this can be listed on your EUDCC and you can go about your merry way.

But African governmental entities believe that a fifth vaccine, one that happens to be available in Africa, should be added to the list.

From https://africacdc.org/download/statement-on-covishield-and-the-european-union-eu-digital-covid-certificate-green-pass/

[W]hile the goal is for EU Member States to issue vaccination certificates regardless of the COVID-19 vaccine type used, the granting of a “green pass” applies, only to vaccines that have received EU-wide marketing authorisation. Thus, while the AstraZeneca vaccine (ChAdOx1_nCoV-19) produced and authorized in Europe (Vaxzervria) is included, the same formation of the vaccine (Covishield) produced under license by the Serum Institute of India (SII), is excluded.

The TL;DR version: since Covishield is equivalent to Vaxzervria/AstraZeneca, people who received Covishield should get EU travel privileges.

Why does the same vaccine formulation have two different names? Because a special effort was mounted to provide vaccines to the Third World without endangering First World profits.

From https://www.seruminstitute.com/health_faq_covishield.php

Covishield is the Indian counterpart of AstraZeneca-Oxford developed Vaxzervria and is identical to the one made in Europe. It has been widely distributed in many low and middle-income countries through the EU-supported COVAX programme. However the vaccine has not been included on the EUDCC because it is not approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). 

The European Medicines Agency counters that Covishield is NOT the same as the European version of AstraZeneca, despite an identical formulation:

“Even though it may use an analogous production technology to Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca’s vaccine), Covishield as such is not currently approved under EU rules,” the European Medicines Agency (EMA) said in a statement to AFP. “This is because vaccines are biological products. Even tiny differences in the manufacturing conditions can result in differences in the final product, and EU law therefore requires the manufacturing sites and production process to be assessed and approved as part of the authorisation process.”

So that’s where things stand as of now. And they may remain this way unless there’s pressure on the EMA to revise its decision.

Now I’m wondering how many Nigerians…and how many Indians…and how many Chinese and Russians (remember that Sputnik and Sinovac aren’t approved either)…are choosing to forgo a European holiday this summer.

The air industry is worried about EU Digital COVID certificate activity on July 1

Charles De Gaulle Airport in Paris. By NASA – NASA/JSC, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7156445

So for the last few months we’ve been saying “we need travelers.” And now that we’re about to get travelers, people are getting worried.

The European Union’s system of digital COVID-19 travel certificates is due to come into force on Thursday, but airports group ACI and airlines representative bodies A4E, IATA and ERA warned in a letter to EU national leaders of a “worrying patchwork of approaches” across the continent.

Of course, we’ve known for some time that the EU Digital COVID Certificates are being implemented on a national basis. But now the airport and airline industries are warning that checking the certificates can be dizzying.

The letter said the only way to avoid huge queues and delays during the peak summer season was to implement a system whereby both the vaccination certificate and passenger locator forms are processed remotely before the passenger arrives at the airport.

Checks must only take place in the country of departure and not on arrival and national governments should manage the health data and provide equipment to check the QR codes, the letter said.

So there will be some confusion on Thursday. But will the confusion outweigh the benefits of increased travel?

Additional countries issue the EU Digital COVID Certificate (a/k/a the Digital Green Certificate)

First, a correction.

When I first began writing about the Digital Green Certificate, I referred to it as…the Digital Green Certificate, noting the confusion that the name could cause with climate activists and the like.

Well, it turns out that climate activists have no cause for confusion, because the name of the certificate is NOT the “Digital Green Certificate.”

It’s the “EU Digital COVID Certificate,” as noted here.

From https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/attachment/868508/Digital%20Green%20Certificate_en.pdf.pdf

With that out of the way, let’s revisit developments since the first seven countries began issuing the EUDCC on June 1.

By Tuesday, June 15, the list of issuing countries will expand to 14:

Italy is one of the first EU countries to begin issuing the EU Digital COVID Certificate, alongside Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, and Spain.

The remainder of the countries should be issuing the EUDCC by July 1.

The Digital Green Certificate (EU Green Pass), for and against

So I attended the ID4Africa webcast that discussed vaccination certificates, including its discussion of harmonization of the myriad of certificates—a topic that clearly interests me.

If you didn’t already hear this on my recent podcast (microcast?) episode, Pavlina Navratilova of IDEMIA discussed three vaccination certificate standards that affect Europeans. One of these is the Digital Green Certificate, also known as the EU Green Pass.

In this post I’ll explain what the Digital Green Certificate is, why some people think this health measure is essential to the continuance of civilization, and why some people think it destroys civilization as we know it.

Or something like that.

What is the Digital Green Certificate?

First, a clarification. The word “green” in Digital Green Certificate does not refer to saving the whales. It refers to “green means go” in terms of COVID-19. Specifically, a Digital Green Certificate is a digital proof that a person has either

tick iconbeen vaccinated against COVID-19
tick iconreceived a negative test result or 
tick iconrecovered from COVID-19

The certificate will also be available in paper format for us old-school types, but the digital version is what interests me.

The certificate will not be issued by the EU itself, but by entities within each EU country such as health authorities or individual hospitals. The certificate will be in a person’s national language and in English (for those who have forgotten, English is no longer a national language within the European Union due to Brexit).

From https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/attachment/868508/Digital%20Green%20Certificate_en.pdf.pdf

Each certificate will contain a QR code to ensure authenticity, and these QR codes will be tracked at the EU level.

Each issuing body (e.g. a hospital, a test centre, a health authority) has its own digital signature key. All of these are stored in a secure database in each country.

The European Commission will build a gateway. Through this gateway, all certificate signatures can be verified across the EU. The personal data encoded in the certificate does not pass through the gateway, as this is not necessary to verify the digital signature. The  Commission will also help Member States to develop a software that authorities can use to check the QR codes.

The idea is that any EU citizen can provide national proof of vaccination, negative test, or recovery from COVID and that this national proof will be accepted in any other EU country, subject to the specific rules of that country.

On the other hand, the EU does not want to restrict freedom of movement within the EU.

The Digital Green Certificate should facilitate free movement inside the EU. It will not be a pre-condition to free movement, which is a fundamental right in the EU.

For more details on the plans for the Digital Green Certificate, see this European Commission page. Work continues to get the Digital Green Certificate up and running, including approval of technical specifications.

Entities supporting the Digital Green Certificate

Like anything COVID-related, there are entities that support the Digital Green Certificate, and entities that oppose it.

One group of entities that supports the Digital Green Certificate is the European airline industry. Because of the adverse economic effects of COVID travel restrictions, the airline industry not only wants Digital Green Certificates, but it wants them in time for the summer travel season. Here’s an excerpt from a statement from Airlines for Europe (A4E):

A4E welcomed today’s decision by the European Parliament to fast-track the European Commission’s Digital Green Certificates proposal using an Urgent Procedure. A positive decision by the European Council later today would set in motion a vote on the certificates by the end of April, facilitating the European Commission’s plan to have the certificates operational by June….

“With vaccination programmes underway, I am even more confident travel will be possible this summer. Airlines are ready to re-connect Europe and support economic recovery. I look forward to working with A4E members and policy leaders on this critical work ahead”, (A4E Chairman John) Lundgren added.

The “get people on flights” message is loud and clear.

And it’s not just the airlines; this initiative is also supported by the World Travel and Tourism Council and European Travel Commission. And the European Tourism Manifesto. And the European Exhibition Industry Alliance.

And (most importantly!) the general concept is supported by Vince, who though he is no longer in the EU (did I mention Brexit?), wrote this back in April:

#vaccinationcertificates The reason we need mandatory #vaccinationcards is because of the #superspreaders who demonstrated yesterday. Banning them from #pubs#football.#holidays#events etc will force #covididiots to adhere to the rules or stay at home. @LBC

And then there is the view of the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS). They support the idea, but with some qualifications:

Andrea Jelinek, Chair of the EDPB, said: “A Digital Green Certificate that is accepted in all Member States can be a major step forward in re-starting travel across the EU. Any measure adopted at national or EU level that involves processing of personal data must respect the general principles of effectiveness, necessity and proportionality. Therefore, the EDPB and the EDPS recommend that any further use of the Digital Green Certificate by the Member States must have an appropriate legal basis in the Member States and all the necessary safeguards must be in place.”

Wojciech Wiewiórowski, EDPS, said: It must be made clear that the Proposal does not allow for – and must not lead to – the creation of any sort of central database of personal data at EU level. In addition, it must be ensured that personal data is not processed any longer than what is strictly necessary and that access to and use of this data is not permitted once the pandemic has ended. I have always stressed that measures taken in the fight against COVID-19 are temporary and it is our duty to ensure that they are not here to stay after the crisis.”

This raises an interesting point that was also raised (after I left) in the ID4Africa webinar: what will happen to the Digital Green Certificate in the long term? The attendees were polled on this question.

From https://twitter.com/ID4AfricaLive/status/1390311486757744646

Obviously the EDPB and EDPS prefer option 3, in which the Digital Green Certificate disappears once the pandemic is over.

Entities opposing the Digital Green Certificate

But not everyone believes that the Digital Green Certificate is a wonderful thing. Take the attitude of the the Dutch section of the International Commission of Jurists (NJCM), as expressed in a liberties.eu post.

As NJCM explains in a letter to the European Parliament, the EU has set up a system and infrastructure for Green Certificates, but only partially regulates the use of these Green Certificates. This leaves it up to member states to make their use mandatory, or to use Green Certificates in many more areas than just border control. Such mandatory use of Green Certificates may limit the freedom of movement, the right to not be discriminated against, the right to privacy, the right to data protection and, indirectly, the right to the integrity of the person (since the ability to travel is made conditional on undergoing testing or vaccination).

While the UK is (as I may have previously mentioned) outside of the EU, that country’s National Museum Directors’ Council has weighed in on the concept of vaccination certificates in general. Unlike airlines that believe that such certificates will encourage travel, the museum directors think these certificates will actually restrain it.

In the UK, where a government consultation on vaccine passports has proved controversial, a coalition of leading museum directors has spoken out against their potential use in museums. Such a scheme “sits at odds with the public mission and values of museums”, the National Museum Directors’ Council said, warning that it would constitute “an inappropriate form of exclusion and discrimination”. 

And, to be truthful, the existence of any type of vaccine certificate allows a distinction between those who are (believed to be) COVID-free and those who are not. You can use the emotionally-charged word “discrimination” or the less-charged “distinction,” but either way you’re dividing people into two groups.

The only way to remove such a distinction is to automatically assume that everyone has COVID. That could close the museums…

…but at least everyone will be treated equally without discrimination. So that’s a good thing…I guess…

ID4Africa Livecast, “Vaccination Certificates and Identity Management”

Since I’ve discussed vaccination certificates in the past (most recently here), I thought I should alert you of an event later this week that covers the topic.

Parts 1 & 2 of our trilogy on Vaccination Certificates & Identity Management have set the pace for discussions on policy deliberations and innovative solutions in the development of COVID verifiable credentials. Both events continue to be praised as being our best series yet and… there’s still more to come!

Join your host, Dr. Joseph Atick, for a series finale, tour de force coverage on CV19 credentials where he shifts gears with a league of domain experts in a live collaboration searching for a framework for harmonizing national, regional and international efforts in this domain.

The webinar will take place on Thursday, May 6, from 12:30-14:30 GMT (or 14:30-16:30 CEST). That translates to 5:30 am in my timezone, but it looks like there will be a replay if I oversleep.

If you want to attend live, register here.