Should the reinstatement certificate be excluded?
For others, the real downside of the CST is the presence of the recovery certificate: the importance attributed to this certificate represents, for some, a brake on vaccination and obtaining the booster.
The message that is sent to people via the certificate of recovery is that they can no longer be infected for a certain period of time.
This January 20, the Brussels Minister of Health Alain Maron defended this observation : according to him, 100,000 people have obtained a certificate of recovery in Brussels since the first of December. According to him, this would lead to “tens of thousands of people vaccinated twice” not to go get their booster.
He believes that these people”shave potentially less incentive to do so, because the message sent to them via the recovery certificate is that they can no longer be infected for a certain period of time“, added the Minister.
For Pedro Facon, two arguments are in favor of the abolition of this certificate. “The first is that having been infected before helps less well against Omicron than vaccination. Certainly, the fact of having contracted the infection protects, but less well than vaccination. The booster, for the commissioner, therefore remains the best solution.
The second argument is related to the objective of the CST: if the purpose of the CST becomes that of promoting vaccination, the presence of a certificate of recovery can only be a deterrent. To this must be added the fact that people seek to catch the virus exclusively to obtain the recovery certificate and thus avoid vaccination. A practice that Pedro Facon — you can imagine — advises against. But, for him, ultimately, the suspension of such a certificate must be decided on the basis of a broader debate on the entire “CST” system. The discussion will therefore have to wait.