Who are vaccine passports protecting?

I read an article this morning from an individual incensed by vaccine passports, claiming that they won't work and that they don't protect the vaccinated.

However, the function of vaccine passports is not to protect the vaccinated. It is to help contain and control the spread. 

There is a legitimate point that patrons of a restaurant will be required, but staff will not. But, this is likely much more about legal rights than good or bad planning. Telling a person they can't eat out a restaurant doesn't deprive them of their livelihood. Telling them that they can't work might. So, while I can understand the frustration around that double standard, let's just ignore that for the moment. It likely is a necessary legal evil.

Back to the topic at hand. Who do vaccine passports actually help? Well, technically everyone. Which, amusingly means, primarily the UN-vaccinated. In short, if there is a target demographic (which I doubt there is) it is actually the very people who are complaining that it won't protect the very people it is least meant to protect.

How effective are they? That is debatable. I think that the jury is still out on that. That answer is that it should be better than nothing. But, less effective than another lockdown. After all, the real political objective is to avoid more lockdowns. How effective they will be will depend on whether or not the places where they are required are really the worst offenders for creating outbreaks and if the rules are actually enforced.

If, for instance, the bulk of cases would have started in these places and the rules are enforced then the results should actually be pretty close to as effective as a lockdown. If these places are not truly the primary sources of outbreaks then there will still be an impact, but it will be muted.

So, if you're expecting vaccine passports to end the pandemic or even to have as sharp an impact as lockdowns did, you're most likely going to be disappointed. The hope is really twofold; firstly, to slow the spread enough to ease the pressure on the healthcare system and secondly, there is likely some hopes that this move will promote broader vaccination. 

What we REALLY need though is a vaccine approved for children. With school starting up again, what I think epidemiologists are missing when setting vaccination targets is the pervasiveness of children. I don't think that our vaccination rates in general are the problem. I think it is that they are completely absent in a segment of society which is more or less everywhere. Vaccinated and unvaccinated families have children, young and old families have children and grandchildren. 

There are really very few demographics which do not have direct or indirect interactions with children. So, I think this is actually compromising the statistical effectiveness of current vaccination rates. And school is going to make that worse. 

I suspect that even lower vaccination rates would be more effective than current ones if those included children under the age of 12. I understand that the problem there is really that there are no such approved vaccines. However, I would say that out "effective vaccination rate" is nowhere near as high as our actual vaccination rates.