Dr. Kitchen, thank you. It's an excellent question. It's one that we need to think about.
At some point, although that is not now, this country will have widespread ability to test people who were infected and either developed antibodies or not to the virus. We hope that those who have antibodies are protected from it. There is a little scientific asterisk about whether that's true. I think it is very likely to be true, but there needs to be some more research done in this area, and it's being done quickly.
When we get to the point of being able to test people to ascertain whether they were previously infected, developed antibodies and therefore are likely immune—not with certainty, but likely—it would be helpful to have a scheme in place where we could “passport”, to use that word loosely, those individuals. Could we give them some sort of passport that says they are likely to be immune so that they can be placed in perhaps the most forward-facing, riskiest jobs? That's because with immunity, they're likely to be quite safe compared with those who aren't.
Now, this does get into a complex area of sharing health information and perhaps limiting, for a short emergency period of time, how we use health information in ways that we normally would never want to contemplate. I think unless we take a studied look at that question and are willing to consider using health information in these unusual ways, we'll just end up making our next year more painful and risky than it otherwise needs to be. This is a very good area for Parliament to look at in terms of temporary emergency legislation.