Green Pass Policy: A Chronical of a Tragedy Foretold

Dr Shirly Bar-Lev

Green Pass Policy: A Chronical of a Tragedy Foretold

Abstract

Background: Escalation of commitment refers to decision maker’s tendency to persist with or even intensify losing courses of action. This is a common bias especially when responding to highly complex situations in which the timing process is bounded by urgency. Aim: This paper shows how the response patterns of the Israeli government in applying the vaccination incentive program known as the Green Pass Policy instantiates such bias. Design: the study draws on media reports and on a recent survey conducted to study the public’s attitudes towards the incentive program. Conclusion: the study shows that escalation of commitment is accompanied by three self-protecting mechanisms: idealization, splitting, and blaming.

Escalation of commitment refers to decision maker’s tendency to persist with or even intensify losing courses of action (Sleesman, Lennard, McNamara, Conlon, 2018). In a typical escalation situation, large amounts of resources are initially invested, but despite these expenditures, the project is in danger of failing. At this point, the decision maker must decide whether to persist by incurring additional expenses or to abandon by terminating the project, or exploring alternative courses of action (Moser, Wolff, Kraft, 2013). Only now the decision maker is so invested in the project, that he or she is pushed to aggravate the steps taken, and invest further resources (.The Green Pass is an aggressive policy to begin with. It is admittedly designed to pressure citizens to vaccinate, by creating a distinction between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated population vis-à-vis daily routines. Yet, in August and September 2021, despite the policy, the case numbers continue to skyrocket, with over 7,000 new cases reported daily and approximately 600 people hospitalized in serious condition with the disease. This despite over 57% of the country’s 9.3 million citizens have received two doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, and over 3 million of Israel’s 9.3 million people have received a third shot. In response, the Israeli government broadened its scope to infringe on almost all aspects of life. By 8th of August the green pass policy was extended to schools, the Academia, and voluntarily adopted by various organizations in the public and private sectors (even hospitals). Employers quickly used their prerogative to restrict the access of unvaccinated employees to the workplace, and in some cases even terminate their work. By 30th September, holders of Israel’s vaccine passports must get a third dose of the Pfizer -BioNTech vaccine, or lose their green pass that allows them crucial and basic freedoms.

But is the Green Pass policy effective in pushing objectors to vaccinate? A recent study conducted by the Dror (Imri) Aloni Center for Health Informatics reveals that over 58% of the 600 participants in the study said that fear from sanctions was a major factor in their decision to vaccinate. While 24.6% of the participants claimed to vaccinate of fear from sanctions in the workplace. The study showed that 56% of the participants who were fully vaccinated thought that the Green Pass policy’s whole purpose is to pressure people to vaccinate. Even so, 44% of them supported its application. 73% of the unvaccinated participants claimed that the Green Pass policy is a coercive measure, and 76% of the participants who are unvaccinated claimed they were very disturbed by the steps taken to encourage vaccination. The study which was conducted in July-August reveals a staggering decline in trust in both the government and the medical establishment by those who refuse to vaccinate. The greater the distrust, the greater the fear of sanctions. But the greater the fear of sanctions, the more those objecting to vaccinate were adamant not to vaccinate. The erosion of trust found in this study echoes other studies indicating that the Israelis are losing trust in public institutions, with over half saying the country’s democracy is in danger (Plesner, Y and T, Helman, 2020).

Fotaki and Hyde (2015) found that escalation of commitment is more likely to be accompanied by three self-protecting mechanisms: idealization, splitting, and blaming. Idealization occurs when decision makers set unrealistic goals or expectation yielding aggressive policies (i.e. Beating Delta, or reaching herd immunity through vaccination). Splitting refers to a tendency to divide the world into “good” and “evil” (Prime minister Naftali Benett was cited saying: “Dear citizens, those who refuse vaccines are endangering our freedom to work, the freedom of our children to learn and the freedom to hold celebrations with the family”). Blaming involves projecting unwanted parts of the undesirable situation onto those typified as “bad” or “evil”. In this way the evidence of failure is blamed onto the group typified as “evil”, rather than trigger meaningful action to resolve problems.

The Green Pass policy assumes that since people are loss averted, the fear of heavy restrictions, social amenity, and possible loss of income will push them to vaccinate. It also conveniently paints a suitable culprit to be blamed for the strategy’s failed outcomes. Yet, loss aversion also means that this privileged group will insist on holding on to her privileges even when proven that these privileges can put others at risk of infection. This privileged group may also develop a false sense of immunity, causing them to forego protective measures such as wearing masks, and social distancing, putting them even more at risk of spreading the disease without them even knowing. And so, loss aversion may inadvertently motivate the very behaviors policymakers want to prevent. More importantly, it dangerously allows this group to maintain a collective fantasy that the strategy achieves its goals.

Not only does the green policy fall short of achieving its public health goals, it also further erodes the public’s trust in government and the medical establishment, and dangerously binds the decision makers to a damaging course of action. The Israeli government should revoke the green pass policy and instead address the concerns of well-known experts regarding the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, institute a friendly recording system of vaccinated people's reports of side-effects, and restore people’s autonomy over their bodies, and private information.

References

Sleesman, D. J., Lennard, A. C., McNamara, G., & Conlon, D. E. (2018). Putting escalation of commitment in context: A multilevel review and analysis. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 178-207.

Moser, K., Wolff, H. G., & Kraft, A. (2013). The de‐escalation of commitment: Predecisional

accountability and cognitive processes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(2), 363-376.

Plesner, Y and T, Helman, 2020, The Israeli Measure of Democracy. Isareli Institute of democracy, Jerusalem.

Fotaki, M., & Hyde, P. (2015). Organizational blind spots: Splitting, blame and idealization in the National Health Service. Human relations, 68(3), 441-462.

Dr Shirly Bar-Lev is a senior lecturer in Ruppin Academic Center in Israel and the head of the Dror (Imri) Aloni Center for Health Informatics. This article by no way represents the Ruppin Academic Center’s stand or policy. It expresses the author’s opinion only.
shirly.barlev@gmail.com