IMPORTANT (CovPassCheck): Add a 'Booster'-Info to the "Certificate valid"-Screen...

[Jo-Achim]

Avoid duplicates

• This enhancement request has not already been raised before, but discussed; e.g. Information über Booster bei CovPassCheck or CovPass shows the date of a booster vaccination as "Vollständig seit dd.mm.yyyy" and not the date of the last required vaccination or ...
• This problem exists under Android (and iOS, I think).

Current Implementation

If vaccination certificates are scanned with CovPassCheck (v1.13.3), the current situation is as follows:
A scan of a vaccination certificate (e.g. BionTech 2 of 3) delivers "Certificate valid".
A scan of a vaccination certificate (e.g. BionTech 3 of 3) from the same person also provides "certificate valid".
That is correct so far.

Suggested Enhancement

Against the background of the new regulation, which has already been partially introduced, that 'boosted' people no longer need an additional corona test, this 'boosted' information must be displayed as additional information in CovPassCheck (and CWA).

According to current information, the above-mentioned regulation - i.e. no additional tests for 'boosted' / people with a booster vaccination - should be decided in the coming week for all of Germany.

Expected Benefits

This is the only way to determine at a glance whether an additional corona test is actually necessary or not during an access control, for example.

E.g.:

"Booster #1" is an idea to count boosters when more than one booster (i.e. a second, third, ...) booster is needed.

Additional context

When making the solution, it must certainly be taken into account that further booster vaccinations will be necessary for the future and of course all vaccine combinations must be taken into account when determining the 'booster'.

[vaubaehn]

Vote +1 that this is important.

It may also be integrated/combined together with #107 .
Serial scanning of certificates will be necessary to identify booster certificates (2/2) for J&J jabbed people (1/1): Both the J&J vaccination DCC and the Booster DCC need to be scanned to recognize the 2/2 as a booster.
As many people are affected, implementation of the issue here together with #107 should be done asap.

[Ein-Tim]

This is, in the very end, a duplicate of Digitaler-Impfnachweis/covpass-ios#73. But since this issue only underlines how important this change would be, I'm fine with leaving it open.

[oliver-steinbrecher]

Thanks for requesting this feature. We're currently refining enhancements to address this situation. Instead of showing more details on the verification result screen in the CheckApp we're going to add verification settings. This setting can be enabled and results in handling 2G+ situations equally with test or booster. Feature is planned to be delivered in release 1.17 .

[Ein-Tim]

@oliver-steinbrecher Any ETA? We're at 1.13 now, so this could take till beginning of February, I assume?

[oliver-steinbrecher]

Yes

[Jo-Achim]

@oliver-steinbrecher,

is it possible to change the prioritization? Or are planned changes up to v.1.17 more important? Or is the workload so high?

(I know that all discussions about the relief for boosted people are a bit open in view of Omicron - according to today's reports, a decision should be made before Christmas.
On the other hand, such reliefs could promote vaccination readiness, relieve test laboratories, ...!?)

[oliver-steinbrecher]

We’re aware of the topic’s importance. Currently I can’t confirm anything else.

[Jo-Achim]

It can currently be assumed that today (01/07/2022), at least for the gastronomy in Germany, “2G plus” (2G +) will be decided and will therefore come into force in the next few days.
“2G plus” (2G +) means, that only fully vaccinated persons plus a negative corona test or only fully vaccinated persons plus a booster vaccination have access to the gastronomy (and possibly other areas).

So we need - especially for the controls - on the one hand a practicable handling to check the "complete vaccination incl. test" and on the other hand the "complete vaccination incl. booster vaccination". This seems to me to be a must and ideally should be available at the same time as the regulation comes into force.

In relation to the title here: Add a 'Booster'-Info to the "Certificate valid"-Screen... to CovPassCheck as soon as possible!

[Jo-Achim]

“2G plus” (2G +) means, that only fully vaccinated persons plus a negative corona test or only fully vaccinated persons plus a booster vaccination have access to the gastronomy (and possibly other areas).

And already decided!

See e.g.: Bund und Länder einigen sich auf 2G plus für Gastronomie – deutschlandweit

In Deutschland ist der Zutritt zu Restaurants, Kneipen, Bars und Cafés für doppelt Geimpfte und Genesene bald nur noch mit einem tagesaktuellen negativen Schnelltest möglich. Darauf haben sich Bund und Länder in einer gemeinsamen Videoschalte verständigt.
Die sogenannte 2G-plus-Regel gilt demnach bundesweit und unabhängig von der lokalen Inzidenz. Ausgenommen von der Testpflicht sind geboosterte Personen ab dem Tag ihrer Auffrischungsimpfung. Wer weder Impf- noch Genesenennachweis erbringen kann, bleibt der Zutritt in gastronomische Betriebe gänzlich verwehrt.

[RobTho]

will apply to NRW by 13. January 2022, see:
https://www.mags.nrw/pressemitteilung/aenderung-der-corona-schutzverordnung-ausnahmen-von-der-testpflicht-fuer
Additionally also you need no extra test, if you are fully vaccinated but without booster and are recovered from covid19, too

[no-go]

The EU has explicitly ensured that the QR code can also be presented in paper form without a cell phone. As of today, I am therefore lost in NRW, as the CovPassCheck app cannot distinguish a Booser from an ordinary vaccination at entrance. So I have to get tested despite booster or use again the 40 years old WHO vaccination certificate.

[no-go]

Is there anyone with write access to make a review on that pull request? #156

[sleeksorrow]

FWIW: There are news articles out there where the German Federal Ministry of Health (Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, BMG) states that CovPassCheck App will not be changed to address this issue, mainly for data privacy reasons.
https://netzpolitik.org/2022/booster-nachweis-covpasscheck-app-nutzlos-bei-einigen-corona-regeln/

No idea if this ministry is capable to decide over an open source project, tho.

[Ein-Tim]

@sleeksorrow

As the app is published by the RKI (see https://digitaler-impfnachweis-app.de/impressum), which is, according to https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/Institut/institut_node.html, "[...] ein Bundesinstitut im Geschäftsbereich des Bundesministeriums für Gesundheit."

So, in the end, I think: Yes, they can decide.

[oliver-steinbrecher]

FWIW: There are news articles out there where the German Federal Ministry of Health (Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, BMG) states that CovPassCheck App will not be changed to address this issue, mainly for data privacy reasons. https://netzpolitik.org/2022/booster-nachweis-covpasscheck-app-nutzlos-bei-einigen-corona-regeln/

No idea if this ministry is capable to decide over an open source project, tho.

This article does not reflect the reality. As already said improvements are planed for release 1.17 . Further improvements related to booster detection are planned for release 1.18.

[sleeksorrow]

Thank you very much for the swift clarification.

[HappyLuke]

FWIW: There are news articles out there where the German Federal Ministry of Health (Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, BMG) states that CovPassCheck App will not be changed to address this issue, mainly for data privacy reasons. https://netzpolitik.org/2022/booster-nachweis-covpasscheck-app-nutzlos-bei-einigen-corona-regeln/

No idea if this ministry is capable to decide over an open source project, tho.

I guess this is simple missinterpretation. If I understood correctly @oliver-steinbrecher they are implementing an enhanced solution to check 3g/2g/2g+ and whatever solution. The required enhancement stated in the article proposes to show the number/date of vaccination. This ministry is stating that this would not be able to implement. Checking for specific rules does not explicitly reveal more information, but is only checking for a logic in the background, so this is a different case and must be validated by data privacy department. (I assume this has already been done but not yet published).

Though I understand the CWA and the CovPass projects should be open source projects. In regards to that it is very helpful and supporting that people can raise questions and issues via GitHub. Anyhow I cannot understand why the developers do not share more information and actually discuss the requirement in more details. Making applications open source can only enhance the user experience efficiently if all stakeholders incl. the users are part of the full application life cycle. This includes the business analysis and requirement refinement process.
For this specific, very crucial topic I cannot see any further discussions. In worst case this might result in a feature which is not accepted and used by the user. So it would be very helpful for all of us if you can include people here into the discussions.
Thank you!

[Kamik423]

Just some more thoughts:

1. In most parts of Germany J&J + one booster are enough to make one count as boosted, however Bavaria has there own rules where a third vaccination is required. This has to be addressed as well.
2. Due to format limitations 2G + Booster requires two scanning passes. It should also indicate then if it scanned a test certificate or a vaccination one since most people don't put their test certificate into the CovPassApp as a EUDCC is very hard to get for a test.

In my opinion (as discussed in Digitaler-Impfnachweis/covpass-ios#96) it would be best to provide the CovPassCheckApp operator with a menu something like this:

Valid checks:
[ ] Test
[ ] Vaccination
[X] Booster
[X] Vaccination + Test

As it is the most transparent, flexible and (in my opinion) intuitive interface for this.

[Jo-Achim]

@Kamik423,
thank you for your hints.
However, care should be taken to make it as easy as possible for the CovPassCheckApp operator. In particular, if he has to check a large number of certificates plus one ID document each. Finally, the acceptance of the measures also depends on their practical feasibility.

[al-Iskandar]

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ch.admin.bag.covidcertificate.verifier since many weeks...

[boecko]

Just wait till the wave is through. So you don't have to implement that feature.
Seriously

• There are old people, who don't take their smartphone to every place.
• So I've printed their QRCode on a plastic card with a Zebra Card Printer.
• They were denied to enter a swimming pool, because no one could verify their Booster-Status

Am I supposed to print "3 of 3" on the card, so "Otto-Normal"-people accept the state of vaccination, which is in the QRCode?

[Karl-WE]

@oliver-steinbrecher as long there is no other PR for this I would like to propose the following.
Please check if this is consistent with your plans for 1.18 Release:

1. Use day and time from the app polling ntp from ptb time.

Reason: while the chance is minimal a manipulation or offset e. g. wrong summer/winter time from the mobile provider could lead to wrong expiration calculations of vaccination status. Now that the rules get more complicated and involve expiration based on number of days, allowance to boost after x days, etc correct time is essential. See also (#97)

2. While the CovPass / Check app is designed for use in different countries I would propose that the at least of not both apps check should offer the ability to

• select
• save
• change

a country, a german federal state or other country from a dropdown list in app settings. The new version should point out that before a check a valid country and or state has to be set up.

This would reflect the flexibility needed when checking the credibility of the recovery and or vaccination status in different regions, due to quite unfortunate regional regulations, that are by no means covered at the moment.

3. Covpass check app but also the regular app should provide an easy indicator about the overall status of the person at a glance.
   Again depending the selected country and / or federal state, point 2.

Message:
Status of Person < Boostered or
Vaccinated or
Recovered >
due to Regulation of < countryv>, < state if applicable > from < effective date of regulation >, until < effective date until the state expires or degrades >
Lastest relevant QR Code to scan

~~4.

• selection
• save
• change

the entrance regulations in Covpass check app settings (2G, 2G plus, 3G etc.) ~~
Obsolete already exist in 1.17.

5. Ultimately showing in the Covpass Check App whether according to selection of point 4 and point 2 a further (quick) test has to be Provided for entrance allowance.

Message:
Person < Boostered or
Vaccinated or
Recovered >
due to regulation of < country >, < state if applicablev> from < effective date of regulation >, until < effective date until the state expires or degrades >
Latest relevant QR Code to scan
According to the regulations the person
needs / does not need to provide an additional test < max age of test / valid test procedere > for entrance allowance in compliance with < 2G,2G+, 3G/etc >

6. For both Apps a clear indicator, in concordance with point 2 when a person has a degraded or invalid state

Usecase: this allows a self control next to the check app to avoid missing a new effective regulation that affects the state.
e. g. J&J,

If I missed anything please feel free to add.
It's important that we try to catch all the complexity brought into that, because as others noted the ability to check the Covid-19 protection of a person is crucial for the usefulness of the apps.

Hope this list can be double checked against the 1.18 release plans and it helps to make this important release most successful.
As others said, I understand the dependencies for such changes but time isn't in our favor.

Currently there is a high risk for wrong entrance allowances.

Thanks for your time and feedback!

[Ein-Tim]

@Karl-WE

While the CovPass / Check app is designed for use in different countries I would propose that the at least of not both apps check should offer the ability to

• select
• save
• change
  a country, a german federal state or other country from a dropdown list in app settings.

Do you have an overview over the different rules in the different federal states?
Again, I don't know what leads you to the conclusion that the CovPassCheck-App is intended to be used outside of Germany.

EDIT: Seems like something is planned for 1.18: Digitaler-Impfnachweis/covpass-ios#73 (comment)

[Karl-WE]

Hello @Ein-Tim personally I don't have a list of all regulations per country / federal state. This could be either collected in a PR for future updates by the community or become the responsibility of the owners.

I have some where found a list in which EU countries outside of Germany the apps are supported, but unfortunately I didn't bookmark this reference. It was missing some bigger countries like Spain but included smaller countries like Andorra.

[Ein-Tim]

@Karl-WE

personally I don't have a list of all regulations per country / federal state. This could be either collected in a PR for future updates by the community or become the responsibility of the owners.

It's okay that you don't have such a list, the problem is that even BMG/RKI seem to not have such a list.
Therefore, I'm also thrilled to see how the implementation in 1.18 will be.

I have some where found a list in which EU countries outside of Germany the apps are supported, but unfortunately I didn't bookmark this reference. It was missing some bigger countries like Spain but included smaller countries like Andorra.

Yes, this is where the apps can be downloaded, however, Spain and all other EU countries have their own wallet & check apps. So CovPasCheck doesn't have to include their rules.

[Karl-WE]

Sounds like a typical case of german regulations.

[sleeksorrow]

I don't think that CovPassCheck should know and evaluate all regulations from all regions and locations. I assume it's impossible to keep up with that.

But as of now its still not possible to gain all information from the output that is needed for a decision in 2G+ scenarios to decide if an additional test is needed or not. This is the most important thing: Show all needed info. Like "Booster #1 XX days ago" or maybe just "Immunisation 3/3 XX days ago" or similar, which at the moment means the same as "fully boostered". It can be made prettier afterwards.

Of course the date of last immunisation is a sensitive information, but as government has decided that this value is part of the rules, it's obviously okay to share.

[Karl-WE]

Thank you for your opinion @sleeksorrow. Looking forward for the implementation in 1.18. Especially for the CovPass Check app. Without doubt it is confusing and from a programmatical point of view the solution should be sustainable.

I do not expect a near end of the situation and more boosters and / or more dependencies, this should be considered in the code. That's why I drafted a wide range solution from the logical point of view. As the app is owned by the RKI they should have all regulations that are valid for Germany, or they need to establish a political or business process to assure they receive the information, as @Ein-Tim mentioned they do not publish it at the moment.

Currently, even though offtopic for the PR, the discussion about the recovered state and the duration shows that the political decisions favor a central publication for Germany of the regulations, but this is a heated debate, and is currently only tied to the recovery, not other aspects, afaik.

[Kamik423]

@sleeksorrow I disagree. The point of the app is to make checking regulations easier. This entails not juggling a bunch of numbers in your head to match against. Its entire purpose is it to show a big green check mark if a certificate is valid for entry and a big red x if it is not.

[mirabilos]

Hans dixit: ***@***.*** I disagree. The point of the app is to make checking ***@***.*** easier. This entails not juggling a bunch of numbers in ***@***.*** head to match against. Its entire purpose is it to show a big ***@***.*** check mark if a certificate is valid for entry and a big red x ***@***.*** it is not. But this makes checking regulations harder or impossible because regulations change, or there may be site-local, venue-local, usecase-local etc. requirements (by law or by site/venue policy).

[sleeksorrow]

I'd appreciate if the app can make checking easier and I approve any steps towards this even if I assume as well that this is technically impossible. But before we can make checking easier, we first need to make checking possible which it is not as of now without displaying the age of latest immunization.

[Karl-WE]

all regulations are logical, so I suspect they can be coded. Depending on the structure it should be flexible enough to adjust the result to a number of combinations. I hope that the developers will also comment the ideas here. It's too important to get things wrong. Clock is ticking.

[sleeksorrow]

all regulations are logical

I need to know all regulations first before I can decide on that statement. Please list them all in complete, for all german states, with all their requirements and all their exceptions. I'm desperately searching for such a list since May 2020.

so I suspect they can be coded

I don't think that they can be coded (edited because I mistranslated your sentence before). That's why I disagree and they should be second objective at best.

Clock is ticking.

Indeed, that's why we need to show all raw information from the vaccination code so that as soon as possible the checking person even has a chance to decide, instead of investing weeks on the perfect shiny solution that comes too late then.

[Ein-Tim]

@sleeksorrow

I need to know all regulations first before I can decide on that statement. Please list them all in complete, for all german states, with all their requirements and all their exceptions. I'm desperately searching for such a list since May 2020.

This is really the problem here, it seems like neither the RKI, nor the BMG have a public list over all the different regulations in the federal states. The development teams of the apps have to search the information by themselves and make sure they always update the information.

[Kamik423]

As stated in a post by me above, I think the best way would be to include a UI like this:

Valid checks:
[ ] Antigen Test
[ ] PCR Test
[ ] Vaccination
[X] Booster
[X] Vaccination + Test

There should be preset buttons (2G, 3G, 2G+) but it should have local concepts for what constitutes those (I.e. if 2G+ is fulfilled by a booster) and what counts as a booster (I.e. 2/1 or only 3/3).

I think this is the necessary thing to do, as this can cover all options that will be needed while remaining intuitive, accessible and flexible.

[sleeksorrow]

@Kamik423 I fully agree to keep it simple and let the checking person evaluate. I just want to mention that your proposal does not cover all options, because in 2G+ situations in some (all? dunno) federal states a full vaccination without booster can be enough without the additional test, if the date of immunization is less than 90 days. That's why the app needs to show the days since last immunization.

[Jo-Achim]

No question - of course there is a basic logic that can or could also be programmed. But the many, partly local, exceptions, their half-lives, etc. can quickly undermine a basic logic or make it significantly more difficult or even impossible to program it.

A good example is the shortening of the convalescent status to 3 months, introduced overnight - which is now being overturned by the courts. Under such framework conditions - and that was just a very simple example - I don't want to be a programmer / person in charge!
Unfortunately, neither the causes nor the consequences are seen correctly everywhere.
In this respect, comparisons with (foreign) apps are correct and important, but not always helpful because the structures there are perhaps a little more stringent.

Nevertheless, time is ticking. Also because increasing loosening is at least being discussed, which wants to reduce or even end access restrictions.
However, I am afraid that we will not be lucky enough not to experience access restrictions again in the coming autumn / winter. Seen in this way, we may then experience the same discussion again.

[Karl-WE]

based on the information of Android the app is published by the RKI so ultimately, they should have the responsibility about the reliability of checks @Ein-Tim. We are note discussing an entire open source application which is maintained by people in their free time, do we?

[Dale81]

@Karl-WE absolutely true, it not only a free-time project. Even if we do not know what is going on behind the scenes, I am also wondering why the app is not reliable at the moment. I know I am repeating this wherever I post something, but for me the currently "classic" example is the one-dose Johnson & Johnson vacc which is still represented valid as "fully vaccinated" - which is not true anymore. I don't have a recovery certificate at hand which would be over 90 days but still under 180 to check this, but I assume it would also still be valid even the 90 days rule came in.

Can someone explain what the business rules are ment for as they are show in the app to be updated every now and then. I thought, these rules may include exactly these cases which could be updated ad hoc without a real app update via stores.

I really would like to understand this logic.

[boecko]

This is by no means a free-time project CovPass wird fünfmal so teuer wie geplant

Knapp 15,4 Millionen Euro kosten der digitale Impfnachweis CovPass und die damit verbundenen Clouddienste das Gesundheitsministerium und damit deutlich mehr als ursprünglich vorgesehen.

[dadaphl]

I think the 3g,2g+ check feature is broken and should better be removed entirely at this point.

For example, there is no SINGLE certificate that can combine vaccinated-recovered-vaccinated status. This certificate simply can not be created in the pharmacies due to fact that the certificates are given by the EU. A certificate for the second vaccine will simply omit the information about the recovery. As the app currently only has one active certificate and checks are performed only on a single cert, it will show "Certificate does not fulfill all conditions" when 14 days haven't passed since the second shot.
In many states (Berlin for example) this constellation qualifies as "Boostered" and there is no 14 days waiting time required.

I think it would be better if the CovPassCheck App simply shows if the certificate is valid in general and not in regard to wrongly interpreted rules (that keep changing faster than the release cycle of this app anyway).

It creates a lot of confusion and distrust among personal that is using the app to check validity. Imagine, they are dealing with all those edge cases several times a day. Many don't seem to take "Invalid Certificate" serious anymore. This is my personal observation. I have been chasing the reasons and responsibilities behind this edge case now since a week as I am one of the affected.

The RKI doesn't make the rules, it just releases guidelines. The states implement rules inspired by the RKI guidelines. The wording in those rules (Verordnungen) is ambiguous and fuzzy. If you call the authorities (Gesundheitsamt, Senatskanzlei, Corona Hotline) in Berlin 5 times you get 5 different interpretations on their own rules. I think the developers can not expect to be given an "up to date" list of the regulations in the different states because it seems there is no authority that is responsible for such information.

Due to the complex nature of the problem, it is understandable that the App can not keep up. Please redesign the features in a way that it makes the users (personal that checks 3g/2g+) feel responsible to make their own judgement of the situation. At the moment, the app is misleading and wrongfully denying entry to perfectly immunized people.

PS: the swiss "Covid Check" app seems to be able to validate my certificate as 2g+. Not sure what they are doing different but it shows that my certificate is valid in general.

[treysis]

The way it's currently going is just vain endeavor. Always too late, still too confusing. I was trying to keep up with it but even I am now lost as what constitutes what. A solution could be to have the rule set separately on the server, so not everyone has to wait for a new app release.

PS: Anyways, there are still fake mickey mouse certificates going around from over 3 months ago. So what's all the fuzz. This project is lost effort.

[Jo-Achim]

@dadaphl wrote:

I think the 3g,2g+ check feature is broken and should better be removed entirely at this point.
...
It creates a lot of confusion and distrust among personal that is using the app to check validity. Imagine, they are dealing with all those edge cases several times a day.
...
PS: the swiss "Covid Check" app seems to be able to validate my certificate as 2g+. Not sure what they are doing different but it shows that my certificate is valid in general.

In fact, today was the first time I experienced that a valid 'booster certificate' (my wife's) shown with CovPass (v 1.17.0) was supposedly invalid.
This is surprising because my vaccination certificate (we were vaccinated on the same dates with the same vaccines) was valid. My wife has a paper printout of her DCC for such cases - apparently (tested with the same smartphone) that was also displayed as invalid.

Unfortunately, there was no way of clarifying the circumstances, but the readable text "3/3" in the paper DCC led to admission. Since I assume that testing was done with CovPassCheck, I suspect either an operator error or an old version of the app.
Are such possible 'operator errors' known?

Back home I checked the supposedly invalid certificate with a second Android smartphone (CovPassCheck v1.17.0) - and it is displayed as valid under "Check 3G" (and under "Check 2G+" as "2G proof valid").

Conclusion: I still don't think that the checks mentioned above are broken or that they are superfluous.
As already mentioned, they just come a little late against the background of the opening discussion that is beginning - at least for the current wave of infections.
And that solutions regarding testability are basically possible is already in the PS.

[dadaphl]

Conclusion: I still don't think that the checks mentioned above are broken or that they are superfluous.

Are you refering to the checkes mentioned in your own text or mine? It seems like that the operator made a mistake or the app was not up to date in your case. In my case however the apps are up to date and I can assure you there is no operator error going on. The checks are broken in the CovPassCheck app.

[Jo-Achim]

@dadaphl:
Your question is easy to answer. I was essentially referring to

• the quote from your post,
• my experience yesterday,
• their unclear circumstances and
• my question is whether the problem described in this way is known.

In this respect I think it would be helpful if you open your own bug report and name all the circumstances you are aware of. So which smartphone was used, which operating system, which app version, ... was scanned from paper or from an display on another smartphone, how often the problem occurred / occurs etc.
These statements would surely help the app developers to find and eliminate any problems that may arise.

Why / what is the background to this? I remember several problems around certificate scanning. Be it that the smartphone libraries used had difficulties, be it that cell phone cameras didn't always want to focus or something similar.
To what extent these problems only applied to CovPass / CovPassCheck or the CWA, I don't know much, but the developers will know.

Therefore, from my point of view, my conclusion remains.

[Ein-Tim]

@Jo-Achim

Did you check with version 1.18? When scanning a booster certificate in the 2G+-Modus, the app will show "Auffrischimpfung gültig", see:

Do you want to close this issue as implemented?

[Jo-Achim]

@Ein-Tim,

yes, the result of a 2G+ check is now displayed as shown.

With that I will close this point.
Although the text "Scan the necessary documents for 2G+ one by one." could be adjusted according to the switch position "No test necessary for booster vaccinations". Because if that switch is 'on' then there's no more evidence to scan for 2G+, right?