The new year starts on January 1, but in Spain, with its long and unusual Christmas holidays, it doesn’t really get going until January 7, once the Three Kings have departed. On January 7, 2020, the lower house of parliament, the Congress of Deputies, swore in Pedro Sánchez as prime minister. That same day, in China, scientists discovered what was causing strange cases of pneumonia in the province of Hubei: a virus similar to the one that caused SARS, a disease that rocked a number of Asian countries in 2003 and disappeared several months later. The script for 2020 changed forever. Back then, no one could have imagined what was soon to arrive: from the biggest pandemic the world has seen in generations, to a vaccine created in record time to eradicate it. It’s been a year of masks, lockdowns, social distancing, PCR tests and curve-flattening. A year when we could no longer hug one another.
January. A far-off threat
On January 7 no one outside specialist circles was paying much attention to the virus. While it would emerge later that China was hiding evidence that it could be transmitted from person to person, at the time it was thought that it could only move from animals to people. The wet market in Wuhan was closed as a likely source of the outbreak, and from then on, it was thought that there would be no further problems. Several days after the genetic code of the virus was sequenced, it was made public so that other countries could prepare PCR tests to identify it. China, on paper, was being swift and transparent, in contrast to its approach to SARS, when its secrecy delayed a solution to the problem for months.
Everything changed on January 20. And from then on events took place at a vertiginous speed. On that day, China admitted that the virus could be passed from human to human. That turned the strategy for dealing with it upside down. The country was still only officially recognizing 300 cases and six deaths, but the potential for the damage it could cause was now being looked at in a different light – in particular within the borders of the Asian giant. Practically no one at that point was considering the possibility of a pandemic. Three days later, China locked down the city of Wuhan. The virus became front-page news in all newspapers, and – apart from a few moments of respite – would stay there until now.
Millions of people were locked in their homes, unable to leave their city. The world looked on incredulous at what was happening. “This would be unthinkable in a democratic country,” analysts said over and over again. While the World Health Organization (WHO) was debating whether or not to declare an international emergency, something it had only done on five occasions in the 20th century, in Spain the news began to spark interest given that 23 Spaniards who lived in Wuhan were trying to return to their home country. On January 24, Fernando Simón, the director of the Health Ministry’s Coordination Center for Health Alerts (CCAES), made his first statement. He was not a completely unknown figure, given that he was the spokesperson during the 2014 ebola crisis in Spain, but practically no one remembered him.
Almost casually, Simón announced that there had been two suspected cases that were being analyzed. But that tests had come back negative and that Spain would be vigilant for the virus. On January 30, the WHO declared an international emergency and on January 31 Spain’s National Microbiology Center in Majadahonda detected the first positive case. It was a German citizen who was on vacation in the Canary Island of La Gomera. That day, Simón uttered a phrase that will likely follow him around for the rest of his life: “Spain will not have, at the most, more than a few cases diagnosed.”
February. The virus spreads across the world
Silently, the virus was already spreading throughout the globe. While there was only a handful of infections outside of China, later it would emerge that the coronavirus was preparing the ground to explode and become a pandemic, something that the WHO did not recognize until March 11.
February was the month that the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona was canceled, despite the indignation of local administrations and the surprise of the majority of epidemiologists. It was also the month when the virus ripped through Italy. The epidemic was no longer thousands of kilometers away, but rather just hundreds. But in Spain it still felt very far away. “This couldn’t happen to us,” many citizens thought, backed by a government that was trying to convey a sense of calm and that delayed a number of decisions because the virus was, in theory anyway, under control.
But you can’t detect something if you’re not looking for it. Spain had a very limited capacity to carry out tests, meaning that the definition of a case was still very restricted. It was a fish that was eating its own tail – more tests could not be carried out, without more tests more cases could not be detected, and without more cases there was supposedly no need to take drastic measures.
March. The state of alarm
March began with a steady stream of cases, all of them apparently under control. The turning point came on March 8. The central government had opted not to cancel large events, and sports matches, political rallies and demonstrations continued as if nothing had changed. While the 8-M feminist marches – which were attended by many high-profile politicians from the Socialist Party (PSOE)-Unidas Podemos coalition government – were the focus of much media attention and criticism afterward, they were just one of the events that went ahead that weekend. And, given what we now know about how the virus is transmitted, they were not exactly the most dangerous.
But what changed on that day had little to do with these crowds. On the same afternoon, the CCAES received a report from the Madrid region – in Spain, each of the regional governments is in charge of its own healthcare system. That week, the region reported, the number of positive cases had been rising at a steady rate, and on that very Sunday, 234 had been confirmed in a single day. This information was not made public until the next day, and it was the first thing that prompted the central Health Ministry to suspect that the epidemic was out of control.
The health minister, Salvador Illa, made a statement the next day to recommend that citizens did not make unnecessary journeys. And the Madrid region opted to suspend classes in schools and universities. The CCAES did not see the point in this latter measure, given that it would prompt the movement around the country of students and teachers, and would count for little without suspending the rest of the country’s activity.
Preparations began for a decree that would be approved by the Cabinet on March 14, 24 hours after the prime minister made a televised address announcing that a state of alarm was imminent. By that point, the atmosphere in the Spanish capital was already strange. Children weren’t going to school and a lot of companies had already introduced working from home.
On March 14, a state of alarm that would last 98 days began, seeing most of the country’s population confined to their homes for around two months. That night also saw the first round of applause for healthcare workers, a nightly practice that would last for even longer.
But the lockdown was insufficient. The country’s hospitals were already close to being overwhelmed and if more drastic measures were not taken the tragedy would be even greater. That was what prompted Pedro Sánchez, advised by a group of scientists, to hibernate the economy completely, and allow only essential activity to continue. This phase began on March 29, and lasted for 15 days. The last day of that month, Spain saw the highest number of infections reported in this first wave: 9,222, a completely unreal number not just due to the delay in notifications from hospitals but also because around that time it has been estimated that only one in 10 infections were being officially recorded. But it was symbolic: this was the day that the curve was flattened. Two weeks of confinement had done their job, but there was a long road still ahead.
April. Hospitals and senior homes overwhelmed
While new cases had reached their peak and deaths would do so shortly after (950 Covid-related fatalities were reported on April 2), the distress in hospitals and care homes would still continue for weeks. There was a lack of personal protective equipment (PPE), staff, beds and respirators. The state of alarm had arrived in time for most of the regions, and they were able to attend to everyone who needed it. But this was not the case in Madrid, Catalonia, the Basque Country and some cities in Castilla-La Mancha and Castilla y León.
In these locations triage was necessary in order to deal with the sickest patients, and thousands of seniors, in particular in Madrid, were left abandoned to their fate in residences. It was still difficult to conceive the painful toll that the virus would take in senior homes, which were one of the main focal points of the crisis and uncovered structural problems in the system.
Up to mid-November, more than 24,500 died in social services residences (including homes for the disabled) with either confirmed Covid or compatible symptoms. In the first wave, many of these victims did not receive the medical attention they needed, and were unable to say goodbye to their relatives. What’s more, their carers were ever fewer as they also came down with the illness.
This was also the month of one of the symbols of the pandemic: face masks. Until then, international organizations did not consider them to be essential, partly because at that point the virus was unknown and also, to a great extent, demand for the items was having a drastic effect on supply.
Given the possibility that healthcare workers would run out of masks (something that happened), the authorities opted not to recommend their use. But on April 8 the European Center for Disease Control (ECDC) admitted that they could be useful to prevent infections. Two days later, Health Minister Illa recommended their use on public transport and in the workplace, a measure that would soon become obligatory in all public places.
But while the situation was extreme in hospitals in the month of April, there were also the first rays of hope on the horizon. The lockdown in Spain was one of the toughest in the Western world and was starting to take its toll. There were widespread calls for, at least, children to be allowed out after six weeks inside, something that was permitted from April 26. Youngsters could go out for an hour a day, accompanied by an adult, and only a kilometer away from their home. The deescalation process had got off to a timid start.
May. The deescalation
The Spanish government managed to secure the support it needed from other parties to prolong the state of alarm on a fortnightly basis, but it was becoming more and more difficult to do so. A team of advisors was working on the deescalation plan, which was being designed to get the country back to some kind of normality – or the new normality, as the prime minister would describe it. It was to be an asymmetrical and progressive plan that each region would implement according to the epidemiological situation and the pressure on local hospitals. Phase 1 of the plan would begin on May 11 apart from for four of the country’s islands: Formentera, El Hierro, La Gomera and La Graciosa. With no cases reported for some days, they turned into a testing ground a week beforehand.
With the deescalation process, conflict between some regional governments and the central administration broke out. Until then there had been differences and some tugs-of-war, in particular involving the Madrid region. But these were pushed aside due to the severity of the situation. When the worst was over, however, these differences became more and more evident.
Despite reports from her own health department that advised against it, the Popular Party premier of Madrid, Isabel Díaz Ayuso, flew up a flag that she still carries to this day, touting Madrid as a symbol of “freedom” in the face of the government’s restrictions, which she considered to be excessive. As the coronavirus data continued to improve, more and more regional governments called for the state of alarm to be lifted so that they could regain their powers and manage the situation for themselves.
June. The end of the state of alarm
While the deescalation was designed to end at the beginning of July, the lack of support and pressure from opposition parties and regions prompted the government to bring it to an end on June 22. That was the end of the state of alarm and a chance for the regions to take a step toward the new normality. Some restrictions remained in place, but there was a general relaxation when Spain registered eight cases per 100,000 inhabitants over thee previous 14 days, the lowest figure seen since the start of the crisis and one that has not been seen since then – by a long, long way.
July. The start of the second wave
As the measures were relaxed, so the cases began to rise. The second wave started to take shape, very slowly. At this point, as at the start of the pandemic, there was a trickle of cases being detected. The seed was planted among seasonal workers in Aragón, which became the first region that had to reverse the deescalation process, and then it was the turn of Catalonia. From that point all of the regions started to react to the rise in cases with tightened measures.
August. Nightlife is canceled
It seemed impossible to believe, but the situation began to get out of control once more. Without enough capacity for tracking and tracing, Spain was leading a second wave that was yet to arrive in other European countries. The focus was on youngsters and nightlife, prompting the Health Ministry and the regions to approve a raft of measures that included the closure of nightlife – something that remains in force today and is unlikely to be modified for several months yet.
September. Madrid, the epicenter of controversy
Madrid was both the epicenter of the pandemic in Europe and of controversy in Spain. With cases rising non-stop, regional premier Isabel Ayuso was unwilling to take drastic measures and so the central government opted to intervene. At a meeting between the Health Ministry and regional chiefs, a majority voted to impose more restrictive measures on mobility in areas where there were more than 500 cases per 100,000 inhabitants over a 14-day period, where the positivity rate of tests was in excess of 10%, and where the rate of intensive care unit (ICU) beds by Covid patients was above 35%. With these criteria, 10 municipalities in the region, including the capital, were forced to establish perimetral lockdowns among other limitations.
October. Measures, counter-measures and a new state of alarm
The curve was rising or falling depending on the region. Spain’s territories were approving ever-more-restrictive measures in order to slow the second wave, but as the month progressed the trend rose in nearly all of the country. The Health Ministry created a risk map, on which the majority of regions were soon in what was considered a level of extreme risk.
The central government was preparing the ground for a new state of alarm, and more and more regions were calling for the measure, which was finally approved on October 25. To avoid having to seek parliamentary support for it on a regular basis, as was the case in the first wave, this time it was put in place for six months. The effect was to give the regions the powers to limit mobility without risk of the move being challenged in the courts, as had already happened previously. It also permitted for a nighttime curfew, and limits on the number of people who could meet in social settings.
November. The vaccine arrives
In the fight against the second wave, which was seeing the number of infections and fatalities rise, there was some light at the end of the tunnel On November 16, Moderna announced that its coronavirus vaccine was 95% effective. Two days later, Pfizer did the same. And a week after that, Oxford-AstraZeneca confirmed its vaccine worked, albeit with a lower rate of success. It would be a question of weeks before regulatory bodies would give the green light to the vaccination program, which would start to take the world out of the nightmare that began in January.
December. A different Christmas and the first vaccinations
The process to approve the vaccines went quicker than anyone had imagined. In the first half of December, the immunizations began in some countries, such as the United Kingdom and the United States. But with the solution already underway, there were still some problems to be solved. The second wave was still threatening most of Europe, including Spain, and the critical Christmas holidays were approaching. These would provide the virus with its preferred ecosystem: social meetings, dinners in enclosed spaces and high mobility. To avoid a winter as complicated as the previous spring, governments got to work to come up with plans that would allow families to see one another, but with the biggest limits possible on such encounters.
Spain approved a general framework that could be modified by each region. Mobility was permitted to see family members and allegados, a term that caused considerable confusion. The curfew would be pushed back on the major dates of the holiday season and the number of people permitted to meet would be raised. But the virus continued to spread and many regions backtracked on the relaxation of measures. The consensus among experts was that after these dates the number of cases would rise. But few went as far as to predict by how much, in particular in the light of the discovery of a new, more infections strain of the virus in the United Kingdom.
The virus has spent the year surprising us. Everyone’s hopes are now on 2021, but there is still a way to go yet for the pandemic, and the next chapters are far from written.
sbs -After more than three months of lockdown, Greater Sydney reopened its economy on Monday much to the relief of business owners, but there was one virus-induced complication threatening to take the shine off the recovery.
Since Australia shut its international borders in March last year, business and industry have been grappling with a chronic shortage of workers.
That’s prompted calls from some leaders to swiftly reopen international borders and lift migration levels in a way not seen since World War II.
In the 12 months following the closure of Australia’s international borders, Australia’s population rose by just 35,700 people according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
The growth rate was just 0.1 per cent, a significant fall on the previous years.
The “annual natural increase”, comprising births and deaths among Australian residents, remained steady at 131,000 people.
But that was offset by a significant fall in net overseas migration, down to a negative figure of 95,300.
That’s a decrease of 334,600 people since the previous year.
“Not since wartime in Australia’s history, have we seen anything that even comes close to the demographic change that we’ve experienced during COVID-19,” ANU demographer Dr Liz Allen told SBS News.
Australian businesses were already struggling with workforce shortages before the pandemic hit and now the ongoing border closures have aggravated the issue.
“Right across the board from unskilled [migrants] through to very highly skilled medical professionals, we realise how dependent we are as a state and as a nation on immigration,” Professor Jock Collins from the UTS Business School told SBS News.
There is pent-up demand from migrants looking to settle or return to Australia, but Dr Allen said it was unlikely the intake would bounce back to pre-COVID levels – where the population grew by over one per cent each year – in the near future.
“That spells a serious disaster for Australia and in the economy,” she warned.
“The basic needs of this country won’t be met because the local workforce is insufficient to meet the needs of our industry.”
It’s a quandary front of mind for New South Wales Premier Dominic Perrottet, who earlier this week spoke of his eagerness to reopen international borders.
“We need to get the borders opened up. Then we need to market to those overseas countries to get some of those skilled migrants in because if we lose this opportunity, those skilled migrants will go to other countries,” he said on Monday.
It’s a change of view from before the pandemic where his predecessor Gladys Berijiklian went to the last state election in 2019 pushing to cut immigration to the state by 50 per cent, citing growing issues with infrastructure and traffic congestion.
An “ambitious” boom?
The Australian Financial Review reported that Mr Perrottet is being asked by senior bureaucrats to set his migration sights even higher, with the figure of two million migrants over five years.
They’ve urged him to lobby for an “ambitious” immigration program, in the vein of the mass influx following World War II when Australians were given a message to “populate or perish”.
In 1945, the government was concerned the country needed a larger population to sustain its defences and economic recovery, leading to the foundation of the Federal Department of Immigration and a target to increase the population by one per cent each year.
Some 1.2 million migrants entered the country over the following 15 years, primarily from war-torn Europe, delivering an economic boost.
“These new immigrants contributed to half the job growth in the economy, half the population growth,” Professor Collins explained.
“Immigrants would arrive … straight off the boat, literally into the factory, the next day.”
He said the country was facing a similar labour shortage today – which would require a strong uptick in migration to resolve.
But a World War II-style increase would pose challenges for infrastructure and housing, with public transport, roads and the healthcare system needing to be scaled up.
“Too often in the past, governments have sort of taken the benefits of immigration while delaying the necessary public infrastructure investment to create problems down the track,” Professor Collins said.
He also cautioned against the increasing reliance on temporary visa holders to fill labour shortages, at risk of increased exploitation and wage theft.
The post-war migration boom also signalled a significant shift in Australia’s cultural make-up.
The decision to take in refugees from across Europe marked the end of the preferential settlement of British nationals and the beginning of Australia’s transformation from an Anglo-centric colony to a multicultural society.
It triggered a change in perspective about migration that culminated in the removal of the White Australia Policy by the Whitlam government.
“It was the post-war immigration boom, that charted a new course for Australia. We headed away from that white monoculture … we realised that we needed to move beyond the Antipodes of our migration history and instead look to the future,” Dr Allen said.
While the post-war boom drew heavily on European immigrants, Dr Allen expects China and India to continue to contribute a sizeable share of Australia’s arrivals going forward beyond COVID.
“We will require skills in people from a range of backgrounds, labourers, professionals, and so on. [And] I suspect that we will continue to see migration from more diverse places than where we’ve historically welcomed people from,” she said.
“This moment in time, this post-COVID rebuild will be a watershed in our history.”
CNN– China is preparing to test tens of thousands of blood bank samples from the city of Wuhan as part of a probe into the origins of Covid-19, according to a Chinese official. The move comes amid increasing calls for transparency over the emergence of the virus.
The store of up to 200,000 samples, including those from the closing months of 2019 were pinpointed in February this year by the World Health Organization’s panel of investigators as a possible source of key information that could help determine when and where the virus first crossed into humans.
The samples are kept in the Wuhan Blood Center, and are thought to span 2019, providing real-time tissue samples from a wide swathe of the population in the Chinese city where SARS-CoV-2 is thought to have first infected humans.
The blood bank samples have been retained for two years, Chinese officials have said, in case they are needed as evidence in any lawsuits related to the blood donations they are from.
That two-year waiting period will soon expire for the key months of October and November 2019, when most experts think the virus could first have infected humans. An official from China’s National Health Commission, told CNN preparation for testing is currently underway, and confirmed testing would happen once the two-year limit was reached.
“This provides the closest in the world we’ve seen of real time samples to help us understand the timing of the outbreak event,” said Yanzhong Huang, senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations.
They “absolutely will contain vital clues,” said Maureen Miller, associate professor of epidemiology at Columbia University. She urged China to permit foreign experts to observe the process. “No one will believe any results that China reports unless there are qualified observers at the very least,” she said.
Enter your email to sign up for CNN’s Arabic Breaking News newsletter alerts.
The head of the Chinese team working on the WHO investigation, Liang Wannian, first said in a July news conference that China would test the samples, adding once the Chinese experts “have the results, they will deliver them to both the Chinese and foreign expert teams.”
Liang said the samples came from the opening tube of a donor blood pouch, sealed shut and then stored, and Chinese experts had “made several assessments and evaluations on the testing methods and action plan, which will be implemented after the expiry” of the two-year limit.
The samples, if stored correctly, could contain crucial signs of the first antibodies made by humans against the disease, experts said.
Liang said in July that while the first reported case was in Wuhan on December 8, “our research and the previous related research papers of Chinese scientists fully suggest … December 8 is probably not the primary case. There might be other cases that occurred before.”
Liang Wannian, leader of the Chinese team working with the WHO at a July press conference in Beijing, China.
Dr. William Schaffner, from the Vanderbilt University Department of Medicine’s infectious disease division, said the samples presented a “fascinating opportunity. You would like to go back to find out exactly during which months this this virus started to leave fingerprints in the human population in China.”
The samples might even indicate who was first infected, where, and their age and occupation, Miller added.
“It is common practice to de-identify the samples,” she said. “So you could strip it down to basic demographics, age, gender neighborhood where they lived. All of those data will be available.”
Schaffner suggested the samples could be brought to Geneva, or another neutral destination, to permit WHO experts to take part in the testing.
He said two possible issues with the samples could be “the integrity of the blood samples — ensuring they had not been recently created,” but also how representative of the population as a whole the blood donors were. Miller said many samples would most likely have been taken from healthy individuals “so they’ll represent asymptomatic cases. And as we’ve learned over the course of the pandemic, asymptomatic cases fuel the pandemic.”
Huang said it was unclear to “what extent the outside world would trust the findings as credible or convincing,” and the testing marked an opportunity for China to “tell the world that they are serious about depoliticizing the origins probe.”
How China pushes conspiracy theory on Covid-19 origin 04:04
The Biden administration conducted a 90-day review of the intelligence over how the virus originated, yet an unclassified report had officials still considering both natural transmission from animal to humans and a lab leak as plausible theories, yet unable to determine which was the more likely.
President Joe Biden, on receiving a classified version of the report, said: “Critical information about the origins of this pandemic exists in the People’s Republic of China, yet from the beginning, government officials in China have worked to prevent international investigators and members of the global public health community from accessing it.”
China has insisted it has been transparent and helpful to the WHO probe, and in its most recent statement about the theory the virus leaked from a laboratory, pointed toward unproven claims about Fort Detrick, US laboratory in Maryland, and the need to examine its recent past
The Spanish Health Ministry and regional authorities on Wednesday approved a traffic light system to determine coronavirus restrictions based on an area’s epidemiological situation. This set of common criteria is to be applied until 70% of the population and all over-50s are vaccinated against Covid-19.
The traffic light system categorizes risk as extreme, high, medium, low and new normality based on data points such as the seven-day and 14-day incidence rate, and the percentage of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) beds occupied by Covid-19 patients. The system, which applies to areas with more than 10,000 inhabitants, then recommends different restrictions based on the level of risk. Up until now, this has been used just as a guide. But on Wednesday, the Inter-Territorial Council of the National Health System (CISNS), which brings together health chiefs from the central and regional governments, voted to make it legally binding.
The risk levels in Spain
The document “Coordinated response actions to control the transmission of Covid-19” establishes risk levels for territories of more than 10,000 inhabitants.
This means that the regions – which are in charge of controlling the pandemic as well as the Covid-19 vaccination drive – must follow the rules set out by the system. For example, even in a low-risk scenario, nighttime venues must close at 3am and only a maximum of 10 people are allowed to a table in sidewalk cafés. Catalonia, Madrid, Andalusia, Galicia, Murcia and the Basque Country have opposed the mandatory condition of the measures, which will come into force soon, once they are published in the Official State Gazette (BOE). These regions are home to 29.5 million people – more than half Spain’s population of 47.5 million. Castilla y León and the North African exclave city of Melilla also abstained from the vote.
According to the latest figures from the Health Ministry, 18,426,204 people in Spain have received their first dose of a Covid-19 vaccine – 38.8% of the population. Meanwhile, 9,679,187 people have got the full protection offered by the immunization – 20.4%. The government has set the target of vaccinating 70% of the population by the end of the summer, a target that is on track assuming there are no setbacks such as interruptions to supply. The Health Ministry on Wednesday reported 4,984 new coronavirus infections and added 66 fatalities to the overall death toll. The 14-day cumulative number of coronavirus cases per 100,000 inhabitants, meanwhile, fell a further two points to 118.
The new rules agreed on Wednesday, and which will be approved via a Declaration of Coordinated Action (DAC), may lead to legal conflicts between the Health Ministry and some regional governments. Madrid has already announced that it will follow its own measures – not those outlined by the traffic light system. In a message posted on Twitter, Madrid premier Isabel Díaz Ayuso said: “Hospitality establishments are safe spaces and our allies to overcoming this crisis. They cannot pay for the inefficiency of the Sánchez government,” in reference to Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez who leads a coalition government made up of the Socialist Party (PSOE) and junior partner Unidas Podemos.
Madrid has been at loggerheads with the central government over the reach of coronavirus restrictions since the health crisis began. When the CISNS agreed last October that areas at certain risk levels should be placed under perimetral lockdown – a decision that affected 10 municipalities in Madrid – the Ayuso government applied the restrictions, but challenged them in court. When a judge ruled in the region’s favor, the central government was forced to declare a state of alarm in the region to ensure the coronavirus restrictions were followed. Madrid also opposed the coronavirus restrictions approved by CISNS for the Christmas vacations and Easter break, such as limits on travel and social gatherings, but did eventually adhere to them.
At the end of the CISNS meeting on Wednesday, Health Minister Carolina Darias reiterated that it was mandatory for the regions to follow the measures approved by the council. “It is very important to be at a low [risk] level, not only so that we are safer and the virus is spread less, but also so that we can start entering the new normality,” she said. “We have to learn from the lessons learned. We know what happened last summer [when increased social activity led to a second wave of the virus]. What’s important is finishing off what we are achieving and reaching incidence rates below 50 [cases per 100,000 inhabitants, the threshold for low risk].”
The measures approved will affect Spain’s 17 regions differently, depending on what restrictions are already in place in each territory and their contagion rates. While some regions will be able to ease restrictions, others will have to toughen them. In Madrid, for example, the 14-day cumulative number of coronavirus cases per 100,000 inhabitants is 165, a data point, among others, that places it in the high-risk category. Despite this, the restrictions in the region correspond to those in the “new normality” category, i.e. regions where the incidence rate is 25 cases.
Andalusia allowed nighttime venues to reopen until 2am after the state of alarm came to an end on May 9. But these venues will have to close once the new rules are published in the BOE, given that the 14-day cumulative number of cases per 100,000 inhabitants in the region now stands at 177 and is continuing to rise. On the other hand, Valencia, which is in a low-risk scenario, could already allow nighttime venues to open until 3am. Hospitality establishments, however, will still need to shut by 10pm until next week.
One of the mandatory rules that must be applied regardless of the risk level is the ban on smoking when a two-meter distance from other people cannot be respected. This ban also applies to water pipes, hookahs and other ways of inhaling tobacco.
Here is an overview of the main coronavirus restrictions set down by the traffic-light system.
Low risk and new normality. Indoors, the maximum capacity is 50%. Outdoor areas will be allowed to operate at full capacity, provided that the seats between different tables are 1.5 meters apart. The consumption of food and drinks, both inside and outside, will have to take place while seated at tables, with the same safe distance. The tables will have a limit of six people inside and 10 outside. Closing time will be 3am at the latest, and registers will be introduced to ensure that patrons can be traced should a coronavirus case be detected.
Medium risk. If the progress of the health crisis is favorable, closing time will be at 2am and the same measures for the lower risk scenario will be adopted, apart from a limit of a third of capacity inside.
Bars and restaurants
New normality.The permitted capacity will be 50% inside with the option of an extra 10% if risk-control measures are introduced that guarantee high levels of ventilation and air-quality control. Tables in outdoor areas can be fully occupied provided that the distance between chairs at different tables is at least 1.5 meters. Service and consumption at the bar are allowed, provided the aforementioned distance is respected. Six people can share a table inside, and 10 outside. Closing time will be 1am and service will cease one hour previously.
Low risk. The same measures as in the new normality, but with a distance of two meters between tables.
Medium risk. Inside, the same measures as low risk, but with a limit of a third of capacity. Outside, a maximum of 75% and six people per table.
High risk. Indoor areas will be closed and the same measures will be applied outside as for medium risk.
Very high risk. Outdoor capacity limited to 50% and limits on opening times, with groups of patrons separated and a maximum of four people per table. If the trend is rising and exceeds 500 cases per 100,000 inhabitants over 14 days, establishments must close, only offering takeaway or delivery for consumption at home.
New normality. A maximum of 10,000 people. Independent sectors of no more than 1,000 people must be established, with safety measures being observed at all times. Transit areas between these sectors will be at least two meters wide. Smoking will not be permitted, nor the use of electronic cigarettes, in areas dedicated to the public. Maximum capacity of 50%, guaranteeing a useable area of 1.5 square meters per person, and eating and drinking will not be allowed in the public areas.
Low risk. The same measures as previously described, but with a maximum of 5,000 people and space of 2.25 square meters.
High risk. A maximum of 2,500 people. If possible, independent sectors of no more than 500 people will be established. Capacity will be limited to 30% and the area per person will be three square meters. Consumption of food and drink will be prohibited.
Very high risk. No events with large crowds will be allowed.
Primary and secondary school, vocational training. These centers will remain open during the entire school year, “ensuring there are canteen services as well as out-of-hours study support for minors with special needs or who belong to socially vulnerable people,” according to the document, to which EL PAÍS had access on Tuesday. If there are outbreaks or the transmission of the virus runs out of control, “mixed in-person and remote education will be considered” before the center is closed, or “changes to the timetable that will allow for greater limits on contacts.”
Universities. The agreement only stipulates “distance learning as far as possible” for university teaching under alert level 4, and for the rest of the levels the same recommendations will be in place as for 2020 to 2021 – i.e. the use of masks, a Covid coordinator, contact tracing, quarantines for those with symptoms and ventilation of closed spaces, among other measures.
For all centers. All of the prevention measures set out by the ministry will be applied in all schools and universities. These include limiting contacts, maintaining social distancing, creating bubbles, handwashing and mask use, regular ventilation of indoor areas and students with symptoms staying at home.