Why are bar and restaurant interiors closed?

The short answer is because scientific studies have shown that bad ventilation or bad air circulation leads to an increase in cases of the virus inside buildings, not just bars and restaurants which is why others have had to close as well, but obviously there are more in the hospitality sector which is why it is worst hit. Yes gyms are allowed to be open, but people MUST wear masks at all times whilst training and stay 2 metres apart, which is something that can’t be implemented whilst sat with people at a table, closer than 2 metres, for a long period of time eating and drinking. Here’s the longer explanation...

From last Monday until April 9^th, strict regulations are in place in three of the Canary Islands following an increase in their epidemiological data. Tenerife, Gran Canaria, and Fuerteventura, have all now moved in to Level 3 restrictions having been in Level 2 and reinforced Level 2 with no improvements. The main difference between these has been group sizes and the closure of the interiors of bars and restaurants.

Previously, at reinforced level 2, hospitality venues were allowed a capacity of 50% in interiors and 50% on terraces, which this last measure has surprised experts around the world. "It is the first thing in a pandemic," says Quique Bassat, epidemiologist at the Barcelona Institute of Global Health, prioritizing open spaces and focusing the impact of restrictions on closed premises with poor ventilation, where most infections occur.

For José Luis Arocha, an epidemiologist expert in the prevention of communicable diseases in accommodation establishments, this movement of the regional government responds to a lack of precision in the measures, which are applied based on general instructions and not specific principles.

Bars and restaurants have been in the spotlight for months now. The European Center for Disease Control (ECDC) classifies them as "high risk" scenarios and recommends their closure due to the risk posed by new variants of the virus, such as B.1.1.7 (known as the British strain), which is already circulating in the Canary Islands.

Scientific studies have found evidence that the opening of bars and restaurants has been accompanied by a rise in infections. Researchers from the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) concluded that the North American counties that opened these premises suffered a spike in infections six weeks later, and an increase in deaths two months later.

This research does not imply a cause and effect relationship. There are communities that have managed to contain the disease without shutting down the hospitality industry. But we can find other analyzes that reason in the same way. A Scottish Government report notes that, three weeks after bars were opened, the growth rate of the epidemic rose beyond control.

Another study from the journal ‘Nature’ concludes that of 318 outbreaks with three or more cases reported in 320 municipalities in China (not including Hubei province, where Covid-19 was first detected), all occurred indoors, "which confirms that sharing spaces with one or more infected people is a significant risk”.

The scientific evidence seems clear. Germany, for example, has kept all hospitality closed for months and is not willing to relax restrictions until the incidence rate over 14 days falls below 50 cases per 100,000 inhabitants. The Canary Islands were not in full exponential growth of the virus, but a gradual increase in transmission was evident, especially in Tenerife and Fuerteventura, which is why the regional Government opted not to close hospitality at that time and initiated ‘reinforced’ Level 2, and reinforcing the messages of hand washing, safety distance and using a mask.

Bassat admits that "it is difficult not to generalize" and that "there is not enough scientific basis" for the rest. However, he does believe that “it is common sense” to be extremely vigilant of indoor ventilation and not pay as much attention to what many describe as “pandemic theatre”, that is, to focus on surface contagion and other measures that they have not been effective.

This editorial in the journal Nature, titled ‘Coronavirus is in the air - there is too much focus on surfaces’, notes that “despite this, some public health agencies still emphasize that surfaces pose a threat and must be disinfected frequently.  The result is a confusing public message when clear guidance is needed on how to prioritize efforts to prevent the spread of the virus."

Experts emphasize that ventilation is key to this. An article published by The New York Times emphasizes that “good ventilation is the most efficient and practical way to eliminate infectious particles from a space. The Healthy Buildings program recommends four to six air exchanges per hour in classrooms, using any combination of ventilation and filtration”.

The Ministry of Health also estimates that ventilation is an optimal measure in the prevention of transmission, but it does not state it in an exhaustive way, but as a recommendation. It fits into “additional measures in interior spaces”, such as reducing noise levels and activities that increase the emission of aerosols (droplets) eg shouting, singing, talking loudly etc, as well as reducing the intensity of physical exercise at close quarters.

The Ministry of Health in Spain specifies that "if the ventilation is natural, cross ventilation is recommended, i.e. opening opposite doors and/or windows or at least different sides of the room", and "if the ventilation is forced (mechanical),  the system configuration has to be reviewed to maximize the amount of outside air and reduce the amount of re-circulated air”.

The problem, highlights Arocha, comes at the time of the inspection. "General hygiene of the environment, disinfection of spaces and surfaces" still predominate.  While the main route of transmission, the air, is resolved with a brief "carry out periodic ventilation of the premises, at least on a daily basis and for the time necessary to allow its renewal", as dictated in the health inspection questionnaire of preventive measures against Covid-19 in food establishments of the Canary Islands Health Service (SCS).

To put it into context, most establishments in the Canary Islands do not have an air renewal system, and this is normal, because they cost a lot of money and the crisis limits them to execute large disbursements. However, if the activity cannot be carried out indoors, the only alternative is to direct it to the street, where the risk of infection is drastically reduced (not zero risk).

This was done by New York, which launched the Open Restaurants program to bring bars and restaurants to the streets and support the sector in some way.  It was “an extraordinary success”, said the mayor of the city, Bill de Blasio, who announced the permanent extension of the project. “Open Restaurants was a big and bold experiment to support a vital industry and renew the image of our public space. As we begin on a road to long-term recovery, we are proud to extend and expand this effort to keep New York the most vibrant city in the world.”

Are the Canary Islands betting on this? Yes and no. City Councils across the archipelago have approved the expansion of terraces and the express installation of them due to Level 3. But the measure is not similar to the one implemented in New York, where 85 car-free streets have been enabled on certain days and 90,000 jobs have been saved. Meanwhile, in the city of Gran Canaria, the express terraces have become the last battlefield of bar and restaurant owners, who demand speed, and the bureaucratic rules of the Capital Corporation, one of the ones that has eliminated the most tax rates in the Islands.