Two major health associations have given the government's decision to close down restaurants and snack-bars a lukewarm welcome and questioned the effectiveness of allowing households to mix.

The Malta Association of Public Health Medicine (MAPHM) and the Medical Association of Malta (MAM), however, differed on their assessment of whether the government should consider a total lockdown.

While the MAPHM believes that a total lockdown is not necessary and will end up doing more harm than good, MAM holds that restrictive measures should only be lifted after the country manages to achieve immunity for at least 70% of the population.

‘Number of cases must go down to avoid blacklisting’

In a statement, the MAPHM said it “welcomes the introduction of new restrictive measures aimed at curbing the surge of COVID-19 in our communities”.

It argued that given the increasing amount of people contracting the highly contagious UK variant of COVID-19, and the large number of community transmissions, restrictions need to limit interactions.

“We hope that these targeted measures, together with renewed individual discipline which is effectively enforced will be sufficient to halt this trend. Time will tell us more, and whether measures will need to be increased further,” the statement reads.

The association also argued that given that Malta’s healthcare system is close to being overwhelmed, a “final effort” needs to be made by everyone to follow protocols until enough people have been vaccinated.

The association warned that the current number of cases opens up the possibility of Malta being blacklisted in international safe corridor lists.

The statement “strongly discourages” the mixing of households and advises people to limit these interactions as much as possible.

In separate comments, MAM offered similar advice.

“We appeal to the good sense and responsibility of all, and emphasise that the risk of infection increases the more one meets people,” the association said.

‘Latest set of measures long overdue’

MAM president Martin Balzan argued that lifting restrictive measures before achieving at least 70% immunity for the general population is counter-productive.

“Every single country that reopened to some degree before the virus’s rate of infection is drastically reduced discovered that the virus strikes back with a vengeance right afterwards,” Balzan said.

He also said that while “overall, the new measures are good, they are not good enough and they are long overdue”. He argued that countries such as the UK that did introduce national lockdowns to curb the spread saw a decrease in cases.

“The UK variant is much more contagious and what was a good set of measures a month ago is not so today because of this increased risk,” Balzan said.

“The safest approach is to stay at home as much as possible, and only go out if necessary. People who can work from home should do so,” he added.

Balzan also voiced concerns about the number of people mixing outside and going about their day, emphasising the need for discipline in limiting interactions and avoiding further contagion.

“There’s also the issue of a lack of understanding of how vaccines work. I’ve seen people who think that we can go back to business as usual as soon as one gets a shot, when that is not the case,” Balzan said.

“Vaccinated people need to understand that the vaccine starts being fully effective after the second dose, so that’s about five weeks in total to get the full protective benefits of the vaccine,” he added.

Balzan argued that while the vaccine is proven to decrease the chances of contracting the virus as well as suffering from severe symptoms, it cannot automatically guarantee full protection from the virus or the possibility of transmission.

“As MAM, whilst we advocate for restrictive measures, we also believe that compensation should be given to those whose businesses have closed down due to COVID. That’s what every sensible government is doing to maintain balance.”

According to a report published by the Imperial College of London on February 18, lockdown in the UK did result in “a strong decline in the prevalence of COVID-19 among the general population five to six weeks into lockdown.”

However, the report also states that the caseload remains high and similar to levels observed in September last year. The report also points out that the number of hospitalisations is higher than the peak of 2020’s first wave.