Leading virologist calls for mask-wearing in crowds over Christmas despite Spain's 'exemplary' vaccine roll-out

ONE of Spain's top virologists has urged health authorities to keep mask-wearing in indoor areas compulsory until at least the end of January, and recommends using them outdoors as a precaution.

National Research Council (CSIC) virus expert and Severo Ochoa Molecular Biology Centre researcher Margarita del Val says that along with the vaccine, masks are 'a fantastic weapon' against Covid-19.

She says Spain has been 'exemplary' in terms of the vaccine roll-out, with one of the highest percentages of the population fully immunised of any country in the world – nine in 10 adults and children aged 12 and over have been jabbed, and the number of people refusing to be inoculated is statistically very low.

“In large towns and cities, in areas with a high concentration of people, they should be requesting everyone wear a mask outdoors starting from now and until at least the end of January – it's a critical moment,” Margarita del Val (in the above picture, by the CSIC) argues.

She says busy shopping streets in the run-up to Christmas, and bigger crowds in town centres over the festive season, mean social distancing is less of a possibility and in these situations masks need to be worn.

“It's a very simple thing to do, and it doesn't restrict our social lives,” she adds.

“Despite what is happening in other European countries, which are suffering a significant spike in cases, practically everyone at risk in Spain has been fully vaccinated – and figures show that the number of high-risk people in Spain is, now, about 20 times lower than in, for example, Germany.

“That's because we've immunised near enough everyone in that category.”

The leading virologist is also strongly in favour of all those whose job allows continuing to work from home, and that everyone who is planning to meet up with others who may be high-risk – the over-60s, the immune-compromised and the elderly, for example – is recommended to take an antigen test before doing so as a precaution, 'even if they and the high-risk people they will be meeting have been vaccinated'.

A vaccinated person who catches Covid, even if they are asymptomatic, is every bit as contagious as a non-vaccinated person with Covid – but the vaccines considerably reduce the risk of catching it at all.

“The vaccines are very good, they're very safe, but they're not infallible,” Margarita del Val warns.

She stresses that those who are not jabbed are running a huge risk - “we might infect them 'silently'; those of us who are immunised are far less likely to have symptoms if they catch the virus,” she points out.

“For those who have not taken up the vaccine because they're waiting for 'all this to go away' needs to know that it's not going to go away at all. The virus is here to stay and it'll be with us forever.”

But if 100% of the population was inoculated, in theory, it would not matter that the virus was 'with us forever', since protection against Covid serious enough to require hospital admission is in region of 90% and, against death from Covid, upwards of 95%.

By now, most residents in Spain aged 70 or over will have had their third dose, at the same time as their annual 'flu jab, and it is expected that over the next few weeks, the 60-69 age group will be treble-jabbed.

Margarita del Val does not, however, consider a third vaccine to be wholly necessary.

“This is a virus that mutates 10 times less than the influenza virus does, and these are very powerful vaccines,” she insists.

“It's more likely that these Covid vaccines will be like childhood and infant inoculations – that after we've had the full course once, it'll be enough.”

This contrasts with other research which appears to show that the antibodies produced by the vaccines become less powerful over time and boosters would provide extra protection.

But so far, no evidence has been found to show a third dose could be potentially harmful, meaning even if it did turn out that it was not necessary, at worst, it would only be a health service expense that could have been spared and would not put those being given it at risk.