From Bassetti to Crisanti, what experts think about the dpcm closing cinemas and theaters

What do experts think about the dpcm closing cinemas and theaters? For now, virologists, infectiologists and immunologists have not commented directly on the closure of theaters and thus part of culture: the first to express a thought directly addressed to these places (as well as to gyms, bars and restaurants) yesterday was immunologist Antonella Viola of the University of Padua, who expressed her opposition to the dpcm, judging as “irrational, blind and absurd” the idea of closing places that had not given evidence of being centers of spread of the Covid-19 contagion, and at the same time deeming the measures taken by the government to be of little use. In his view, it was indeed necessary to stagger high school admissions (with distance education at 75 percent for the last two years and total for college), enhance transportation, close only risk locations based on scientific data, ban contact sports, winter sports, religious ceremonies, make masks compulsory in school starting in middle school, and impose agile work for anyone who can.

On the other hand, microbiologist Andrea Crisanti, professor of microbiology at the University of Padua, is in favor of the government’s measures, but he also opposed the closure of cinemas and theaters. According to Crisanti, the dpcm is “a courageous and indispensable measure. It certainly did not make everyone happy, in fact it displeased many, but I do not think it was avoidable. The only thing I do not agree with is the closure of cinemas and theaters, because having been to the opera a couple of times I realized that we were all spaced out and wearing masks.” Whether the decided measures will work “we will see in 2 weeks,” Crisanti added, however, the expert also said he was “hopeful,” and recalled that “there are a whole series of studies, and by scientists from other countries as well, that indicate how this type of measure should stabilize the contagions.” In fact, for Crisanti, the goal must be to lower contagions so that we can “start again with tracking, which, however, must be enhanced with unprecedented measures.” Finally, Crisanti hopes “that the new measures will take effect, that the contagions will stabilize and eventually decrease, but once that happens we all have to ask ourselves the problem of how we consolidate the result. It’s not that we then reopen and the contagions remain low, you can’t go on with this spiral.”

Firmly opposed to the dpcm, on the other hand, is Matteo Bassetti, infectiologist and director of the Infectious Diseases Clinic at San Martino Hospital in Genoa. “When you make a decision,” he told the program L’aria che tira on La7 referring to last Sunday’s dpcm, "you have to wait until somehow this works: it has been a week since a dpcm was made telling the regions to intervene. Some intervened, some did not, based on local epidemiology, and after a few days a new dpcm came. It is clear that it will not be enough: I believe that this dpcm will not bring any results, for the simple reason that we had to act on the categories that are most affected by this infection today, those that have the most damage today, which are the elderly and the frail. If we do not secure these two categories it is useless for us to close restaurants, we are not going anywhere with the closing of restaurants. Already we made the mistake in March and April of closing schools and putting kids at home with the elderly, now we are making exactly the same mistake. We are making the same mistakes as in March and April. We are dealing with living with the virus with total unpreparedness, for example in the criteria for hospitalization.

Dpcm also rejected by Walter Ricciardi, adviser to the Minister of Health, who said, however, that stricter measures were needed, namely a lockdown. “The set of measures is certainly a step forward,” he told the Omnibus program on La7 this morning, “but in my view not enough to deal with the circulation of the virus at this time. Unfortunately, measures must be taken in a way that is proportionate to the circulation of the virus, and right now the virus in some areas of our country is spreading unchecked. When we have an infection index of 2.5 it means that the transmission of the virus is exponential, so there is a need for more aggressive measures, on all sides unfortunately.” Ricciardi went on to cite a study from the University of Edinburgh published last week in Lancet, according to which “when the circulation of the virus has the size that it has for example right now in Italy, in France, in Spain, the only thing that is needed to slow down this infection index is lockdown.”

Virologist Massimo Galli, director of Infectious Diseases at the “Luigi Sacco” Hospital in Milan, on the other hand, expressed his considerations in an interview with Il Fatto Quotidiano, without intervening directly on the issue of theaters and cinemas, but rejecting the dpcm as too bland and advising everyone to self-lockdown. On the measures, this is what Galli says: “I hope they are enough, but I don’t know and if someone claims to know they are lying. The only thing we know is that to have given result is the total lockdown, but you want to avoid it. And I understand that.” And so here is his proposal, “I hope they are enough, but I don’t know and if someone claims to know that they are lying. The only thing we know is that to have given result is total closure, but you want to avoid it. And I understand that.” Galli then takes a position on schooling: “I have never missed the importance of direct teaching, but something has to be sacrificed.”

Instead, microbiologist Maria Rita Gismondo, director of Clinical Microbiology, Virology and Bioemergency Diagnostics at the Sacco Hospital in Milan, intervenes directly on cinemas and theaters. “These measures,” she told the Adnkronos news agency, “in fact create a lockdown, moreover with measures that I find absurd, and I don’t think they will have a significant impact on the number of infections.” The expert expresses her disagreement with some closures, such as that of “cinemas, theaters, and gyms, which are absolutely controlled environments.” According to Gismondo, banning these activities “only takes away the possibility of an almost normal life, which we no longer have.”

Finally, Pierpaolo Sileri, a physician and deputy minister of health, also disagrees with the measures, saying he is against closures where protocols are respected. “I have always thought that where there is a protocol and where the protocol is respected with rigor and severity, the risk of contagion is certainly very low,” he said this morning on the program Agora on Rai Tre, “so where there is an exercise with a protocol, distance, separate tables, Plexiglas and whatever else, it is obvious that contagion is extremely low. So on this measure I was not in full agreement, and I am not in full agreement, although then the decision is made on the data and guided by a scientific and technical committee. The data should be in the possession of the scientific-technical committee: the data should be analyzed for each type of category, from transportation to gyms to restaurants, and based on the data, where obviously there is a risk of infection documented perhaps by monitoring, then there it is clear that a closure is needed.”

Pictured, left to right: Viola, Crisanti, Bassetti, Ricciardi, Galli, Gismondo, Sileri

From Bassetti to Crisanti, what experts think about the dpcm closing cinemas and theaters

Warning: the translation into English of the original Italian article was created using automatic tools. We undertake to review all articles, but we do not guarantee the total absence of inaccuracies in the translation due to the program. You can find the original by clicking on the ITA button. If you find any mistake,please contact us.