- Edited
vinnyt77 Yeah, I think that’s the logical conclusion from the data presented. Implementing any of these restrictions in isolation is unlikely to have much of an impact.
Sure, but also implementing all of them, including banning all household mixing in both public and private, for just a temporary 66% reduction in r-rate, feels excessive and draconian. And again, these are all figures for the second wave, so prior to vaccinations.
vinnyt77 I guess there could be two contributing factors here. Firstly - that few people use nightclubs than eating establishments, so perhaps the proportionate impact of shutting nightclubs is greater given the higher population eating out. The other could be the impact on working population. I assume there’d be a much higher workforce in restaurants than nightclubs?
It’s probably true that a higher proportion of people both eat out and work in gastronomy. However, takeaway and delivery services have typically still been available from cafes and restaurants during lockdowns, which limits the effect in denying the customers and staff. Such compensatory measures are impossible with clubs.
And another thing I’ve already pointed out in this thread, something which is also surely relevant is who the transmissions and reduced transmissions are between - and that is not covered by the nature article - reducing transmissions amongst older and more vulnerable people would be more important than younger people, and it is older people who would be much more likely to use gastronomy than night clubs.