-
So pubs and clubs closing, you think that someone would have checked how many infection spreads there have been in those locations.
I don't think it is that simple. If you accept that the current infection rate/spread is too high then you have to stop some activities. Individually very few account for a high number so you make a value to society decision.
In an ideal world 100% of people would stay at home but the lights would go off quite quickly so you exempt electricity workers. Next people need to eat etc. The need to socialise is less clear cut.
-
I don't think it is that simple. If you accept that the current infection rate/spread is too high then you have to stop some activities. Individually very few account for a high number so you make a value to society decision.
Agreed, but except for that piece of A4 paper a few weeks ago, that was not for public release, there is no evidence based reason for closing pubs. Just, as you say, they have to stop folk mixing and that is the easiest one to do. I'm still of the opinion it is workplace transmission that is really the spreader. Warehouses, markets, food preparation, ... ...
So pubs and clubs closing, you think that someone would have checked how many infection spreads there have been in those locations. If it is a rife as we are led to believe you would think that T and T would have a hotline to the pub groups.
It does not seem to be the case though, so where are they getting the evidence from?