CLOSING pubs and restaurants to stop the spread of Covid-19 has had the opposite effect – with case numbers spiralling when they were shut.

That’s according to the Fife Licensed Trade Association who say there’s growing evidence to suggest the R-number – the re-infection rate – decreases when hospitality businesses are open and increases when they are closed.

Secretary Jeff Ellis said shutting pubs led to people buying more cheap alcohol from supermarkets and drinking with friends and family in their homes where there are no masks, social distancing or track and trace to stop the spread of the virus.

He told the Times: “They’ve effectively replaced a controlled environment for socialising and drinking, as you have in pubs, clubs and restaurants, and supplanted it with an unmanaged, unsupervised and uncontrolled environment.

"We know all these house parties have been going on and they can easily turn into super-spreader events.”

Writing in The Nip, the FLTA newsletter, Mr Ellis said: “Licensees have invested so much in tried and tested procedures and have managed their businesses so effectively that the rate of transmission in these settings has continued to be minimal, when, of course, such businesses are allowed to operate.

"In contrast the measures put in place in the four main environments for the spread of the virus: colleges and universities; schools; transport; and supermarkets, have been ineffective and it is noticeable that even with the new rapid spread strain of the virus, controls in supermarkets are particularly lax.”

He highlighted a statement from Sir Patrick Vallance, the UK Government’s chief scientific adviser, who last month admitted at the Health and Science Committee at Westminster there was “no real hard evidence” to support the decision for 10pm curfews for pubs and restaurants.

Mr Ellis said: "Events have tended to support this with an explosion in rates of infection at a time when the sector has been shut down, and has largely been shut down for some time."

The government's idea was to limit the amount of time people spent together indoors, where there is a greater risk of transmission, but he said the on-trade was seen as a “soft target” by the Scottish and UK governments.

He added: “From the earliest days, certainly from the time of the first lockdown, we were assured that government policy was being ‘led by the science’ and that measures imposed were ‘evidence-based’.

“Despite the efforts of the hospitality sector to ensure the safety of the public whilst on its premises, it was assumed that on-trade settings had to be high risk environments for the transmission of the virus.”

He continued: “As the year progressed it gradually became clear that there was something going on with regard to the treatment of the hospitality sector and it was increasingly apparent that political considerations had overtaken any idea of policy being ‘evidence-based’.”

UK Hospitality, which surveyed more than 12,000 hospitality venues across the UK, found that in the 14 weeks following the re-opening of the sector last year, there was a staff infection rate of 0.48 per cent and just 0.06 per cent for customers.

And he said a leaked report compiled for the Dutch government stated that the R-number decreased when hospitality businesses were open and increased when they were closed down.

Mr Ellis said Westminster and Holyrood could control the situation  - "it wouldn't cost them a penny" - and help struggling hospitality firms by suspending supermarket alcohol sales and selling booze through on-trade outlets with takeaways and home deliveries.

He added: “I’ve seen figures saying that 27 per cent of infections can be traced to supermarkets whereas the figure Sir Patrick gave for the hospitality sector was three per cent. It’s most definitely a political decision. The point I was trying to make is there should be some honesty in all this. The government’s own figures show where the problems lie.”

Closures will have a devastating financial impact and he said: “Only time will tell but I think we should be braced for a raft of closures. I’ve been told about suggest 70 per cent of hospitality businesses may not survive.”

Mr Ellis added that the landmark decision in the Supreme Court, where insurance companies were told to pay out to the thousands of firms who took out business interruption insurance, may not help.

He said: “There are various ways insurance companies will try and avoid paying out. For many it will be too late.”