Well, your entire argument is based on premises that establish ‘necessity’ in unscientific ways and shroud them in science. And in pretty shoddy science at that, as you keep throwing around the term ‘high-risk activities’ without any evidence at all that blanket curfews address those. It should be very patently obvious that two people sitting together in a restaurant are doing nothing demonstrably ‘riskier’ than they would be sitting in a home together or out shopping.
You can take that as one end of the spectrum, take a packed house of club-goers on other end (though presumably less risky if it’s before closing time), and figure out how to use ‘science’ to determine what the relative risks truly are. And you should make that effort, you really should, before throwing out those blanket terms.