No, if only because they've had it and other industries - equally hard hit - have not.
Gyms, pools, dance studios, softplays, sports facilities - all get people moving and active after a year of being mostly stuck in boxes. Much better plan.
Hairdressers etc - mostly small business's that have been forced closed. A fresh hair cut can make a world of difference to someone's mood, and would be helpful for those now job hunting.
The arts and museums and galleries - Britain's huge cultural heritage. Performing arts have been in limbo for a year. Subsidizing shows and tickets and entry fees would really help them recover and would allow people who could never normally afford access to them to go. Getting the West End and the other theatres open and operating again (and as full as is safe) boosts the economies of the areas around them as well. It isn't just performers - the bars and restaurants around them pick up trade. People travel to attend. People get hair cuts and beauty treatments done for special night's out. They buy new clothes.
Travel vouchers - if you want to fund the hospitality sector, both the above and the idea of giving people money towards day trips and breaks in the UK is better. People eat out when they're out anyway - getting them away, helping them get a break, is better for mental health, better for the tourism sector, and trickles down to hospitality and leisure.
Fundamentally, the idea floated last year - of a one-off leisure and retail payment to each person - is a better plan than faffy schemes like Eat out to Help Out.
We need the economy moving, as soon as its safe. Boosting high street trade, tourism, gyms, theatres and cinemas trickles down though other sectors and gets them moving, too. Paying to operate is better than continuing to fund furlough, as it spreads the benefit around and helps get businesses up and operating again.
But, before any of it, we need much wider vaccination complete and a proper take-stock of the countries' financial position.