The risks may outweigh the rewards when it comes to relaxing coronavirus rules at Christmas

Editorial: Drawing up the rules for the Christmas holiday was never going to be easy

(Dave Brown)

A sense of history is a fine thing, but the claim that the prime minister is presently being pressured into becoming the first national (or at least English) leader since Oliver Cromwell to criminalise Christmas is somewhat fanciful. 

Boris Johnson is nobody’s idea of a sobersided Roundhead. Rather, as he said in his press conference, he is inviting the nation to “have itself a merry little Christmas”, with – thanks to Covid-19 – the emphasis on “little”. Christmas is not being cancelled, and Puritanism is not being imposed on a fun-loving people.

Yet the riddle remains. If a smaller, shorter Christmas break is as desirable as Mr Johnson and the chief medical officer, Chris Whitty, advise, then why not make the rule more restrictive than it currently is? For now, the three-households-five-days rule still stands, except for Wales, where it is to be a two-household variation, adding a little more room for confusion for those with family and friends either side of the border.

Professor Whitty acknowledges that the more contact between more people that takes place, the higher the risks and scale of hospitalisations and deaths. Other experts say it will overwhelm the NHS. One way or another it will risk costing lives – when vaccination for the more vulnerable is tantalisingly close.

To borrow a phrase, the prime minister wants to have his Christmas cake and eat it. He fears the effects of a third wave, as some tiers are relaxed before the Christmas easements; yet he does not presumably wish to be blamed for people cancelling their plans, missing kith and kin – and for yet another U-turn. 

Hence the frantic effort to persuade people not to push things to the limit that they might quite reasonably have taken to be “safe” because the government decreed it and the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) sanctioned it.

Professor Whitty made the analogy with the national speed limit. Because it is legal to drive at 70mph on a motorway,  does not make it compulsory – especially not when conditions are icy and treacherous. Without wishing to push the analogy too far, in times such as these the authorities impose a limit of 40mph or 50mph upon drivers. The crucial point, in other words, is that Covid conditions have grown more treacherous since the Christmas virus policy was announced three weeks ago.

In the end, balancing risks and benefits is a political judgement, though tempered by expert advice. It is also about adjusting policy according to rapidly changing circumstances. It has to go with the grain of public opinion and likely behaviour. It has to take economics and social factors into account, and the wishes and needs of different parts of the country. 

Drawing up the rules for the Christmas holiday was never going to be easy, and Mr Johnson apparently still has Professor Whitty literally by his side when necessary. Yet the case for sticking with the old policy is as yet unproven, and the risks seem to be escalating.