The government has to strike a balance over coronavirus rules this Christmas

It was only nine months ago, but it seems as if it were a different age, when the behavioural scientists warned the government that it would be difficult to maintain compliance with rules against social mixing for several months. 

At the time, they were met with some scepticism, because it was said that of course people would stick to the coronavirus-related rules if they knew that other people’s lives depended on it. 

It is true that in the early phase of the first lockdown, and among much of the population since, compliance has been higher than expected and has been sustained. But the social scientists did know what they were talking about. For a large minority of the population, the rules have become too much trouble – even finding out what the rules are can require what some people regard as too much effort – or, more justifiably, as causing too much hardship. 

It is against that background that we should hear the warning from some experts that the government has made a “mistake” in allowing limited extra mixing over Christmas. We should note that this warning comes from “Independent Sage” – a group set up by scientists who disagreed with the official advice given by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage). 

The consensus view would seem to be that the government has to balance the strictest rules that would be justified by medical need with the wider needs of society – but also with what is possible. 

That means that the rules have to allow people to visit vulnerable relatives in care homes, for example. Their welfare is better served by taking some risks with the virus than by keeping them in confinement. And it means that the schools have to be kept open – until the end of term – because an entire generation has already missed out on too much priceless education. 

But it also means that the rules have to make some allowance for human nature. It is pointless – and indeed it may be counterproductive – to legislate for restrictions that are unlikely to be observed and that cannot be enforced. Part of the government’s unspoken calculation about Christmas was no doubt that some people would see their families whatever the rules said. 

Opinion polls suggest that many if not most people think that the Christmas rules are too lax, but that there are also large numbers of those who think that they are too strict. It makes sense to pitch the rules so that they achieve maximum support and therefore maximum compliance. The aim of the rules is to influence behaviour in the aggregate – which has to be achieved voluntarily rather than by compulsion – so it is important that they are set in such a way as to be regarded as reasonable by the greatest possible number. 

If London has to go into tier 3 a week before Christmas, we believe most people will accept it if that is what the case and hospitalisation numbers dictate. But it is a simple recognition of reality to allow some minimal relaxation of the UK-wide rules over Christmas itself.