THE prospect of a ‘normal’ Christmas and the implications of that and the difficulty of knowing who to believe were the topics raised by columnists and contributors in the newspapers.

The Daily Mail

Stephen Glover said the Prime Minister had painted himself in the guise of Father Christmas over the past few days.

“ It’s a rum state of affairs when being told that we can live fairly normal lives for five days over Christmas, and that up to three households will be allowed to mingle, is seen as a dispensation,” he said. “My goodness, we’ll even be allowed to hug!”

He said we had got so used to having our freedoms curtailed that even a partial suspension of draconian rules is received as a relief.

“Are we being softened up? Is Boris, having posed as a genial Father Christmas, about to revert to Scrooge?,” he asked. “We could be sleep-walking into another lockdown not unlike the one from which we are about to emerge, though it will be called something else in the hope that we may be too demob-happy to notice.”

He said the small break in restrictions wouldn’t last because the scientists were still very much in charge.

“My bet is that the prospect of a vaccine is making them even more presumptuous,” he said. “They expect we will put up with a few more months of deprivation and incarceration in the belief that deliverance is at hand.”

He said we had a Government in two parts - one part epitomised by Rishi Sunak, ‘looking to the future, aware of the precariousness of our situation, but calmly planning ahead.’

“The other part, represented by Matt Hancock and a gaggle of scientists ignorant of business, is prepared to strangle the economy in a foolish act of sabotage. We are about to find out whether Boris Johnson is a prudent or a kamikaze Tory. “

The Daily Express

Virginia Blackburn asked what could possibly go wrong at Christmas, with limited numbers of households allowed to mix again.

“Well, just about everything, actually,” she answered. “Is the Government insane? Christmas is a notoriously fractious time of the year under the best of circumstances, with families cooped up together, eating and drinking too much and ending up in furious tiffs over the Monopoly board which are, of course, a substitute for what is really making you mad.”

She said someone would burn the sprouts, everyone will drink too much and no one would get the presents they wanted.

“Just as your nerves have stretched to breaking point carol singers will pipe up on the doorstep,” she said. “It emerges they cannot hold a tune. And three families! What about the families with four grown-up children? Just how are you going to tell grandma that sorry, she’s persona non grata this year?

She said there could be ‘political’ decisions made about who to invite due to fear over losing out on an inheritance.

“So well done Boris and Co,” she concluded.

“In the strangest year in living memory, they have arranged for quite the finale, but with the added fun that even the pubs won’t be open so there will be nowhere to escape. And bah humbug to you too!”

The Guardian

David Spiegelhalter, chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication at Cambridge University, said you’d be forgiven for not knowing who to trust in the pandemic.

“During a crisis like this one, trust clearly matters,” he said. “It changes what people are willing to do: whether that be wearing a face covering or getting a vaccine when one becomes available.”

He said those who want to be trusted should consider how they present their evidence.

“Sometimes decisions have to be made in the face of little evidence, but it should be clear what evidence there is, and how strong,” he said.

“The ultimate test of evidence is being able to check it yourself. If people don’t tell you how to drill down into the evidence to find out more, or where to find the data, why not?”

He said what makes humans such an extraordinary species is our ability to learn from the experience and knowledge of others.

“It’s far better for communicators to be trustworthy from the start – to be honest about the complexities and the uncertainties, open about the trade-offs and reasoning behind policies – than it is to simplify for the sake of an easy message.”