While this Christmas will be far from “normal”, the government seem to be going to great lengths to allow families to gather and celebrate as they would every other year.
For many, the announcement of a break in the rules between 23 and 27 December was met with relief. Crucially, it would allow three households to form a Christmas bubble.
While I completely understand this desire to return to some normality, albeit for a few days, I just don’t think it’s worth it. It is hard to tell if such a move by the government is an attempt to momentarily boost the economy, or is merely a popularity stunt. Either way, I just don’t see the point.
In addition to the threat of a third lockdown at the beginning of the new year further disrupting the economy, I just can’t bear the thought of unknowingly passing on Covid to an elderly or vulnerable relative.
Despite cases reducing by a third since the beginning of the second lockdown four weeks ago, the disease is still very much in circulation. The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) warned in a report published on November 19 that “Any relaxation over the festive period will result in increased transmission and increased prevalence, potentially by a large amount”. The report even compared the mass movement that would take place over the Christmas period to the return of students to universities in September “albeit on a different scale”.
Furthermore, many schools will not break up for Christmas until December 18. This would mean there could potentially be a period of just five days between children being in close contact with other pupils and travelling to see friends and families in an intimate proximity.
Surprisingly, our decision not to meet for Christmas was met with some relief by my grandparents.
Although Boris Johnson has issued government advice that celebrations should include “No touching, no games or rowdy singing”, I feel that such measures are not sufficient.
We know the virus can be airborne and that people do not need to physically touch for the virus to be passed on. Shockingly, according to the SAGE report, it is estimated that on average “up to 50% in one household becom[e] infected from one infected member”.
After the government announced the relaxation of rules, my family did consider visiting elderly relatives for Christmas. However, due to their age we knew that we would not be able to carry out the celebrations outside. We decided that any meals would need to be indoors, and we would therefore need to isolate for 14 days before the visit.
However, we realised that even a period of isolation would not guarantee us being Covid free. Despite not meeting people outside of our own household, we would still need to visit supermarkets to shop for both ourselves and our elderly relatives and could in theory pick up the virus there.
Surprisingly, our decision not to meet for Christmas was met with some relief by my grandparents. It seemed that they themselves had been anxious about the potential gathering.
Despite this, I understand that for some elderly or vulnerable individuals, not seeing friends or family would mean spending Christmas alone. I think in these cases the creation of a support bubble is important. I also know that for those who are ill, there is the fear that this could be their last Christmas. Therefore, I believe that it is up to the rest of us to sacrifice seeing our friends and family so that these individuals can have a Christmas.
While I of course do not judge those who are choosing to see relatives this Christmas, I want those who aren’t sure to know it is OK to say “no”. Many people this year have felt under pressure from family or friends to do things that have made them uncomfortable and no one should be made to feel that way. By being careful, we can stay safe and protect others.
Matilda Martin is a freelance writer.
