@RedToothBrush
I see most of the points you list as being a result of incompetent governance. Westminster was far too slow to react, imposed a wishy-washy lockdown far too late, and hasn't bothered to police the restrictions we had in place post-lockdown, such as people coming back from holidays in Spain, Italy, and such, then heading straight to work the next day.
Had we a more competent government that actually did value human life above money, we may have gotten to grips with the initial outbreak far earlier, rendering the discussion about Christmas restrictions moot, with the added bonus of far fewer deaths, and a far less damaged economy.
It's clear as day there are people who have no intention of following whichever set of restrictions the govt happens to be rolling out at any point in time. You only need look at behaviours the length and breadth of the country since this whole thing began, read threads such as this, to see that it's empirically clear that regardless of known risk, some people are hell bent on suiting themselves irrespective of consequences.
You can argue that's down to restriction fatigue, and I'd agree with you that's a part of it, but it doesn't explain away the people who were ignoring lockdown back in March and April, or buggering off to Spain and Italy in July, August etc, then whinging about the fact they were being expected to isolate upon their return. There's an element of the population that don't believe the rules apply to them, or rationalise their rule-breaking by concluding that just one or two people wont make a difference, with seeming scant regard for the fact that if we all took that attitude it would just prolong the epidemic, lead to more deaths, more restrictions, further atrophy of the economy etc.
I genuinely do not blame anyone for wanting a christmas with their family, I understand it, I really do, but I'm comfortable pointing out how bloody selfish that can be when it involves breaking rules other people are still happy to abide by for the greater good.