I disagree in that it was clear what was going to happen - indeed was already happening as the Harrods pictures were showing. People were going to go nuts with Christmas shopping and there were going to be big groups of people mingling over the period. It's like looking at a big pile of twigs and paper saying "there is no fire" then throwing a lit match in. London with it's massive public transport network was always going to be high risk. Khan was arguing in favour of businesses making money rather than considering public health. For him to be wailing and complaining at the inevitable results of what he wanted is a bit rich.
I'm pretty sure if the government said "black", Khan would be on the radio shouting "white" within minutes.
I hadn't anticipated the Kent mutation back then and I'd be surprised if you had.
Also, the move to Tier 3 would not have shut Harrods down so would have made little if any difference.
The losers in the change from 2 to 3 are principally the hospitality sector, who had had little to do with any explosion in the infection rate because of precautions already taken. (As far as I know. Happy to be corrected though if there has been news that I missed.)
The real match lighter was the government keeping the prospect of an as-normal-as-possible Christmas and promising some kind of bubble-relaxation mode. Together with the blind insistence on keeping schools open after there was growing evidence of the mutation's spread amongst schoolchildren.
On the specifically London issues, the use of public transport has been very low here since mid March. South Wales, with no Harrods and a poorer public transport system, has managed to get to current London level rates of infection before London itself.
If you want to attack Khan, do it on other questions. The Silvertown tunnel would be a very good place to start.
