I don't think that comment follows from those maps.
The tier levels before lockdown 2 were a joke. Far too many places were in tier 1 and far too few in tier 3. This was largely because the government didn't want to pay for the support needed to put places into tier 3, as seen by the arguments in Manchester. They were too focused on keeping local/regional areas happy and not on what needed to be done. They only bought in the tier system to avoid having a 'circuit breaker lockdown' and the whole thing was such a disaster that in 3 weeks there had to be a national lockdown. Just because there's wider restrictions now doesn't mean lockdown 2 has been a failure. We need to wait a bit longer to make that judgment, but there's plenty of positive signs about.
Some credit where it's due: if we're going to have a tier system, I'm pleased to see around 97% of the population in tier 2 & 3, otherwise they'd just be repeating the same mistake as before. And all the right people are whinging loudly about the new tier levels - mainly anti-lockdown pro-business short-sighted right-wing shitfuckers from what I've seen.
Sure, there's plenty to pick at in the new system: another whole new set of rules to get used to; some areas clearly in the wrong tier (Redbridge with 302.4 per 100k, with cases rising put in tier 2, because London); whether now is the right time for this new system to come in (probably not, if it wasn't for Xmas lockdown would've probably been extended until cases came down some more). But the government have made many far worse decisions since March.