Written by Brian Morris
This article was first published on Briefings for Britain and we republish here with kind permission.
~~oo~~
The UK government’s Covid policy is to focus on areas of high infection rates rather than adopting a blanket approach. Communications consultant Brian Morris asks why it’s not focusing on the population group most at risk, with a shift in policy and messages.
People in the Covid-19 high risk age group may remember that in the 60s TV science fiction series Star Trek Captain James Kirk and his space ship Enterprise encountered many strange civilisations, including one that had an original way of dealing with an ageing population. For the greater good of their society, when someone had reached an advanced age, they were, to put it bluntly, terminated. It was done in a way the Swiss would have approved of and accepted by the alien population.
The Covid pandemic also singles out the aged as well as people with serious health conditions. The magazine Nature reported at the end of August that ‘For every 1,000 people infected with the coronavirus who are under the age of 50, almost none will die. For people in their fifties and early sixties, about five will die’.
After the early sixties, the risk increases dramatically. ‘For every 1,000 people in their mid-seventies or older who are infected, around 116 will die’.
Kirk and his crew were shocked at mandatory death sentences by age Yet this alien civilisation at least recognised the uncomfortable truth: that those whose lives are nearing their end should not be preserved at any cost if this destroys many lives among the rest of the society.
I’m not suggesting the government should be hanging oldies like me out to die. But increasingly lockdown policies are seen as ineffective and damaging to the economy, increasing deaths from other diseases not diagnosed and treatments delayed. They are creating a mental health crisis, with high unemployment and countless businesses destroyed. Such criticism extends far beyond the Daily Mail and is shared by top scientists
My argument is that the Tories should be looking hard at local actions and restrictions specifically designed to help the elderly stay safe, rather than continuing policies that penalise everyone. Such a policies, if successful, would mean that even with infections spreading across the country, there would be less pressure on the NHS and more people able to return to work.
Labour has even more of a blanket approach. The prime minister rejected Sir Keir Starmer’s proposal for a one-size-fits-all lockdown because it would penalise areas with infection rates that are low, just as much as those where they are high. Tory policy is tailored to meet different rates of infection in different parts of the country. But there are no restrictive measures tailored for different age groups.
Advice and guidance have been provided for those shielding and vulnerable. However, this this adds up to little more than being particularly careful to carry out the precautions that apply to everyone. The government may be reluctant to discriminate against the vulnerable. But the virus does just that.
It would be unrealistic to expect the government to perform yet another embarrassing U-turn and abandon lockdowns, even though they are leading to mutiny in the Tory ranks and anger among local leaders. Yet even if lockdowns are proved to slow the spread of the disease and save lives, focusing on protection and support for vulnerable groups makes good sense. The safer the vulnerable, are, the more life can return to near-normal. More people could get on with their working lives and the economy begin to recover.
Economic recovery cannot come too soon. It appears we are going to have to learn to live with the virus, certainly for some time. Until, that is, we have some herd immunity and an effective vaccine. Even if a vaccine from Oxford or further afield gallops over the hill to save us, it will only meet the test of not guaranteeing less than 50% effective immunity to those vaccinated.
Tory MP Sir Bernard Jenkins is calling for a Living with Coronavirus policy. How might such a policy work? If Johnny comes home from University, can we test him before he’s allowed to hug his gran in her care home? Or could granny’s care home, as some already have, create a sheltered garden area where Johnny and gran can talk while socially distanced?
Living with the virus means that people of my age should, if they are capable, take some responsibility for their own safety and decide what risks they’re prepared to take to live more normally. Perhaps the government could develop a tiered risk system that would inform the vulnerable of the risk level in their part of the country and what they should do to stay safe.
I cannot pretend that a policy shift like this would be easy. The government fears the accusation that it would be throwing the elderly under the Covid bus. And polls show that a majority of people favour stricter lockdowns rather than a relaxation.
The Tories needs to start making the moral case for a policy shift that delivers more help and support at the door rather than through general restrictions. And shrewd messaging will be called for. Time, surely, to rev up Dominic Cummings.
There’s another problem. Since the beginning of the pandemic local authorities, businesses and charities have been supporting and protecting the vulnerable. If the government tried to muscle in on this field, it would provoke anger and accusations of Boris-come-lately.
But a few million pounds to areas of deprivation where risks are particularly high, and a willingness to work with local leaders and even listen to them, would do a lot to calm the waters. And by a happy coincidence, many of the places most in in need of extra support are in parliamentary seats in the red wall the Tory need to retain.
At the same time Tory concerns about the damage being done to the economy would be placated and local leaders’ anger diminished. Working closely with local councils, charities and businesses would answer the criticism of the government imposing a top down approach and spread the responsibility for any glitches or failures.
Nor should it be assumed that senior citizens like me would be outraged by such a policy shift. I suspect I speak for many among the elderly when I say I don’t want the government to chuck money at the virus regardless to give me a few more years of life. I have grandchildren. We pensioners worry about their future more than ours.
After all, my friends, like me, have had a pretty good life. For many of the elderly, past decades have seen astonishing improvements in lifestyles that our parents could scarcely have imagined. We have enjoyed dishwashers, modern washing machines, tumble driers and central heating. We have driven cars that were not made by British Leyland. We flew the globe, from France to Florida, in search of sun and pleasure. We developed a taste for curries, often with chips, and even fancy continental foods. We have huge industries dedicated to keep us entertained, titillated, and informed.
In many families we were the first member to go to university, the first to own a house. Most of us are fitter than our parents were and live longer.
Not all families enjoyed this surge in wealth and health We know poverty can be deeply entrenched and some communities never really recovered from the job losses of the Thatcher era. These families are the ones where, thanks to Covid lockdowns, most jobs are being lost. They don’t have well-paid, safe, public sector posts like MPs or members of SAGE.
The good news for our forgotten citizens is that Brexit and last year’s general election have changed politics. Politicians can no longer ignore them. The bad news is that the more money the government spends trying to extend the lives of the Covid target groups, the more difficult it will be to even begin to level up.
But Govt did throw a lot of old folk off the NHS bus at the first panic, doubling the death rate and now they have to indulge in cover -up after cover up
Guest author still kicking ‘it was Fathcher wot caused most of it’.
Doesn’t he know the mantra has been moved to ‘it was Kunnins wot done it’.
An ”opinion piece”. Nothing to see here, move along.
I sort of agree with everybody. But my answer is always to change thoughtfully. Change for its own sakeis, is for the birds and the young. I remember in 1945 seeing a fridge which ran off water pressure. Pressure not amount, just pressure. No electric motor. Amnother favourite of mine was my timble dryer, on which I removed the expensive heater. It took twice the time but not much electricity. I daresay I could hve run it off water pressure ( Head ). Quality, not consumerism. Nothing lasts anymore. Talk about raping the planet. D’you need a new glittery new top. Charity shops are improving thingsslowly. Shop for quality. . Tax, the greatest weapon in history . It’s missused. Tax thr basic resource wasted not the result of people wasting their lives and their planet together. Everything can be done better . The patent system is a shambles and incedibly wasteful of basic resources. Tax in the west is a weapon to maintain a fiction.and wasteful and decripit.
Covid is incridible. The way it has been fought islike the Generals before WW1 & 2. A job protection scheme. It frightens me more than the actual thing itself. It’s frightening how bad our society is. Undeserving of anything
Sorry abou the mistakes and punctuation. I have always had secretaries or typists to polish this stuff up’..
My point being. Change backwards is reviled. But there are lessons, big lessons.:- Big changes are difficult, badly thought out or precipitous changes are dangerous, Knee jerks kick the wrong thing. etc
Incidentally , why does no-one notice the fourth monkey. ” Do no Evil “
Can’t put my finger on it, but as an antique antique, just back from a round of Golf yesterday on an “open practice course”, it leaves a nasty taste in my mouth
Whether it was the bit about we’d never had it so good with washing machines dishwashers and central heating or curry and chips and the bland insistence that of course we MUST put the future of our grand children before our lust to continue this decadent life to the very last minute.
I don’t know but I don’t use my dish washer or tumble drier and my central heating is a solid fuel system for the birds (just can’t afford the alternatives calor gas or oil)
Help for the aged OK, Care for the Aged OK, but lock them up in any guise NOT OK, The Swiss death without consent NOT OK, Compulsory vaccination NOT OK, Refusal to treat because of underlying so NOT OK (for any age).
We are only here with one time around, there is no need or legitimate compulsion to prevent each of us getting to our particular end, personally I am all for grabbing every morsel that there is left that I can appreciate and enjoy. Dementia etc different matter..
Finally, the author makes no suggestions for how those of the darker races should be helped/controlled, as apparently they have a superior Covid incidence.
” The government fears the accusation that it would be throwing the elderly under the Covid bus.”
That fear is behind the over-reaction to this disease all round the world. Governments know that the MSM would show them no mercy if given the chance to tear into them as heartless bureaucrats.
JF