COVID-19 LOCKDOWN OPTIONS: OVER 50s? UNDER 50s? OR WHAT?

There has been talk of forcing the over 50s to self-isolate and shield themselves in a national lockdown, whilst the under 50s galivant their way through the rest of the summer.

Is this a good idea?  Should it be across a different age range?  Or indeed for all ages?

Apart from being ageist, isolating the over 50s overlooks three fundamental issues:

• If the economy is to thrive, it is the over 50s who have the money to spend
• Many businesses rely on over 50s for management
• COVID-19 isn’t just about deaths, which do indeed primarily affect the over 50s,. It is also LongCOVID, the nasty multi-organ effects of COVID-19  affect all people, young and old, including children (with MIS-C)

The future is younger people.  Those of us over 50 need to do our bit to protect the young.  (By the way, my earliest memory is The Dave Clark’s Five having “Bits and Pieces” in the pop charts. A real oldie.)

That means it is the UNDER 50s who need to self-isolate and shield themselves.  The over 50s need to go out, enjoy ourselves and spend our money.  If some of us oldies die, so be it.  That would produce the added benefits of reducing the pensions burden and reducing the need for long term care.  No government has yet solved those two pressing problems.  The UK government could be the first.

But sadly that strategy is also ageist. And overlooking that younger people are an important part of the economy.

Aren’t we all in this together?  Young and old.  With an increasing number of areas having to go into lockdown, their neighbours are spared.  Unfair, and only until that is those areas join up, as we'll see below.

Surely the right thing to do is be fair to everyone?


THE PROPOSAL

It is clear that the best way to improve the economy, and get funds into the Treasury, is to improve public confidence so everyone is happy to go out and spend .  That can only be achieved by getting new cases of COVID-19 down to a very low level.  Far lower than the levels around England today.

Confidence is also needed to get schools back safely, now due in less than a month .  Not just safely for the children, but also safely for the adults involved.  Teachers, other staff and parents.

This approach is echoed by Independent SAGE, who see the same benefits of a very low level of infection.  They would like to eliminate the virus fron the British Isles completely.  A noble aim, but not in such short timescales.  We have to be more realistic.  A very low level of infection, #NearZero, is acceptable, certainly in the short term.

In this analysis, the level of infections in England is estimated to be around four times the very low levels we should have, on average across the country.  In the north west, the towns with a high level of infection have joined together into one big area, which is now in lockdown.

Reduce the threshold to areas that are above the target level, and nearly the whole of England joins up. Here is a graphic from the government's own website, reflecting  the latest data for England (currently to 26 July, over a week ago, on a rising curve).  England should be such that the whole country is white, at a very low level of infection.  Action at a national level is needed.

Take action in August to get new infections down to a very low level and the risks of catching COVID-19 are substantially reduced.  Public confidence would be far higher.  That will be vital to let schools go back in early September, and provide the foundations for a swift rise in the economy. It would also of course reduce the number of deaths and LongCOVID, which affects far more of the people who catch this dreadful disease.  Plus provide a lower base to reduce a second wave this winter.

In the time available that can only mean one thing.  A national lockdown of reasonable severity for everyone.  Just for three to four weeks to reduce cases to potentially a sixth of what they are today..    Certainly to get to a quarter of what they are now, which is where we need to be.  Provided it is done quickly before cases rise.

We have the advantage in August, whilst we are still in summer, to have a lighter lockdown than would be needed later.  This second lockdown can also be shorter than the first:

• Outdoor cafes and beer gardens could stay open
• Beaches and outdoor tourist attractions too
• People allowed to travel to pre-booked holiday accommodation, provided they treat it as their lockdown base

We could leave a second national lockdown to September or October.  But that would require a tougher lockdown, and delay the benefits, especially if the infection level continues to rise.  Better to bite the bullet now.

Having got infections levels down, we also need to make sure cases don't rise again, as is happening in other countries such as Spain and Japan.  That requires a national education campaign, With less cases to trace, it would be worth re-assigning contact tracers to a warden-style role in their local communities.  That is to educate, encourage and if necessary chide.  A more effective use of resources.


IN CONCLUSION

An ageist approach is inappropriate, but a national approach is right.

If getting schools back in September is really the government’s top priority, then isn’t August the best time to do a second national lockdown? Don’t we all want the benefits of a much lower rate of infection?  Lower death and LongCOVID rates, and a stronger economy?

Should we also be better prepared to stop a second wave?

So should the Government bite the bullet and go for a short national lockdown?

Hands up who agrees.

There's bound to be objections, and they need to be considered and addressed. We need a debate, but it’s got to be swift.  The time for action is now.