I know I am far from alone in spending a lot of time talking to friends, peers and family about coronavirus at present. The only reasonable conclusions that can be drawn by most of us right now are that the situation is deeply frustrating, worrying, and profoundly difficult.
Even as an introvert who is used to working at home much of the time I am finding the lack of social interaction quite hard.
I am also sure that I far from alone in worrying about where money might come from, in my case when my current grants run out.
And then there is the health issue, most especially for those we care about, which remain very real.
There are, of course, many perspectives on this issue. I want to consider one of them that has been giving me a lot to think about after conversations I have had this week.
I am only too well aware that Covid 19 deaths are mainly amongst the elderly. There is increased risk simply by being in your 60s (and I am). And there is much-increased risk as age advances beyond that. To many younger people this virus is perversely relatively quite kind, which is a contrast to previous pandemics. But in that case I am beginning to think the unthinkable. Is it possible that the government might consider making the most severe outcome of this pandemic a threat to the way of life of the still active, but now at risk elderly? Could they, in other words, demand that these people lockdown almost in perpetuity when others have restrictions removed?
The fact is that anyone over a certain age now realises that the government's ongoing herd immunity policy, that is already unnecessarily killing tens of thousands of older people, shows that the government really does not care about those it considers elderly. This policy already makes it clear that those of about retirement age and above are now very obviously considered expendable. And this is unsurprising. Given that neoliberal politics in the UK long ago gave up worrying about how a government might provide for those enjoying ever longer lives I suspect that neoliberal politicians' delight that this problem is apparently being solved for them knows no limits: they will only see economic gain in this. They will simply be imagining the financial returns as all those pensions go unpaid.
But they are very wrong to do so, in a great many ways.
First that is because the fact is that there are millions of relatively well off baby boomer retired people, as defined by their available consumer spending in proportion to income. Whole industries, from the cliche of cruising onwards, are built around servicing their needs.
In addition, many voluntary organisations, from the National Trust to every preserved railway, which between them are magnets for much of the domestic tourist market, are staffed by these more elderly people, almost entirely unpaid and yet with substantial economic impact.
And then appreciate that it might just be that this whole sector, both as consumers and producers of value is about to face the biggest single threat it has ever known in our lifetimes. The risk that this entire population might be quite severely restricted as to what it might do is rumoured to be one possibility being considered by the government as the price of returning the rest of society to normality.
I admit that this idea is shocking. I would go further, as someone on the cusp of this age group. I think it shocking that it can be considered that a way for society to survive this crisis may be to suggest that millions might now be socially and economically isolated, including by making them unemployable in any paid or voluntary role that requires any normal social interaction, and that in the enforced retirement that society might impose the more elderly might also see their freedom of movement severely impaired.
I admit, this is not what I ever expected of older age. I am not unrealistic though. I am of course aware that are some ways in which everything has already been changed by Covid-19. But just as so many in business must now realise that every assumption that they ever made as to their business model is now redundant, should I, and all others of my age, now be doing the same with what might be called our own business models, or life plans? As Keynes is reputed to have said, when the facts change, do we have to change our thinking?
I am more than willing to do that. I have lived with uncertainty. But what if enforced lockdown disrupts uncertainty and makes it required inactivity? That's a really quite phenomenal change, bigger than anything I have considered before.
And what does the threat of life in lockdown really mean for those who are older? Can we really incarcerate a whole part of society? And if we do, what happens to the economy?
There will, for reasons already noted, be less production and spending going on. But there will also be a need for considerably more care as people unable to go out, and without much motivation to live left, will inevitably suffer rapidly deteriorating health in their homes?
The economic, social, health and emotional cost of this seems to me to be far beyond any price worth paying. It is not just wholly unrealistic, but is ultimately a breach of human rights because it is, of course, highly discriminatory.
What that means then is that if Covid 19 requires a response, and it clearly does, then the plan has to be one that ensures that all can emerge from this in ways that mean that they can fully engage in life again.
For large numbers of people that is going to mean that furlough is going to need to be replaced by a job guarantee: we cannot face 1930s style unemployment now.
And for those most vulnerable to the disease - who are the elderly - then the plan has to be to make life as safe as possible, but still decidedly liveable.
There there will be risk can be accepted, I suspect. When you're 60 you know you are finite. That's inevitable. It's an odd moment when you realise that most of life has happened, and accept the fact. But the idea that any part of our community can be written off to Covid-19, which is what the government's current herd immunity policy necessarily involves, which has implicit in it a massive indifference to both the lives and the quality of life of those aged 60 and above, seems to me wholly unacceptable.
Testing and tracing is essential to alleviate this situation.
So, too, are isolation hospitals so that other hospitals can resume their normal work, much of which they are not now doing, with considerable cost as a result.
But most of all we need to rethink what everything means in this new world. Keynes was right in that the facts have changed, but what the new plans as to what will be either permitted or possible are not known. But I am certainly going to be considering the issue. No one has a right, as I suspect this government will think it has, to tell the elderly that they are the collateral damage of getting the economy back to work. That is because an economy has to serve all in a community. Any economy that does not do that reveals something deeply sinister, which is that it is simply organised to support a few at cost to the many.
The question that we have to consider now is which of those choices will be taken. Are we to have an economy that serves us all, or one that serves a few at cost to many?
I suspect this is a theme I will be returning to, not least because what I think might become apparent is that we have an economy intended to serve a few. And if there was ever a moment when that was unacceptable then this is it.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Sadly, what you or I consider you be unacceptable will probably become acceptable when the media have chewed it around. Already people our age are considered to have taken more out of society than we put in. We’re Boomers, we’ve benefitted from free education, cheap housing, good jobs for life and index linked pensions. When the media machine has played with that for a while you can Imagine anything will become acceptable. It’s good to remember that after 10 years of austerity the poorest areas of Britain voted for more. I used to enjoy a couple of evenings a week in the local. Even before this crisis some of the reactionary views emanating from the mouths of the poorer members of the community was shocking. It will get worse. At 75 I’m quite scared because I think I’m still quite useful as a taxi driver for grand children and other jobs.
I live in an area with a more mature demographic, most are ignoring the lockdown, friends and family are still visiting them, and unnecessary journeys continue to be made and are increasing daily.
The only social distancing being practiced is when told, in shops for example.
I do not live in a “deprived” (don’t agree with all those index things personally)
There has been no clapping for carers.
This maybe because the area has a very low infection rate.
The economy will be different, but not in a good way, I am surprised at how many people are waiting for McDonald’s of all places to reopen, not their local produce restaurant that has spent years building up a reputation.
As I said in a previous post, major change will not happen.
It is very different here as far as I can tell
Social distancing is very definitely being done
And it will be different, I am certain
Avdevastated economy will not be the same after this
A case of there not being many infections as a percentage of the population in my area possibly.
My friend in Greater Manchester has kept both her son and daughter indoors, they have not seen their friends for a good few weeks.
A previous poster stated that the stock markets are around 20% of normality???
Many investors are waiting for the right time to buy again.
To those lucky enough to be working and have their own transport, the reduced fuel prices are a big help.
Another point a colleague of mine was getting quite irritated about was that out of his salary of around £55k, he was being taxed around £15k, that is before Council Tax, IPT, VAT etc…
You have to convince this section of the population before you can promote tax reforms and changes to the economy.
No, we have to convince a majority of the population or provide them with no alternative
The anti-taxers have been with us always, remember
You underestimate people and their selfishness, the person I qouted above is not a minority.
If a party brave enough to have higher taxes somehow got elected, an opposition party would campaign to reverse and lower taxes, get elected, follow through on their promise and the cycle begins again.
With the greatest respect of the effort you put in to your work and this blog, which is an informative read for those with an open mind, you really need to talk to “the coalface” about your ideas and engage with the reaction.
Your thoughts on what happens and what you experience would make an excellent series of blog posts.
Example:
“Today I discussed tax and the economy with bus drivers at Hyde Road Depot, Manchester, this is what I found out…..”
Oh yes?
And if you have them the facts they’d still say no?
We have had successive governments who are anti-tax in this country and sold that as an ideal
Of course we are anti-tax
We need not be
I understand your concern for the economy but when you choose to describe it as a devastated economy I feel compelled to reflect that it was an economy that was devastating our communal environment,
it’s necessary to consider both perspectives and reconcile their contradictions when formulating a new economic reality within this new corona normal,
I don’t want to say post corona because it evidently isn’t going anywhere in a hurry, it’s an inconvenient reality that we have to try and accomodate and accept, not deny and then keep stumbling over,
there are compromises that will have to be made, you’re right that isolation hospitals are required to allow general hospitals to recommence their usual activities,
I am acutely aware of the position the elderly find themselves, my mother is in her 80’s and currently living like a hermit,
we do need to return life to some semblance of normal activity at a prudent point but it does have to be done with the constant understanding that we can’t create the conditions where new infection rates can spiral up and put us back to square one,
the new and emergent corona economy is likely to be more muted than the previous one but the previous economy was so intense, crowded and travel oriented it facilitated the rapid spread of the virus,
also the previous economy was so overly accelerated in terms of consumption of goods & services that at this time last year we were panicking that we only had 12 years left at those consumption rates before we irretrievably trashed our environment,
environmental problems were far enough in the future to make it difficult for people to change their habits today,
corona presents an immediate problem that evidently motivates people to change their habits immediately,
maybe we should recognise that the rapid spread of corona and the impact it’s had upon our longest and most convoluted supply chains in history is another facet of the general crisis we are facing as a species, environmental concerns being another facet,
as is our ever expanding global population and our ever increasing appetite for consuming energy and resources, as is our increasingly frantic efforts to maintain and expand that energy supply and consumption rates in the face of dwindling resources,
simply; we are too many people doing too much stuff too quickly,
I don’t want to lock boomers up so we can all carry on as if nothing has changed, but also I don’t want to free boomers to travel the four corners of the earth chomping through resources and collecting and distributing new strains of novel diseases,
we need to strike a balance where less can be more, where focus on quantity can be shifted to a focus on quality,
life needs to be less frantic yet more enjoyable,
why are we so obsessed with being at the front of the field in a race to oblivion?
I’d much rather take a gentle stroll to the end of the world and be the last to cross the finishing line.
I would just say that the person on 55k earns twice the median wage of £27,000 per annum and nets nearly 50 per cent more.
What this crisis has quite clearly demonstrates is that those who really add to our quality of life, protection, with regard to our health, our safety and wellbeing, are paid a lot less then even the median wage. Value should be based on contribution to that end rather than what can be extracted for personal aggrandisement.
Another point made by more than a few people is that lockdown means that even if symptom free, visiting close symptom free family is not allowed.
Yet flights coming in from all corners of the globe are not tested here in the UK.
(Although according to recent news reports, this may be changing?)
Agreed
This is completely absurd and is evidence of the herd immunity policy continuing
Corrupt governments are the norm in many countries and much of that corruption now being sponsored by the FIRE sector (finance and real estate). Central to the corruption by this sector is to wage war on the notion that government has any money of its own in order to make it easier to indebt a country’s citizens.
This in turn means the elderly population in many countries are now exceptionally vulnerable to mistreatment as we’re seeing in the UK where lack of access to general hospital ICU’s, or fear of treatment there, for severe coronavirus effects has been institutionalised. Now a policy of isolating the elderly in care homes like former leprosy colonies appears to be on the cards.
The government has no money of its own policy has been in operation for several centuries in the UK despite the country leaving the Gold Standard in 1931 and this has resulted in an under-funded public education system. This in terms has created a nation soundly asleep in regard to matters of economics and monetary system workings and therefore incapable of recognising how to achieve national well-being.
This Govt. exists to serve only the few and, as they did with ‘attempting ‘ to justify austerity and then with the impacts of austerity, they will find groups to blame for this (clue – it won’t be them) and justify whatever actions they take. They will have one aim and that will be retaining power at the next general election.
I hope that I am wrong.
Regards,
Craig
Does the government care? We have seen ample evidence of the vicious policies carried out towards many minorities. So why should the “mature” think that they also will not be discarded. To paraphrase “First they came for the immigrant, and I wasn’t an immigrant, then they came for the poor, and I wasn’t poor, then they came for the disabled, and I wasn’t disabled, then they came for the old, and who was left for me?
I share all your concerns especially as I’m older than you!
This virus appears to be very complex and not like any previous, hence the prefix ‘nova’. Its orgins and ‘behaviour’ are still being debated by the world’s ‘experts’**, and governments are having to choose their preferred sources of scientific advice. Having made that choice they will then devise strategies that satisfy their political agenda. To expect otherwise would be naïve. The more extreme (left or right) an administration the more likely it will be to place a lower value on individual human life. Of course, there can be no simple, straight-forward solution to such a complicated existential threat to socio-economic life. However, I’m pretty sure that those countries with more empathetic leadership will fare better in the longer term.
Here in the UK we know the government is highly dependent on and influenced by the FIRE sector, hence policy will be designed and gradually implemented to satisfy its sponsors and core electorate. Where emotional intelligence is in short supply one shouldn’t expect life-based decisions to be made. Furthermore, your previous blog re. poor decision making is directly relevant.
With so many different and conflicting narratives, it’ll surely be a while before we have access to reliable information regarding the scientific ‘truth’ and concomitant political manipulation/competence that has been exercised in the name of ‘the people’. In the meantime I have zero confidence that this government will roll out policies that will be in the best long-term interests of society at large. Sacrifices will have to be made – just not by them or their cronies.
** For those whose curiosity extends beyond the MSM and fancy a change from Netflix (lol) this is an interesting hour-long discussion between 2 controversial ‘experts’ : Francis Boyle, who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 and who believes COVID-19 is a weaponized pathogen that escaped from Wuhan City’s Biosafety Level (BSL) 4 facility – and the high-profile American natural health doctor, Joseph Mercola. Make of it what you will. Personally I’m convinced by Francis Boyle’s evidence – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMzL227rbiE.
Who pulls the strings at NICE? They’ve already had a go at killing off those on the spectrum (aspies/auties) and people with learning difficulties through policy till outcry forced them to amend their advice
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-nhs-treatment-disabled-autism-nice-covid-19-a9423441.html
Does Cummings determine the direction of travel in these matters, I wonder?
Extinction Rebellion has shown that the elderly will not lie down quietly (unless its a die in) and will be very difficult to police if there are discriminatory restrictions. Will we all need to carry ID cards to prove our age? ‘They’ tried that before without success.
As the majority of the elderly are Tory voters, I can’t see Johnson wanting to alienate them, especially his new found friends in the North.
I agree your conclusion which have the decided disadvantage of being thought through, fair and reasonable…
I’m resigned to isolating until a vaccine brings this under control. So until summer 2021.
One crappy year followed by (hopefully) 20 good ones beats one fun year ending in disaster.
I would have thought that the only way to square this is mass testing with tracing. Possibly supported by app technology. Whether there can be some stop gap like a flu shot remains to be seen. I’m rather worried we may never see a vaccine.
Implicit here is closed borders too. That’s a whole can of worms.
That said if someone elderly wishes to just say go on a train to the coast knowing the risk…
But I agree that whatever emerges has to recognise that there is a civil society.
As others have suggested, making life harder for the segment of the population that is more likely to vote would be political suicide of sorts.
But as I too march towards inevitable old age, I am struck by just how inconsistently the elderly are treated by politicians – they play to them to get them to to vote for them and then create the fear in the rest of the age cohorts that we cannot somehow afford to look after them.
The people who look after the elderly are paid peanuts and undervalued by society. I find it really shocking.
It is really shocking
Because there is almost no public provision of care homes for the elderly, it is the private sector who run this particular racket – for profit of course. So the fees are astronomic, the staff are paid peanuts and the Managers and owners drive Mercedes convertibles. And there is no hope at all of anything changing – I can’t see the Tories funding social care – ever.
The irony is that I had a hard-right Tory ranting at me just before the election about how he would “lose” £20K from his parent’s estate through the inheritance tax changes that Labour would bring in if they won power. So I rejoined that all of my father’s savings were going on care home fees and when his savings ran out, it would be down to me to meet the short fall. So that would be £220K gone in 7 years and then I would need to pick up the difference between what the Council could afford to pay towards the fees (as there are no Council-funded care homes, there isn’t the option of moving him to one of these), and what the actual cost of his care is.
My far-right Tory ranter was dumbstruck. Because it had never ever occurred to him that his parent’s might need to spend their wealth on their own care. He was wholly fixated on the fact that he would inherit the lot. And now he has woken up to the fact that he probably won’t get a penny as it will all go on privately-run care home fees, and he may in fact end up having to stump up the shortfall, just like me.
He’ll still vote Tory though.
As you say Richard it would be discriminatory to “shield” an entire section of the community without their consent. People over 60 have sufficient experience of life to make an informed choice to protect their own interests. Some over 80s with health issues were self isolating weeks before the government brought down the curtain.
People need to be given all the information they need to make an informed choice about continued self isolation. Their choices should be respected and supported by everyone, including the government. Not everyone wants to live in fear for years. Many would prefer to take their chances.
At the moment most people generally accept they are self isolating to protect the NHS even if they are not concerned for themselves. The NHS is a cherished institution but we cannot let protecting it dictate our lives over the long term. It should be sufficiently resourced so it can protect itself. That should be the government’s number one priority.
Bizarrely, some hospitals are quite empty right now
And I am not talking about the Nightingales
Not just bizarre, deeply worrying for doctors like my daughter. The concern is that people are dying at home and not getting to hospital because of fear of catching the virus or not wishing to cause the NHS any trouble. How many of the excess deaths highlighted by ONS are caused by the lockdown? Maybe we will find out more tomorrow when the provisional stats for the week to 17 April come out.
We will
The ‘I don’t want to cause trouble’ syndrome is especially worrying – and we now know has resulted in people dying alone at home
Empty, perhaps, because hospitals are increasingly seen as the place you are wheeled in the front door in a chair and wheeled out the back door in a box.
I read this piece today with interest as I am 72, still work a six day week, and when my gym closed my wife and I set up a gym of sorts in our front room. In some ways I am “livelier” now than when I was 50.
And yet, decrepitude sits resolutely on my shoulder. My GP was quick to point out that frequent use of joints (the bone variety) leads to degeneration, discomfort and unwelcome spare parts surgery or a zimmer-frame.
As far as I can tell, the aged (pre-Covid) were already corralled into retirement homes or managed facilities. Try banning the elderly from their favourite coffee shops in the Yorkshire seaside resort where I live.
There are uncomfortable historical shades that should remind us that discrimination on any basis is unwelcome. I for one will resist.
I will too…
I am 77. My pensions etc put me almost exactly on the median salary, which is plenty for me. I am also an economic researcher in health and social care and the figures show that that, in the current system, at my age do NOT get ill! Just one example will suffice. The Delayed Days for the 65+ shot up by 31% in the 14 months from April 2015 (QORU: A system-level of the Better Care Fund, 2018). As we know older people who are not able to leave hospital when they are better, get a lot sicker, quicker. Coincidentally, this coincided with the launch of the BCF.
The H&SC policy has deliberately underfunded the staffing of social care, as shown by the single biggest reason for delayed transfers of care is lack of care packages at home, i.e. home visits.
By the way, my middle-aged children are almost hysterical about our relaxed attitudes to the pandemic. We do walk in the park daily and go shopping every couple of days (with masks for the protection of others) and we still see the even older person we care for weekly. I think their fears are due to their sheltered existence, I think. As a war baby born in Central Africa I have been through the polio scare, the Congo revolution, military service in Rhodesia, on anti-Vietnam war and apartheid demonstrations, been stateless for a while, and am an immigrant.
The only thing that really scares me at my age is the utter, reckless incompetence of our politicians and the impact on my beautiful grandchildren.
Go well John
I’m five years behind you John and was greatly cheered by your comments. We must ensure that age advances our “warrior” status, not relegate us to some sort of potted plant to be watered and pruned.
I’m pleased to find I am not alone…..
It’s not just the old folks.
My partner is in the high risk group. I can see her having to isolated for the foreseeable. As a family, we have all decided to self isolate, otherwise she would be restricted to one room in the house and have no contact with the rest of us. Use a bucket as a toilet and have meals left outside the door! Solitary confinement in essence. Just not practical.
For us, the real fun will start if the kids go back to school. What do we do? Puts mum at a much higher risk if the kids are no longer socially isolating at school. But she can’t go into “solitary” in one room for months or even a year!! Would drive her mad. Keep the kids off school for a year?
Never mind when/if I go back to work……..?
Interesting times ahead!
I admit I have no answer
I can only pose questions on this one
You have my real sympathy
Thanks Richard.
My questions are retorical by the way. I’m just thinking out loud.
I don’t expect you to come up with the answers.
I think there are around 1.5 million people who are on the “high risk” list. We are not alone!
The relaxation debate will inevitably pit the interests of older people ( who mainly fear for their health, but do enjoy a fixed income if already retired ) against a younger generation, who mainly fear for their income or livlihood. Each of us will be in a different place on this spectrum, with individual factors which may buck the trend. Some younger workers for example have been unwilling to take the risk of going to work, because they live with an older relation who is vulnerable. Conversely an older parent may feel the financial security of their children is more important than taking a one in ten risk that they might die if they contract the virus.
Our governments must now do the impossible job of navigating this huge spectrum of public opinion, in a situation where any decision will alienate large sections of the population.
A few points at least seem clear
1) Lockdown will be eased in stages, as it becomes safe to restart some non-essential economic activity. But social distancing will remain with us for the forseeable future.
2) Risks must be balanced so as to protect the capacity of the NHS at all times. If easing lockdown results in a new spike of cases then lockdown will have to be re-imposed, either regionally or nationally if the outbreak is not contained.
3) The decision on levels of risk will have to align with trends in public opinion. The government do not have enough police to enforce measures if they do not enjoy popular public support. Thus far, fear of the unknown and a rising death toll has kept unity, but as citizens start to feel familiar with the virus this will likely change. Over time we can expect more and more young people to break lockdown restrictions, whether or not the government relaxes the rules.
4) As more relaxation occurs ( whether authorised or not ) older people will be faced with their own dilemma. Either continue in total isolation until a vaccine is available, or venture out and take the risk that they could become very ill, and also infect their household, if they contract the virus. Each household will have hard decisions to reach – a choice which will only be taken away if the government has to re-impose lockdown becuase of a fresh outbreak.
The government face some impossible decisions in the weeks to come, but so too do households up and down the country. The decisions we all have to make must be based on facts not fantasy, which is why it remains a top priority for the government to expand testing capacity and give us a more accurate picture of where and how this virus is still spreading.
I agree. However….
What concerns me a bit is that lockdown is strongly supported now whilst there are 80% salary supplements, support grants for business, financing etc. It’s not clear to me that those things would be in place for round 2, 3 etc. Indeed looking at the SNP framework they were silent on the point of what support would be in place in shutdowns to come.
I may be wrong and I don’t get much sense that support for lockdown is falling a lot. But I spoke with a friend in Italy recently. She told me that the date they stopped singing on balconies was the date the large scale firings started.
I suppose that a long lockdown with cases down to the point test, track and trace works is the best bet now. But that’s going to leave a lot of what ifs.
The furlough scheme will end
And remember – it’s the start-up again that will kill most businesses, as I have said from the outset
Indeed. I don’t know how long furlough can go on for but it can’t last.
What worries me is I just keep getting the idea that some people think shutdowns will always have this support attached. I don’t know what the alternative is – a type of consciption to the NHS or contact tracing? But I suspect round 2 isn’t guaranteed 90% approval.
I suppose it’s all about avoiding the second shutdowns now. But indeed I’ve no idea how businesses, particularly those geared to overseas, can start up again.
I believe at second hand that Italy is looking potentially at what I would think of as a surprisingly fast lockdown exit.
Only a massive investment in test and track can solve this now
It will be much more costly than in other countries because we let the beast out, by choice
The question of opening up the economy appears to have been rendered academic as now kids are getting the virus, or something very like it, or associated with it, or not, or something… anyway, it’s putting them in intensive https://www.hsj.co.uk/acute-care/exclusive-national-alert-as-coronavirus-related-condition-may-be-emerging-in-children/7027496.article
It occurs that while bumping off the older generation in the pursuit of profit is probably entirely acceptable to the 1922 Committee and possibly many of the general population too, bumping off futures ones as well might not find such ready acceptance. I don’t suppose we’ll be going back to anything like normal anytime soon, then, and given the twists and turns the virus is taking, who what fresh and unimaginable horror might soon be dawning?
Like some others on here I am also in my 70s and lucky enough to be fit and active. I also consider myself to have been lucky to be born at the right time (1946) so grew up with the Welfare State and NHS behind me (thankyou Mr Atlee), ample and good job opportunities, even access to University (a real privilege for those from my social background), a final salary pension, own house and on it goes. We even had the best music (the 1960’s of course) and unprecedented freedoms.
So I am most vehemently not part of that 70% of my demographic who vote Tory (thereby to conspire against the younger generation) and I am now more concerned that my kids and grandkids (and all their lovely friends) may not achieve the lifestyle that I and my ilk, have enjoyed.
So perhaps somewhat perversely, I could imagine another perspective whereby Government policy is seen as being primarily directed at saving its elderly supporters from their Covid fate, at the expense of privations for all (a bit provocative I know, but what the hell!).
However, that said, the prospect that Richard leads on; i.e. a form of indefinite imprisonment for whatever remaining years we have, potentially worries me almost as much as the thought of catching bloody Covid-19 itself! And that is just at a personal level, before we consider those very real economic dimensions that he cites.
But as far as I know, the likelihood of infection for we elderly types is not much more than for others, although if we are unlucky enough to get it, the odds against us surviving are obviously much higher. This implies that we are then also more likely to impose an even bigger overload on our hollowed out health system than we do already.
So if we do get a choice (and I hope we do) it could be a hard one. Hopefully we may have better information by then to help weigh up the odds but I think I would take my chances and live (hopefully) with the consequences.
I think we may all be weighing up the odds for some time
Nut my point is that incarceration forever is not an adoption I could face
DNR in my case would be Do Not Remove (me from my home) no matter how sick. I will take my chances of remaining a social being without harming others and not taking up NHS time and space.