COVID-19: Targeting the at Risk.

First, let's look at some facts. 

1. Those over the age of 60 are at significantly greater risk of serious complications from covid-19 infection.

2. Conversely, those under 30 are at significantly lower risk of serious complications.

3. The two facts above inform that paying young people to stay at home or isolate in another lockdown is a waste of money.

4. It also informs one that keeping older people in work increases their risk of exposure to the virus and therefore significantly increases the number of serious cases and therefore the cost in lost man-hours, tax revenue and NHS costs.

5. We also know that the virus is here to stay and a vaccine could be years away.

So if a way of targeting the vulnerable and paying them to isolate while at the same time keeping the young in employment could be found, that would keep the economy going whilst simultaneously keeping the numbers of serious cases down. Effectively the holy grail the government is seeking.

I commented on the Guido Fawkes website yesterday about my idea to lower the retirement age to 60. It was the first comment on there that I've had with more down votes that up.

Interesting.

The reasons varied from the cost, to why force old people to retire.

So, let's examine the cost. So far we're at the thick end of a Trillion pounds spent on the COVID-19 response. A lot of that was paying the wrong people to stay off work. We now know that the virus has a disproportionately bad effect on people the older they get. 

So instead of a 2nd blanket lockdown, which the government is trying to avoid, let's target old people and get them out of the job pool. Those billions paid will be paid to people at highest risk of death and therefore the money isn't being wasted on paying 20-year-olds to sit at home when they are at minimal risk from the virus if they get it at work.

The money is keeping those older people at home, away from work, it's reducing the workload on the NHS created by serious covid cases. 

The money is allowing older people to pay the rent and put food on the table without the need to work. It gives them the choice. If they feel the risk to them is minimal, they can continue to work and mingle in the community. But it's their choice and hopefully those mad enough to think they are immune will be in the minority.

That gets on to the criticism of forcing people to retire. No-one is forcing anyone. They assess the risk of working against the risk of staying away from work and daily exposure to the virus. The option of the pension and associated benefits is there should they assess the risk is too great. At least then when they do give up working they won't starve or end up homeless.

The other thing is there's no need to set up yet another government agency to administer the change. All that is required is a change to the rules regarding pension age and then people opting to retire at 60 can do and the machinery to support them is already there.in place and just kicks in 5 years earlier than normal.

This is a minimal impact option, especially if the virus is going to be around for years to come. The number of deaths in the 60-65 age group can be severely reduced by taking them away from the work environment and removing that source of infection from their lives. Let the youngsters replace the oldies, the people best able to resist the virus when exposed to it.

The main impact of lowering the retirement age would be private pensions and mortgages as people retire at 60 instead of 65. Again, the government can chose to mitigate any adverse financial impact to the minority of people affected. A minority of a minority, a comparatively low cost. Certainly not paying the whole flipping workforce of the UK to sit on their arse..

If a vaccine is 3-5 years or more away, or if some herd immunity can't be achieved, we are going to have to come up with a solution that supports the parts of the population most at risk. Here it is.