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.

COVID-19: 2nd Lockdown Imminent

 I've said for the past couple of weeks that a second lockdown is on it's way. Possibly only for 14 days, but this next one provides a bit of a quandary to the Government: how do we do a lockdown but at the same time prevent further economic strain?

The answer is, we can't. Businesses are having a hard time as it is and unfortunately a second lockdown and business closure will kill them off.

It's quite clear now that opening everything up and wearing masks isn't working. The infection rate is rising and the stats show that allowing people to mix in whatever way is providing an ideal spreading ground for the virus.

Now what is it that is causing the spread? We're now three weeks since the schools went back. Is it that causing the rise in cases? I mean, those of us that have had kids know what lovely little germ-spreaders they are. They don't just bring homework back from school. 

Of course the thought that millions of kids could start to mingle and not spread the virus was a fallacy. 

The thought that we could mingle in pubs and cafes with several strangers in close proximity, but can't have more than six people in a room at home is provable stupidity.

In my travels around the country I've seen good businesses doing their best to keep customers safe, but I've also seen cafes and pubs open with absolutely no changes to the way they operate. No screens, no masks, no extra separation, nothing. Only lip service to track and trace as if that's some panacea to the problem. It won't prevent infection, which should be the objective. Not bolting the stable door after the horse has been infected.

Right now, the government's health advisers have been shown to be totally inadequate and not up to the job. Chris Whitty is out of his depth and should be sacked. I said it from day one: he was wrong at the start and he is wrong in his advice to the government now.

I see already that thanks to the stats not showing increases in deaths in line with infection rates, that people are railing against a second lockdown. But we know that deaths may lag behind infection rates by as much as four weeks. So there is a case for locking down immediately.

I'd like to see establishments that don't put proper precautions in place to be closed down. With eating establishments it should be akin to the hygiene rating. Without proper covid countermeasures, you get zero rated and closed until you improve.

The problem with a new lockdown is how you keep the economy going whilst simultaneously attempting to lower infection rates. The answer is you can't. Either the economy takes a dive for a second time, or we learn to somehow live with the virus. 

Whether the Government is strong enough to live with the second option is a moot point. With a huge majority in Parliament it can essentially do whatever it wants, but it really needs to get it's shit together and stick with it.

For my two penn'orth I'd say because the virus hits the oldest and the weakest most, then those with underlying health conditions and those over retirement age should shield at home. The government can then boost any benefits or pension contributions to handle any extra costs involved in having goods delivered rather than collected. Even better if the supermarkets used some of those huge profits and waived the delivery costs for those shielding. That would cost a lot less than stopping the country from working at all. 

Public meeting places such as pubs and clubs subject to tighter restrictions and enforced closures under public health for those who fail to install effective distancing and screens. 

If necessary reduce the retirement age to 60 and pay those over 60 to shield in place. In effect make it a permanent retirement option for those over 60 and stop one of the highest risk age groups having to go to work. Solves the pandemic issue and also the issue of the people cheated out of pensions by raising the retirement age.

Those leaving the workforce can then be replaced by the younger , more covid-resistant age groups. That also solves the issue of unemployment in the young.  That way the economy carries on even if a vaccine cannot be found for the next year or two. 

By doing this the government is only supporting a population between the ages of 60 and the current retirement age. There will be fewer people in that age bracket thanks to old duffers dying off, so fewer numbers to support rather than the whole of the country. It really does make a sort of sense, especially if a properly tested and safe vaccine is some years away. Unless the object is to kill everyone off close to retirement age so they can't claim a pension...

It a pretty Socialist agenda, but by God this is the most Socialist Conservative government we've ever seen. So why not?

Be bold, be radical and help the people for once. Pay for it by raising corporation tax, let those benefitting from a younger and more productive workforce pay for it. You're welcome.