COVID-19: Making Political Points out of a Pandemic.

 So far this week we've had Labour MPs lying about lack of engagement with government over local lockdowns, we've had the leader of the Labour Party lying, saying that all Northern Councils were against the lockdowns, which pissed off the leader of Bolton Town Council.

Then we had the leader of the Welsh assembly (yet another Labour idiot) saying that he's closing the border to Wales and stopping people from covid hotspots entering "his country". Totally unpoliceable and in effect racist. Denying people from England access to Wales when parts of Wales are fucked and in extra lockdown measures anyway is a bit rich. 

It's exactly the same as people blaming the channel-crossing immigrants for everything bad that happens in England. It's just as bad, just as wrong-headed.

Talking about immigrants, what is he going to do about the immigrants being bussed from the Dover coast direct to the camp in Wales? 

Especially as they are not isolated for two weeks, they can roam free as soon as they get to Wales. Is Mr Drakeford going to install a wall around the camp to protect his Welsh countryfolk?

Or is he talking totally unworkable bollocks for soundbites? I think I know the answer.

Wee Jimmy Crankie up in Haggisland is also facing somewhat of a quagmire of her own making now. The rules and regulations in the North have twisted and turned so much.

I just wish that we could just get back to common sense politics. But no-one is holding the posturing politicians to account. The press certainly aren't asking intelligent questions when policy is announced, which begs the question: are the press intelligent?

If the press don't have the wit or intelligence to ask probing questions, then who will? 

If we don't start start knocking the lying, grandstanding, point-scoring politicians down a peg or two, we're on a very slippery slope. Because the politicians will get a sense of unfettered power, which is not a good thing. Being held to account is what prevents excesses like those that happened in the thirties. We do not want totalitarian governments of any stripe, flag, banner or political persuasion. 

COVID-19: Stop the Scattergun Approach.

 The government says when it comes to covid that it is following the science. However, from their actions, this seems about as far from the truth as you can get.

The science says people under the age of 50 have a 99.9% chance of surviving the virus. The chances of surviving stay above 95% up to the age of 70.

So why are we not targeting those people who are at higher risk, like old people and those with pre-existing conditions, like diabetics? Get them to shield at home and let the rest of the population go about their daily business.

The current lockdown approach, even local lockdowns are a like using a Blunderbuss to kill a fly. The lockdown rules themselves are pushing people together and creating MORE risk of transmission than just letting people carry on with their lives.

I've already said we should (for the time being) lower the pension age so that those over 60 can remove themselves from the workforce and reduce their number of contacts.

Those with serious illnesses (essentially those people that qualify for the flu jab) should get a letter to be paid to stay at home. After all, if the flu is s risk to these people, then covid-19 certainly is.

Then the youngsters can get on and get infected. Those with serious covid symptoms go straight to the Nightingale hospitals, which allows the regular NHS facilities to function as normal. Only if and when there's a chance of the Nightingale units being overtopped (say 75-80% occupancy) is the point we start to lock down. 

That way the economy gets to continue, people's freedoms are not eroded and there's a bloody good reason for locking down. Rather than the shit-show we have at the moment, where a city is in full lockdown but the people can still drive to a pub 10 miles away.

At the moment the government have it arse-about-face and it's about time they were challenged on the policies in place at the moment or the government themselves had a bloody good rethink and returned to common sense.

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.