Skip to main content

Poverty kills too

Shocked into action by the potential mortality from the coronavirus pandemic, governments around the world are acting to release huge sums of money into their economies. 

Today, the UK chancellor announced that he was making available over £330 bn to support businesses during the crisis.  This is by far the biggest ever peace-time intervention in the economy. 



It is right that governments should respond.  Millions of lives depend on them doing so.  But it should make us think about whether we have been getting our priorities right in the past, and whether we are now doing so.  

Poverty kills just as relentlessly as does the coronavirus.  It attacks the most vulnerable.  Yet, the government invests too little in preventing it. 

This has been particularly so over the last decade, where both child poverty and pensioner poverty have increased. 

Poverty comes in different ways. 

A report two years ago showed that the UK has the 6th highest long-term rate of excess winter mortality out of 30 European countries.  

The UK experiences, on average, 32,000 deaths in each winter that are more than mortality rates across the rest of the year.  Cold kills. 

Each year, 9,700 deaths are attributable to the avoidable circumstances of living in a cold home. 

This is a crisis.  A winter crisis.  It isn't invisible, like the coronavirus, and it does discriminate. It discriminates against the most vulnerable living in fuel poverty. 

But it doesn't merely cause premature deaths.  This also leads to poor mental health such as chronic depression and in many tragic cases, suicide.  

In the end, it affects us all because it adds to the burden on our overstretched health and care systems. 

We should all be concerned about it.  Yet, we don't give it the same kind of crisis consideration as we do to the pandemic.  

Perhaps we should. Maybe, when the pandemic is over, we should start thinking about whether we can go on merely saying that 'there is no money' tree when it comes to dealing with poverty.   The money tree seems to bear fruit when it comes to tackling a global pandemic - and so it should.  

But let's consider that fruit when we are dealing with the crisis of poverty that causes morbidity and death. 



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods.  Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects?  A new report now provides some of the answers. New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism. Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases cau