Skip to main content

COVID-19 - a lockdown without a strategy

It is said that COVID-19 doesn't discriminate. This isn't strictly true. If you live in poor housing conditions and overcrowding you are more likely to be affected by the virus.

More than a quarter of a million households in the UK are living in overcrowded private rented housing. 300,000 households are squeezed into inadequate social housing.



People living in poor housing are more likely to have underlying respiratory conditions, more likely to find social distancing difficult. It will be more difficult to maintain hygiene levels. More overcrowding means greater stress and mental health issues.

Little of the problem of overcrowding is being addressed by the government, and there is little to no help being offered to help these families cope with the COVID-19 lockdown.

Poor housing conditions and overcrowding has increased over the last decade as the most vulnerable have been affected by austerity.  This is why we have said before that austerity kills.  It increases the risks of underlying health issues.

Overcrowding in housing also increases the likelihood of mental health problems.  Simply coping with the appalling living conditions is bad enough, but having to deal with its impact on children and young people also has consequences.  

Poor housing conditions will make it increasingly difficult for those families affected to cope with social distancing.  It is more likely that that overcrowding will increase the spread of the virus.  

Poor housing is putting people's lives at risk.  Yet, they will be the first to be blamed if they breach the social distancing rules.  

Little to nothing has been done to help these families get the fresh air and exercise they need.  Little provision has been made for children isolated in their homes, unable to go out to play.   

This is a lockdown, without a strategy.

See also Ray Noble's article at Voices from Oxford,  A blind strategy for COVID-19?


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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
7 comments
Read more

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The
Post a Comment
Read more

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to
2 comments
Read more