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?


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