Along with a photograph of a decidedly unfit-looking 70+ (80+?) woman, it was reported that the health minister, Lord James Bethell, has refused to deny that older people will be told to stay in an extended lock-down when restrictions begin to be relaxed for other people.
Lord David Blunkett, for whom I have a great deal of respect, remarked, “The more the government make restrictions age-related rather than risk-related, the more they risk people pushing back very heavily and refusing to keep to the rules.”
I do realise that making fitness the criterion, rather than age has its difficulties, for when does one become sufficiently unfit to be in increased danger? But equally, why should a 65 year old who is overweight and rarely exercises (and I know several of them) be judged at lesser risk than me, a 71 year old who easily accomplished a 10½ mile ramble on Monday?
Cautious – and undoubtedly well-meaning – government ministers will point to statistics that clearly show a greatly increased risk of death from C-19 in the 70+ age group, though I would seriously wish to question how many of these were obese or had underlying health issues.
Moreover, the figures need to be set against the obvious fact that, the older we are, the more likely we are to die anyway. I find it highly significant that, set against the statistic that 9% of 80+ers who fall victim to C-19 will die, is the one in the graph below that about 6% of them would have died within the year anyway.
There is, of course, a strong counter-argument to all this, of which I'm well aware. By any measure, COVID-19 is very dangerous. For the sake of simplicity, is it not far wiser simply to lock down all those over 70 years old until either the risk diminishes markedly or a vaccine is available? After all, most of them don't work, so the economic effect will be marginal. Nine to twelve months of freedom lost now might be judged a relatively small price to pay for the prospect of health and enjoyment for years to come.
Personally speaking, I just hope that the government affords me some wiggle room as I continue to exercise, eat well and (hopefully) remain fit and healthy. Otherwise, as David Blunkett predicted, I may be one who 'pushes back very heavily'.
You wouldn't be the only one to disobey an indefinite blanket restriction on over-70s getting out and about. Plenty will object to it.
ReplyDeleteSurely it should at some point becomr a matter of personal risk-assessment, provided all the social-distancing rules that younger people have to abide by are observed. Stupid oldies will have a short life. Thoroughly sensible ones, like yourself, will be OK.
Lucy
Revisiting your post, Angie, I see that according to the first graph, the bar-chart, simply by being three or four years older than me, you are supposed to be twice as likely to die from the virus. That can't be so. More likely, certainly, but surely by not so very much.
ReplyDeleteI can deduce that my mortality rate as 'approaching 68' is about 2%. I'd assess yours at 3%. That's low. Mind you, it's not negligible, so I intend to remain very careful about social distancing for a long while to come.
Lucy