X Close

Why are the elderly dicing with death? For people with few quality years left, it's perfectly rational to prefer pandemic to imprisonment

Elderly people have an agonising choice with coronavirus. Photo by María José López/Europa Press via Getty Images

Elderly people have an agonising choice with coronavirus. Photo by María José López/Europa Press via Getty Images


March 20, 2020   4 mins

Apocrypha has it that some of the UK’s more enterprising seniors are asking their grandchildren how to acquire fake ID. The purpose is not, of course, to augment their age so they can buy alcohol, but to appear under 70, so they can keep a modicum of their personal freedom.

As part of the public health precautions against the spread of coronavirus, ministers have warned that older people will be told to stay in their homes for a period of no less than 12 weeks. If, as seems likely, the instruction is issued this weekend, it will be late June before those over-70s will be able to move around freely on our streets and open spaces. The whole of spring will have passed them by.

Similar restrictions will apply to those considered vulnerable because of other medical conditions, but the over-70s will be subject to such draconian restrictions only because of their age. The rationale is that, as observed in China, Italy and elsewhere, the Covid-19 virus is far more likely to prove serious, even fatal, among people in that age group. Indeed Italy’s elderly population is advanced as a reason why that country has been especally hard hit.

Precisely why older people are more susceptible to the virus is not clear. The factor most often cited is that the immune system tends to decline with age, but it could also be that older people who catch Covid-19 are more likely to already have other medical problems. The message, though — as leaked to the media and subsequently confirmed by the Prime Minister and other ministers — is that, as the virus spreads, the over-70s will have to stay at home.

It has not yet been spelled out how complete this confinement is intended to be. Transport secretary Grant Shapps suggested that people would be able to take their dog for a walk, and that solitary promenades could be permitted. Shopping, however, and anything that might mean encountering other people, will be discouraged or ruled out. This includes entertaining the grandchildren at Sunday lunch, as they could carry the virus, with dire consequences for someone older.

While the whole intention, they were told, was to keep them safe, this was not appreciated by all seniors. Letters pages, social media and phone-ins were at once flooded with protests from those of a certain age, most calling to insist that theirs was a defiant generation and they intended to carry on going out as they pleased. If that meant the prisons were full of bolshie geriatrics, so be it.

Broadcaster and campaigner, Esther Rantzen (79), was one of few who said that she had been self-isolating from early on and regarded it as the responsible course. There were also those who pointed to something not made explicit in official pronouncements; put crudely, that while the Government might indeed have the safety of the UK’s elderly population at heart, there was another priority, too, which was to minimise, so far as possible, the number of elderly people taking up precious hospital beds — beds that could, dare one say, be more productively used by those needing shorter stays and more likely to get better.

So advising the over-70s to stay within their four walls for months was not entirely or even primarily for their own protection; it was also, even mainly, to stop them clogging up the NHS. Given that older people have been around long enough to sense an ulterior motive, it might have been preferable for officials to set out the calculation straight. How about: if you don’t withdraw from circulation, if you insist on selfishly swanning around in society, you could find yourself taking up a bed and depriving your son, daughter or grandchild of treatment they might need.

That is a fair case to make — but it cannot be the last word. By singling out over-70s, the burden has been placed on them to self-isolate rather than on others to keep what is now described as their social distance. But it has also risked the perception that older people are the main problem. My hair is barely greying, but I have been told several times in the past week by complete strangers that I should not be out on the streets — as though I was a danger to them, rather than they to me.

Given that older people are no more of a risk to others than anyone else, why should over-70s not be left to decide for themselves whether to stay at home, isolated, for the prescribed 12 weeks or not? For some, perhaps many, there will be a calculation to be made.

For those at the older or frailer end of the spectrum,  this could be the last spring they expect to see. If you were in your 80s or 90s, reasonably alert and mobile, would you choose to gamble on the prospect of another few years at the cost of what could be a long period of incarceration, or would you prefer to keep a measure of your freedom now? It hardly needs to be said that not everyone has a garden or private open space, or even much space at all.

In leaving the choice open, would that not risk a disproportionate number of elderly Covid-19 sufferers clogging intensive care in the NHS? One solution might be for over-70 “refuseniks” to place their decision on the record, along with a signed statement akin to a “living will”, to the effect that they will require only palliative care if they become seriously ill.

UK medical professionals have been agitating for official guidance on the sort of life and death choices that their Italian colleagues have faced, when confronted with many acutely ill patients and limited resources. These are indeed agonising choices, but they are hardly unknown in the NHS.

A declaration from an elderly patient, stating that he or she agrees not to take precedence for an intensive care bed or a ventilator or whatever, preferring to accept that their time has come, could nonetheless be helpful. Might it come perilously close to assisted suicide — a course that both the courts and Parliament have declined to legalise? I don’t think so.

As of now, there are young people blithely discounting all the health warnings in the belief that they have little to fear from Covid-19 — as would indeed appear to be the case. If they carry the virus, however, they are far more of a danger to their elders than their elders are to them.

Those over 70 should be informed of the risks they are taking, and encouraged to do the right thing as individuals. If they were then to decide that three or more months in a personal prison was too high a price to pay for however many more months or years of life they might judge they had left, they should be allowed that choice. It should be theirs and theirs alone.


Mary Dejevsky was Moscow correspondent for The Times between 1988 and 1992. She has also been a correspondent from Paris, Washington and China.

marydejevsky

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

12 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Alan Hardy
Alan Hardy
4 years ago

Well, my understanding is that everyone is being advised/told to self-isolate, only going out for essential activities and being able to go out if they keep social distance, so taking walks alone or at a distance for others is encouraged. Claiming the elderly are being singled out seems to be wrong information – links please? Cannot agree that the elderly going out only impacts them. They are just as likely as the younger people criticised in the piece to infect others, and so in turn infect other elderly/high risk people. Everyone needs to be socially responsible. This piece encourages selfishness at a time when unselfishness is needed. Huge numbers of people are signing up to groups around the country to assist the elderly/vulnerable, an example of socially responsible action. At this time, to increase the burden of administration and on those who would enforce any more strict lockdown by having some people sign up to not wanting NHS care if they get sick is just wrong, and wouldn’t work. Doctors and medical staff have to treat everyone, it’s their moral and legal duty. They either would ignore ignore people refusing treatment or not know they’d opted out. And terribly sick people suffering the virus symptoms, gasping for breath and dying would soon change their ‘I don’t want treatment’ tune, if they could actually communicate at all. A terrible article with unthought-through ideas.

Anjela Kewell
Anjela Kewell
4 years ago
Reply to  Alan Hardy

Many surgeries are already cancelling patient appointments and telling people to do a phone in appointment. I know this is mainly in the bigger Cities, if the media can be believed, but it already shows a lack of responsibility within our NHS, which is not the best in the world.

Kathleen Ferguson
Kathleen Ferguson
4 years ago
Reply to  Alan Hardy

I agree. Very disappointing from an author whose writing I usually enjoy. I read this morning that in Italy half the patients in intensive care with Covid-19 are under 60, many in their 20s and 30s. Nobody is exempt from this disease, even if some are more vulnerable than others. My husband and I are in our 70s, both with health conditions that mean we are at higher risk. We see it as our civic duty to do whatever we can to lessen the impact of this epidemic and the very best way to achieve that is do as we’re asked and stay safely at home. Our daughter and son-in-law are both working from home. Our two younger grandsons will miss their GCSE exams and A Levels and our eldest his last term at university. Everyone is making sacrifices. Why shouldn’t the elderly do so too?

Anjela Kewell
Anjela Kewell
4 years ago

I am 69 and my husband is 79. In all our years of seeing hysteria and scares we have never known such nasty, ageist behaviour from Government or officials.

If facts are taken into consideration rather than hysteria, people would realise that last year alone over 15,000 people died in two months with winter flu. Many were elderly with complications But many were small children. This is not a consideration for elderly people. This is effectively creating a removal of a whole generation of people that the globalists have decided are either too dangerous for their world socialism or too old to be of any long term use.

Most of us are very healthy and active. We look after our grandchildren, we voluntarily serve the community, we are often vigilant as to what is happening in our locality and we keep the coffee shops, countryside and the village halls open and sustainable.

Many of us have been asking for some weeks why a flu virus before December that shut schools, put thousands through the doctors surgeries, and caused many family Christmases to be curtailed, did not create the panic that the last three weeks have. We know that China is back to work. We know that Italy and France have Suffered more than any other European country.We know that the Western World is going into an economic crisis. We ask why The Western world is behaving like a headless chicken when figures show that this virus has caused so little damage to population deaths in comparison to every single winter flu as far back as recorded in the First World War.

We also know that the Globalists want a world socialist order and Mr Trump in America is stopping them because he knows the poorest will suffer the most. I suspect that the over 70s understand a little too much and will be punished for their knowledge; whereas most of the young have gone through the marxist indoctrination and can be manipulated.

kateyare
kateyare
4 years ago
Reply to  Anjela Kewell

Very well said, Anjela.

Anjela Kewell
Anjela Kewell
4 years ago

Being as most elderly people keep the coffee shops open, the village halls and the voluntary sector, I am shocked at this ageism. How on earth can anyone be confined to their home just because the Government orders it. Are we moving into a communist state.

All over a flu virus that as yet, in two months has not created the tragedies of any previous years’ flu epidemic where we know to be sensible and stay in the warm. We are moving into the warmer weather and away from flu season. The emotional consequences, not to mention physical problems of keeping people couped up in sunny weather is beyond the pale.

Kathleen Ferguson
Kathleen Ferguson
4 years ago
Reply to  Anjela Kewell

This is not flu. It is a different type of virus, never before seen in human beings, and for a minority it is very much more dangerous than flu. In Italy 30% of those ill enough to need hospital treatment end up in intensive care. In the Telegraph this morning there was an item about a hospital trust in London having to turn away Covid-19 patients as they couldn’t admit any more. https://www.telegraph.co.uk

Suze Burtenshaw
Suze Burtenshaw
4 years ago

How would this self-isolation work for older people who live alone, who have no children let alone grandchildren, and who don’t live next door to kind neighbours who might consider shopping for them? Is the plan to keep them indoors in order to starve them to death out of plain view? Would this be more acceptable to the younger population?
One could argue that, being 70+ means you’ve contributed to the ‘system’ for many decades more than a younger person and therefore have a greater entitlement to hospital treatment. Just a thought.

Robyn Lagrange
Robyn Lagrange
4 years ago

The requirement overlooks practicality. Many over 70’s live alone, some in rural areas. If they don’t have neighbours or family to help, they have to shop for necessities. A quick dash once a week is all that most need. Does anyone believe that it is possible to exist for 12/16 weeks or however many months it takes, without buying food?

Sue Briggs
Sue Briggs
4 years ago

Angela is spot on. Why are fit people in their 70s with no immune issues or immune loss demonised, locked up, and treated like people in their late 90s, and treated like criminals. The situation is the worst sort of identity politics, where the individual has no meaning.
Being 70 is not elderly. Lots of people in their 70s work full time, or part time.
Everyone should keep away from other people, to the extent possible, but fit healthy people in their 70s should not be demonised and nannied.
I have not had a cold or flu for 20 years, except one flu episode 7 years ago. I am very unlikely to catch the virus, and if I did, it would most likely be very mild. So, why am I demonised and
locked up.
Coronavirus kills a very small proportion of the number of people that die from medical malpractice and hospital acquired infections (deaths from which are are hushed up), not to mention flu and road accidents. Our reaction to coronavirus is hysterical and mindless and just plain stupid.
People locked up without sunlight will die, and the lack of sunlight will cause their immune systems to decline. We will see ricketts developing again, something most people have not seen or experienced for decades.
We truly do now have police states, ” all over the world”. I very much doubt that there wil be “love and laughter”, hereafter. Instead, people’s lives and livelihoods are being wantonly, and I would say, malevolently, destroyed.

Julie Blinde
Julie Blinde
4 years ago

Well
Mary Dejevsky completely misses the point, maybe she should go back to Moscow.

The point of isolation is to slow the rate of spread of the virus and NOT, in the first instance to protect people. We will all be exposed eventually, but perhaps a vaccine will be discovered soon or herd immunity will be reached with fewest deaths.

It is crucial not to overload the NHS while this happens.

The most helpful thing that over 70’s can do is to isolate as far as possible so as not to spread the virus or take up NHS effort .

It is NOT a question of ‘choice’ or ‘danger’ it is a question of not being anti-social.

Once the NHS is passed the peak then by all means go out, catch the virus and die if you want to.

johnwoods4
johnwoods4
4 years ago

I agree with Alan Hardy that medical staff are unable to refuse treatment to older people because of the legal consequences. The country is unprepared for such a crisis and most grocery delivery firms have weeks long waiting lists. The Chinese and Italians deliver food automatically to every house because they know that the people inside cannot go out as there are no shops open. We will never get to that stage so everyone who is not already shopping online will have to shop to live.