Are the elderly and disabled to be referred to as 'crippled and useless', 'deformed', or 'idiots'?

The problem of innumeracy today 

In some ways I was lucky. I may have had what today's generation might think to be a ghastly childhood, but I did get some opportunities that seem rare today.

One is in education: the chance to learn mathematics and science from teachers who actually understood their subjects.

The above may sound bitter, it may sound like a swipe at modern schools. Maybe it is, but I have helped two youngsters - one my own son, another the daughter of a friend - with their maths one thing they told me was that their teachers did not seem to know what they were talking about. (In my son's case, it was post-GCSE, at the start of A-level, when he was being taught the basics of calculus - differentiation and integration. He didn't get it. He asked the teacher to explain, who couldn't, at least not so that my son could understand. In fact, the teacher's stock answer to most queries seemed to be 'look it up on the internet'. (Maybe that invention, which wasn't around in my day, is partly to blame for the numeracy issues that seem to be commonplace today?)

Lies, damn lies and an exercise

'"Seven people died today, the Prime Minister said". Is that a good or a bad thing?'

That question may sound as if it relates to one of the recent coronavirus briefings, but it doesn't. It is a question my class was asked in third form physics, in, perhaps, 1971. The aim of the exercise was to get pupils to think about estimation, and how to give context to statistics, so that they would understand what they were - and what they weren't - being told.

Why is this relevant? Because we are given information in statistical form every day, and we make decisions based on them. Not just you and me, but everyone, at all levels. The Royal Statistical Society said, in a paper relating to government use of statistics for Covid, 'governments should use data to inform the public, rather than seeking to present data ... to persuade the public that its decisions are the right ones.'  If we can, we all need to be able to spot when we are being told something to influence our behaviour rather than as a fact - it's a bit like being told that certain influencers' internet posts are adverts rather than their honest opinions.

So, that third form question. It's missing loads of information. Where did these people die? Is it the total number of people that died in the UK - which is what I took it to be. Or does it relate to a more localised area? Or the whole world?

To be able to make a judgement on the statement we need to know more. We need answers to other questions - perhaps, 'how many people do we think die in the UK every day?'

These days, we might be able to look this figure up on the internet, but even then, we should take care over what we read there. We should start out by estimating the number ourselves, for which we need to think about how many people there are in the UK and how long they live. Without looking it up, I'd guess there are currently roughly 70 million UK citizens (and 'roughly' is good enough when you're estimating). How long do people live? Perhaps 80 years on average. Dividing one by the other we get an estimate for the number of people that we might expect to die every year:

70,000,000 ÷ 80 = 875,000

To then estimate the number that might die on any day we then divide this by the number of days in a year:

875,000 ÷ 365 = 2,397

Here's what Mr. Malone, my physics master, might have said to this figure: '2397 - or 2,400 to two significant figures - is a reasonable figure to come up with on the fly when trying to interpret other figures, but in fact it's a bit high, because there are more young people than old ones, we live a bit longer than 80 (on average) and the population at the moment is a bit under 70 million. The actual number of deaths in 2017 was around 607,000, so the number of deaths per day would have been around 1700, but when thinking in terms of what we call an 'order of magnitude' estimate of the number of deaths per day in the UK we might go to just one significant figure. If you present your answer that way, 2000, it is correct.' 

So, if there were only seven on one day in the UK, that's a lot less than 2000... but does it really make sense? It's so much lower that we should, perhaps, question what is actually meant, whether it means the total number dying on a day, or just those, for instance, in a particular area. We can't tell, from the limited information we've been given, what it means. We need context. And that was the point Mr. Malone was trying to make to us thirteen-year-olds: when presenting numbers - answers, if you like - you must provide explanation that makes it clear to anyone what it means.

Government exploitation of ignorance?

With mortality data, one further complication arises when we think about what we mean by 'death' on a given day. Is it the day the person died, or the day the death was reported to the registrar? 

This latter point is very relevant today: the Government has been quoting 'number of deaths reported' on a given day as the 'number of deaths' for coronavirus. This goes up and down according to the working practices of doctors, registrars and others, and gives peaks that may be higher than the numbers actually dying on a given day. (The Telegraph has today reported that, while government figures have been for up to 60 coronavirus deaths per day recently, the actual number of people dying has not been more than half that.)

As well as the 'date reported' issue, there is another problem with government statistics for the number of coronavirus deaths. The figures are for people who 'had tested positive in the previous 28 days', not people who died of the virus. The Telegraph, again, headlined a story recently that around a quarter of deaths of people recorded as dying after testing positive did not die because of the virus.

I believe it is a significant problem that, like in the example from my science teacher, our government presents statistics out of context, without explanation. The vast majority of the public - including many journalists -  are both unable to assess them properly and unaware of this. The government, or some individuals providing information to it, isn't doing this as a class exercise: they are most likely more than aware of what they are doing. And if this poor messaging directly, or indirectly, negatively affects the weaker in society - the elderly, the disabled, the infirm - by setting the seeds of fear and confusion - well, does that matter? 

Protecting the NHS ?

The scariness of the presentation of govenrment statistics is supported by simple, blunt, messaging. 

'Stay at Home. Protect the NHS. Save Lives'

My mum, who's 88, heard this when it was first announced, and - as she had done in the war - did as she thought she was being told. She stayed at home. Prior to the first lockdown she was mobile, able to walk a mile or more a day, with a stick or a shopping trolley. For three months from March 2020 she didn't set foot outside the front door of her sheltered bungalow. After my nagging about the need for exercise she tried to get in a couple of laps of the communal courtyard, when 'it was quiet' and if the weather was fine. Her daily 'distance walked' dropped from perhaps a mile and a half in February 2020 to maybe sixty yards, rising to a couple of hundred yards at most on good days in summer 2020. 

With the subsequent lockdowns and poor weather in winter, by February this year she was walking no more than a few yards daily. She began to have real troubles with mobility issues and ended up having three weeks in hospital - a general ward and then a rehab unit - before being sent home to clear a bed for another elderly person suffering from a similar condition. It seemed that the rehab team were overwhelmed, quite probably as a result of elderly people trying to do their bit to 'Protect the NHS.'

Once home she had a visit from the NHS community physios, but they are satisfied that she is as mobile as she needs to be. She can only just lift her leg over the threshold of the front door, so is almost housebound, but that seems to be ok. No-one has checked whether she can, or shown her how to, get out of her house and into a car. The community team is, unsurprisingly, in the same position as the rehab team: they're deluged with old folks struggling with mobility.

Only now, more than a year after all the lockdowns started, is there some sort of message from government about the importance of going outside. Even then it's as clear as mud. Why didn't Boris or Matt or Chris Whitty stand up in March 2020 and say something like 'we are telling you to stay at home, but you must exercise to keep well, to keep pressure off the NHS'?

Why didn't they do this? Maybe for the same reason that elderly patients were discharged from hospital into care homes without any thought as to the risk they might pose for other residents, since they might be covid-positive. I read somewhere that 30,000 died as a result of this.

The wise men of SAGE look at their models, produce forecasts, take up every interview request that comes their way, and tell Government what to do. Strangely, the well being of the elderly, disabled and infirm does not figure in any of their pronouncements: they don't seem to matter.

'Money carries the virus' 

The effects of poorly understood communication are everywhere. Viv and I were at the Lister Hospital earlier this week. I went into the shop, following an elderly gentleman who could only walk very slowly. He bought a couple of papers and offered a five pound note to the lady at the till.

'I can't take your money, you have to use a machine or pay by card', she told him. 

He must have been ninety. Behind his visor he was obviously confused. He clearly didn't want, or couldn't, use self-checkout machines; he may have had a disability. (Imagine trying to use one if you have really poor eyesight.) He only wanted a paper. He looked at the machine, he was almost in tears, but had to leave the shop without his purchase.

The management of W H Smith - who run the shop - have clearly not read the Bank of England report that came out in November last year, stating that 'any risk (arising from covid) from handling cash should be low'. Neither, for that matter, does their policy seem to take into account the fact that people like that old gent will have been doubly vaccinated.

But then, the elderly, disabled and infirm don't seem to matter when there's an opportunity to keep up fear and panic among the public. 

The social exclusion of the internet

A ninety-year-old aunt of Viv's lives in the UK but has a daughter in Canada. She also has business interests over there and, prior to lockdown, used to fly over once or twice a year.

She used to use the services of a high street travel agent to arrange the flights, and understand what might be involved by way of special rules.

In the last lockdown her local travel agent has closed.

She doesn't use the internet. Because of 'progress' she doesn't even have a phone book to look up number of other travel agents. 

So she can't even speak to anyone to find out what would be involved - by way of tests, quarantine, vaccination and the like - to go to Canada to see her daughter (and grandson).

The effect on her mental health is profound. 

Government has been throwing money at furlough schemes - even paying some people furlough and wages in temporary jobs to help out with Covid testing - but this is all favouring those of a working age. 

The impact of Government measures on the elderly and infirm has not been so positive. But then, they don't seem to matter.

One inflation rate for you, another for me 

Many disabled people receive Personal Independence Payment. It's increased every year in April, supposedly in line with inflation. The amount of 'inflation' is determined by the UK government.

This year's increase was from £151.40 to £152.15 per month - seventy five pence - per week, about 0.5%.

Our council tax went up by 5% - thirteen pounds a month - at the same time. Ten times the rate of PIP. That increase is also controlled by the UK government, again supposedly taking inflation into account. 

When they put up PIP why didn't they use the same inflation rate as they did for council tax? Ah, PIP is a benefit received by the disabled and, well, they don't seem to matter.

Oddly enough, the same government took the decision not to increase fuel duty this April. But then, many younger, able-bodied, working, people drive. Many elderly, infirm, disabled people don't. They don't seem to matter.

NHS 'open for business' ?

I am sure many will quote Chris Whitty's insistence that the NHS is open for all services, which he is reported as saying in April 2020. I'm not denying that there isn't non-Covid related work going on there - Viv had a neurology appointment just the other day.

But it's not as open as it should be, or not providing the services that are needed.

Viv and I had a lovely holiday planned in Germany last year. We had to cancel it. 'No worries', I told her, 'we'll save the money and we can go after the pandemic'.

But she later needed an eye operation. The local (NHS) eye hospital put her 'on the list' for a face-to-face appointment so a specialist could assess what needed doing.

We never heard from them again.We had to spend our holiday money on her having the operation privately.

To me, having to take your business elsewhere shows the NHS isn't 'open for business'. And that;s not the only example I can quote.

I've had to wait nearly a month to have a phone call (not a face to face consultation) with a GP about my medication; also, the retired headmistress I mentioned earlier, she's in great discomfort and needs a procedure, but can't afford to go private. Her troubles could go on for months.

So, Prof. Whitty, real life experience does not match up to your assertions. But then, those that make a lot of use of the NHS, the elderly, disabled and infirm, they don't seem to matter.

Crippled and useless ?

Why might it be that the elderly and disabled don't matter as much as they should, when it comes to current policy, especially on Covid?

In December last year Prof. Neil Ferguson said that he thought that, even though there had been a lockdown in China, 'we couldn't get away with it in Europe'.

Why did he think that? Could it be something to do with the Chinese attitude to the disabled?

According to Wikipedia, terms like 'crippled and useless' have been used to describe them, although 'deformed' is currently widely used. 'Idiot' is reported as not being uncommon.

Does not the government's approach to this epidemic - lockdown, masks, near zero interest rates, clearing of hospitals, cancelling of many routine medical procedures - seem to have resulted in significant negative impact on the elderly and disabled, who may, for instance, need routine hospital treatment more than the average member of the public? Should the politicians not have thought about how lockdowns, masks, hospital shutdowns and the like would affect the most vulnerable in society? 

Isn't that what being a civilised society is all about? Don't the elderly, disabled and infirm matter?

Or will we soon be referring to our elderly and disabled friends, relatives and colleagues as 'crippled and useless' or 'deformed' ?

You may think that unlikely, but in 2018 Guardian columnist Owen Jones took to defending the use of the term 'gammon' - as in fat, pink, meat - as a term used by the liberal left (including, apparently, within the Labout Party) to describe a sector of the population. Is it any wonder that trust in politicians is at such a low ebb?