Would a lockdown for the over-50s work – and would the public accept it?

The Tories won more than half the votes of the over-50s in the 2019 general election – could forcing them into a fresh lockdown cause the government to lose support? Sean O'Grady reports

An age-related safety-first Covid strategy cannot be ruled out, despite ministers’ insistence it is not on the cards (Getty)

Although ministers have denied that the over-50s will be shielded if the current uptick in Covid infections and local outbreaks evolve into a full-on second wave, it all sounds a little unconvincing. The housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, a man who may have learnt to be more cautious in life, merely says that the talk is “just speculation”. Matt Hancock, health secretary at the centre of such a decision, says the reports are “inaccurate”. These formulations are classic non-denials, falling some way short of a categorical “this will not happen”.

However, given the government’s record of U-turns, even the most unequivocal of rebuttals might have only the shortest of lifespans. The safest thing to assume is that the plan to put the over-50s into a mere destructive lockdown even as other measures are being eased is a possible response to future trends. Another example has also been canvassed, closing pubs and restaurants while opening up schools. But it might be possible, say, to allow workplaces or the hospitality sector to open up, but mum, dad and grandparents wouldn’t be allowed to join the young folk for a pie and a pint. Just for a change publicans could be asking customers if they’re young enough to come in.

Would such an age-related plan to drive Covid back be popular? Could it work?

The first requisite for any successful policy is public support, or at least the absence of opposition and defiance. There is no clear sign of what reaction a new age-related lockdown would have – despite some outraged newspaper headlines and indignant columnists declaring themselves in excellent shape, if only for their age.

The March lockdown worked, for example, when it eventually arrived, because it convinced the vast majority of people it was the right thing to do and was in their own interests. Indeed earlier ministerial doubts about the extent of compliance, which may have delayed the imposition of lockdown, were confounded. The older the citizen, the more chance they supported the policy.

The more recent relaxation has also been supported, though, suggesting views are not fixed around the issue.

A YouGov poll in May saw 44 per cent agreeing with the easing, with 43 per cent against and 13 per cent not sure. Most of those opposing easing felt it went too far, too fast. Interestingly while 40 per cent of adults under the age of 50 wanted the relaxation, it rises to some 47 per cent among 50-to-64-year-olds, and 53 per cent of those aged 65-plus.

So there seems to be an age bias there, and some possible reluctance to accept a new lockdown.

However, the attitudes to lockdown or relaxation are also associated with party allegiance and loyalty to Brexit and Boris Johnson – the Tories won more than half the votes of the over-50s in the 2019 general election, while Labour won over 50 per cent of the 18-to-29-year-olds. The Tory vote peaks at 67 per cent among the over-70s (around 70 per cent if you throw in the Brexit Party); but Labour commands 56 per cent backing among the under-25 voters. It is a stark intergenerational division.

In other words the older the voter the more likely they are to be well disposed towards a proposal that comes from the Conservative government and Boris Johnson – at least up to a point. Persuasion would also play a part. A fresh lockdown or shielding might be more readily accepted if the government actually convinces people it is in their interests and those of the country.

Which begs that very question. It is generally accepted, and has been for some time, that age is a large factor in surviving Covid-19. That may be partly related to the fact that older people tend to be less well off than the working population; but much of it is a simple matter of health. As we age we tend to pick up more dangerous comorbidities – risk factors for Covid – such as heart disease, diabetes and perhaps also put on weight in prosperous middle age. Our immune systems also tend to weaken, or not react in the best way to an infection, reportedly a key factor with coronavirus.

There might also be some in government still attracted to the “herd immunity” strategy apparently favoured in some circles earlier in the year. This would, crudely, mean opening up the economy much more rapidly to the under-50s, and accepting that the virus will spread through them – but, being less likely to ill, die or be seriously harmed with far less strain on the NHS. The economy might quickly pick up, and a sizeable degree of immunity built up in communities. Meantime the older folk, many on pensions unaffected by the wider economy, could sit tight until the Covid storm passes and it’s safe for them to emerge. The country would also be that much closer to a vaccine by then, with over-50s naturally taking precedence.

An age-related safety-first Covid strategy cannot be ruled out. Apart from the inconveniences – severe but temporary – the greatest objection would arise from those who’d lose income if there were no furlough scheme in place. How hard would the authorities want to come down on someone who felt they were “doing the right thing” by their family, and exercising common sense by going out to work when they’re supposed to be staying home? Among the government’s staunchest supporters? These are questions that ministers are not yet ready to answer.