As Britain emerges from lockdown, we need to focus on the young and the elderly

Slowly but surely, a plan to unlock the lockdown is emerging. The “traffic light” sequence of red, amber and green phases seems to be gathering support in Cabinet. It is backed by Rishi Sunak and Michael Gove, the “two Chancellors”, who prioritise the economy. The Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, is naturally more cautious: his job is most at risk if things go awry. Dominic Raab, the de facto deputy PM, is inscrutable. Everyone is waiting for the signal: Boris is back.  

Still convalescing at Chequers but well-briefed by ministers and advisers, the Prime Minister is reported to be sceptical that the Covid-19 transmission rate (the “R” number) is low enough yet to risk a second wave by easing the most onerous restrictions. It is, however, only a matter of days before the pressure from all sides becomes irresistible to revive the country from its present comatose state. Sooner rather than later, the first phase of the nation’s return to normality must commence.

But what will the new normal look like? The heaviest burden is already falling on the young and the old. How will this change? Let us consider children first. Only a third of pupils at secondary schools are taking advantage of live or recorded online classes, according to a survey by the Sutton Trust and Public First. The overall figure is 34 per cent, but there is a sharp division between privately educated pupils, 57 per cent of whom are watching lessons on a daily basis, and those state schools, for whom the figure is just 22 per cent.

What of the Department for Education’s promise when most schools closed last month that the children of key workers would continue to attend classes to enable their parents to go to work? This does not appear to be happening on any significant scale. Gavin Williamson, the Education Secretary, let slip at Sunday’s Downing Street press conference that just 200,000 children were going to school. This figure cannot even include all the “vulnerable” children, who were also promised classes and are owed a duty of care. As for the many hundreds of thousands of children of NHS staff and other key workers: it is clear that, whether due to the concerns of parents or lack of teachers, the great majority are staying at home. It is a great pity that no journalists questioned the minister’s admission.

We are, in other words, largely relying on parents to “home school” their children. How is that working out for either of them? The more affluent are hiring private tutors, but millions of children are simply idle. Education, unlike the economy, cannot “bounce back” once the lockdown ends: lessons missed are lost forever. Britain’s long-term future depends on the quality of our education. The Education Secretary insists: “Of course, I want nothing more than to see schools back.” But the damage is permanent and he could be doing more to mitigate that damage.

The best solution would be to scrap the long summer holiday, enabling pupils to catch up. GCSE and A-level students could still sit their examinations, albeit later than usual. Universities, too, could easily postpone finals for a few weeks. But would teachers and academics be prepared to forgo their precious vacations? Unless they and especially their unions change their habits, it just won’t happen.

What about the elderly? They face an even grimmer prospect. Under the Government’s putative plan for a phased end to lockdown, those deemed more vulnerable to the virus — which might include many over-70s — could find themselves obliged to continue social distancing until the autumn of 2021. Yet experts acknowledge that this is also the group that is suffering most from the effects of lockdown, whether due to postponed operations or loneliness. Sir Jeremy Farrar, Director of the Wellcome Trust and a member of Sage, admitted as much at the weekend: “The damage it’s doing to all of our health, our well-being, our mental health, is disproportionately of course affecting the most vulnerable.”

Even the tough-minded former Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, quails at the notion of being forced to stay at home for a year or more. Such restrictions would be “very difficult” to enforce, he told the Times, adding: “I desperately want to see my grandchildren. Of course Skype is quite good, but it’s nothing like seeing them in person, and I’m not the only over-70-year-old in that position.”

Even more heartbreaking are reports of those dying of coronavirus in care homes and hospitals who have been deprived of any contact with loved ones. There are also reports of patients being denied palliative care because no doctors or qualified nurses are available to prescribe strong painkilling drugs, such as morphine. This should not be happening, given that GPs can prescribe by phone.

As soon as the Government has decided on its plan to lift the lockdown, it needs to publish proposals to ease the mental anguish of older people deprived of contact with their families and friends. A senior Cabinet minister should take responsibility for the task of returning the UK’s nine million or so over-70s to normality, with a budget set aside accordingly.

Indeed, Boris Johnson himself must play a leading role in this daunting task. Only the Prime Minister has the authority and the eloquence to explain to the country how he proposes to balance the risks to health against the quality of life of our senior citizens. Once the initial phases of the unlocking are under way, long-term planning for the elderly ought to be his highest priority. No humane Government could contemplate keeping the grandparents of the nation in suspended animation for an indefinite period. Boris now knows what it is like to be vulnerable. What is required now from him is not bombast, but a bedside manner that will guide us through this valley of the shadow of death.