BORIS Johnson is reportedly considering plans to force millions of over-50s in England to shield if there is a second wave of coronavirus.
According to reports yesterday, the measure is one of the “nuclear” options being looked at by Downing Street to prevent a new nationwide lockdown.
The Scottish Government weren’t commenting on the plans, but key adviser Devi Sridhar, a professor and chair of Global Public Health at Edinburgh University, described it as “impractical and unethical”.
According to the Sunday Times, people aged between 50 and 70 could be given personalised risk ratings, taking into account factors such as age and medical conditions.
As part of a strategy to tackle a potential second wave of coronavirus in the future, the Prime Minister is also reportedly considering lockdown conditions for London.
Ideas include giving Londoners stay-at-home orders, restricting travel beyond the M25, and banning people from staying in other people’s homes, similar to policies implemented in local lockdowns imposed in Leicester and parts of the north-west of England.
Measures to prevent a second nationwide lockdown, and any economic fallout, were discussed by Johnson at what was described by sources as a “war game” session with Chancellor Rishi Sunak on Wednesday.
Downing Street has distanced itself from the details in the reports, calling them “speculative”.
Asked about the prospect of making the over-50s shield, Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick told Times Radio: “This is just speculation.
“You would expect the Government to be considering all of the range of options that might be available.
“That’s not something that is being actively considered.”
READ MORE: Tory minister says fresh UK lockdown rumours are 'just speculation'
He said any fresh restrictions were unlikely to apply wholesale, adding: “We don’t want to do anything that is a blanket approach.
“Our strategy is to manage this in a localised way with targeted action as we’ve done in Leicester, as we’re doing now in the north-west.
“We will follow the data and look at options if we have to but that approach is the way we restrict in certain areas – it is difficult for those who live there but it provides greater freedom for the rest of the country, for businesses to re-open and for people to get on with their daily lives, and that has to be the way forward if we can.”
Taking to Twitter, Sridhar said: “Headlines coming full-circle back to ‘shielding’ over-50s today. This has been tried before and is impractical and unethical. Also have under-50s given their informed consent to gamble with their health given possible long-term health problems?”
“And if we’ve learned anything so far, it’s that wealth is the best shielding strategy,” she added.
Last week the Prime Minister was forced to postpone the latest easing of lockdown in England.
Some businesses in the leisure and beauty sectors were due to open this weekend, but had to be delayed after the prevalence of coronavirus rose for the first time since May.
On Saturday, a member of the UK Government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage), suggested pubs may have to close in England to allow schools to re-open.
Professor Graham Medley, said that the country may have to ask itself: “Do we think pubs are more important than schools?”
The academic told the BBC’s Today programme: “I think we’re in a situation whereby most people think that opening schools is a priority for the health and wellbeing of children and that when we do that we are going to reconnect lots of households.
“And so actually, closing some of the other networks, some of the other activities, may well be required to enable us to open schools.”
Asked whether the UK Government would look to close pubs in response to a rise in coronavirus infections, Jenrick said there were no plans to do that. He didn’t rule it out though, and said that opening schools in September would be the priority.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel