The government failed older people with care homes – it cannot do the same when the lockdown lifts

Editorial: Age-related restrictions should be rejected by Boris Johnson when he outlines his ‘road map’ out of the lockdown. Older people who need to be ‘shielded’ will already be covered by the strict ‘stay at home’ edict

There is still confusion over what the rules will mean for older people (Getty)

As the government considers how and when it will be safe to gradually lift the lockdown, it must devise a much clearer message for the over-70s.

Although the “stay at home, protect the NHS, save lives” slogan has proved a very effective piece of communications, there is still confusion over what it means for older people.

The “stay at home” leaflet sent to every household brackets together “advice for those who are 70 and over, have an underlying health condition or are pregnant.” But Matt Hancock, the health secretary, rejects the idea that a blanket ban has been imposed on the basis of age.

“The clinically vulnerable, who are advised to stay in lockdown for 12 weeks, emphatically DO NOT include all over-70s,” he tweeted. Yet his department’s advice describes this group as among “people at high risk (clinically vulnerable).”

Mr Hancock was responding to calls by the Royal College of GPs and British Medical Association to avoid a blanket ban on older people when the restrictions are eased. They are right to be worried about the impact on both the mental and physical health of older people who take the “stay at home” advice literally.

Ros Altmann, the Conservative peer and former pensions minister, suspects there is “a battle ranging at the heart of government on this dreadfully difficult issue”. She told Sky News on Sunday there could be “social unrest” if over-70s remain “under house arrest while everybody else is free”, warning that some “would rebel and risk going to prison rather than being forced to isolate at home.” She pointed out that for those living alone, being told to remain at home amounted to “solitary confinement”.

Lord Sumption, the former Supreme Court judge, argued: “Talk of compulsorily ‘shielding’ (in plain English, locking up) the old and vulnerable [until there is a vaccine or collective immunity] is a cruel mockery of basic human values.”

Given that many over-70s are just as fit as many younger people, discriminating against them makes no more sense than targeting men, the obese or people from the Bame community, who are more at risk from the virus than other groups.

The government has unwittingly discriminated against old people by being painfully slow to react to the coronavirus threat in care homes. It should not compound this in its advice to the public during the next phase of the crisis.

Age-related restrictions should be rejected by Boris Johnson when he outlines his “road map” out of the lockdown on Thursday. Older people who need to be “shielded” will already be covered by the strict “stay at home” edict for 1.8 million people with existing health conditions. Fit over-70s should be encouraged to leave their homes for an hour of exercise a day, as younger people are now, so they do not settle into a dangerously inactive routine that might cut short their lives.

Ministers should allow the older generation to use their common sense during the “new normal” of living with coronavirus that will last until a vaccine or drug treatment is produced. They are perfectly capable of doing so.

They should be advised of the risks of spending time outside their homes but be allowed to take such risks – if, for example, they decide that they want to see their grandchildren. Looking after children on a daily basis, on which many parents depend due to the high cost of childcare, would be more problematic. The government might need to warn against that as people return to work.

A sensible balance can and must be struck. This pandemic has already caused far too much suffering. The government should not add to it by entrenching the current discrimination against older people.