News that Covid-19 restrictions will be eased across Britain for five days over Christmas, allowing up to three households to meet in fixed bubbles, was met with welcome relief by many.
The rightwing press endorsed the announcement, with the Daily Mail celebrating that England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have “finally” agreed on a joint plan that will “ease draconian curbs.”
But not everyone embraced the five-day break in holiday restrictions. Members of the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group cautioned that large family gatherings were too high-risk and called for a more low-key festive period. The group’s warnings are reflective of a wider sentiment that with coronavirus vaccines being rolled out, a fresh rise in deaths must be seen as unacceptable.
The government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, or SAGE, has warned that the easing of restrictions over the Christmas period could cause an increase in the number of positive Covid-19 cases.
SAGE scientists said families should avoid close contact. If sleeping at their relatives’ homes, children should share the bedroom with their parents rather than with other children from different households, the group advised.
Attempting to sell the five-day restrictions break as a safer measure, Robert Jenrick, Tory MP for Newark and Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, suggested people open their windows over Christmas dinner to stop coronavirus from spreading. Jenrick said families will have to decide whether they wave social distancing for the period.
Of course, not everyone’s experience of spending Christmas reunited with their loved ones will be the same. Nor will their risk of contracting the virus, or spreading it among loved ones with whom they are sharing the festivities.
One of the government’s few consistent messages in the Covid-19 response has been for people to keep a safe distance from one another, which limits the opportunities for the virus to spread and curbs transmission rates.
Housing inequality and Covid-19
The role of the home continues to be pivotal in mitigating the spread of Covid-19. Housing inequality has been pushed to the fore during the pandemic. Now, disparities in the quality of housing could play a significant role during Britain’s five-day coronavirus restrictions interval, having ill repercussions on people’s health.
For example, measures like keeping a safe distance from one other and letting in fresh air through open windows are easier to implement in larger, higher quality homes.
Families with the luxury of sharing their “bubbles” in bigger houses – with ample indoor and outdoor space, and well insulated enough to be able to keep rooms ventilated with open windows while remaining sufficiently warm through heating – will be at less risk of Covid-19 transmission.
By contrast, family settings in more cramped, lower-quality housing, where multiple generations of families are living on top of each another, is likely to create a breeding ground for the virus to thrive.
A report by the ESCR Research Centre for Micro-Social Change, Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex, points to how housing is an important social determinant of health.
“Large, more spacious homes allow for a separate working space, space for exercise, space for solitude, and for greater storage space for food and essential supplies,” writes Amy Clair, author of the report.
Clair adds that people living in poor-quality housing are often exposed to cold, damp, and other hazardous conditions, with consequences for both physical and mental health.
The disparity between private rented accommodation and owner-occupied homes also brings unequal Covid-19 risks.
Britain’s private renting sector is now home to more poor adults under 40 than owner occupation and social renting combined. In the past decade, the number of people living in poverty in private rented homes has almost doubled to 4.3 million, leading to the sector being described as the “new home of poverty” in the UK.
Private rented homes in England are, on average, 28 percent smaller than owner-occupied homes. Unlike their wealthy landlords getting richer from inflated rental costs and constant rent hikes, and who will be able to spread out with their loved ones in spacious homes and gardens this Christmas, families gathering in cramped homes in the private rental sector will be less able to practice strict social distancing, putting their health at greater risk.
Unlike landlords and others earning a passive income, like company bosses, or those who can work remotely or enjoy a paid break from work over the holiday season, many people with low-income jobs have little choice but to go to work this Christmas and run the risk of contracting the virus and passing it on to loved ones.
From nursing home staff to meatpackers, shop workers to bar staff, many essential workers on low-wage jobs – some of which don’t offer holiday pay or sick leave – will be forced to go to work, making them likelier to contract the virus.
While Tory MPs advise the people of Britain to keep their windows open, they seem blissfully unaware that two million families in Britain are forced to choose between food or heat this winter.
According to a new flagship study from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, inadequate benefit levels and debt deductions, particularly the repayable advance many people are forced to borrow to cover the minimum five-week wait for Universal Credit, are identified as key drivers of an “appalling” rise in destitution in Britain.
For the financially destitute, the prospect of opening the windows in their cold homes, and spreading out over Christmas dinner with their reunited families, simply isn’t an option.
While Boris Johnson and his parliamentary colleagues enjoy a break this holiday season, Britain’s less financially fortunate – many of whom will be piling into significantly smaller homes – face the prospect of spreading a virus during the Christmas lockdown hiatus that could pave the way for an ill-omened start to the New Year for the nation’s poorest.
