AIBU to ask how we can protect the most vulnerable people properly in our society?

[WellWhyNot]

Hi all,

I wanted to post about this partly because of the challenges brought up by Covid-19 and also more generally because I’ve been thinking about how (British) society can and should protect its most vulnerable citizens (I’m a UK poster). I’m posting out of genuine curiosity and interest as I do want to know how we can help others effectively on an individual level rather than on focussing on help a wider scale.

I’ve been thinking a lot recently about my personal politics, which I think can be summarised in wanting to make sure the state does everything it can to protect its vulnerable citizens.

I’m aware that the UK, as in many other countries, has a capitalist society. I think it’s necessary to have a society partly based on capitalism (due to the need to have a strong and resilient economy). However, I think it’s really essential for countries to overlay this with strong protection for their most vulnerable citizens.

I just wanted to ask how people can each help to protect the most vulnerable citizens? There are lots of different ways why and in which people could be vulnerable and their vulnerability could be temporary or permanent.

I think giving to charity can be a effective way of helping. What other ideas do people have? Would be really helpful to read your thoughts on this.

Stay at home

Only go out for essential travel / work and food shopping

Way to many people out and about, going for walks for hours on end, sitting in parks and commons.
People still meeting up with others etc

Not enough people are giving to food banks....

Food banks are fast running out of food

Thanks Just. I was thinking more generally how to help outside of the Covid-19 situation (for example, how to help in more normal times), although I agree we’re living in very unique times and also think we’re actually - quite helpfully - being given clear instructions on how we can help.

Very good point about food banks. Thank you! Sorry - I missed your most recent reply when I first read your replies.

I don’t think that giving to a charity is such a good way. I think we rely on charities too much. I can’t understand why something like Air Ambulance should rely on charity donations? Or Cancer research? We pay taxes and if it’s not enough we should pay more. We can have flat rate tax say 15% ( just a random figure) so people who get lower income will pay less, people with higher income will pay more.
And you can have strong economy in less polarized society, we have too big gap between rich and poor.
It’s interesting that in this pandemic our key workers mostly turned out to be from low paid jobs. Who needs these bankers now? I’m much more worried about workers who collect rubbish and recycling or stacking supermarket shelves.

That’s interesting about giving to charity, greenlynx.

From what I understand, charities get income from fundraising, donations and government money, so I suppose the shortfall from government income needs to be made up with donations.

I agree that perhaps we should maybe rely on charities less, although it is a good thing that they exist. It’s similar in a way to food banks. I find it really sad that food banks exist and have had to expand, but at least they’re there.

I’d be happy to pay more taxes, as you suggest, to help to create a more equal society. I completely agree with you that our society is very unequal and I would like that to change. For examples, countries like Sweden have higher tax rates than we do and I think they have more equal wealth distribution. Although I think they have a much more egalitarian, socialist outlook in general than we do.

Re: your point about the value of key workers, hopefully this means that key workers’ pay will increase to reflect their value and the long hours they work (as well as the fact that they often face economic hardship through having to use food banks).

I’m not sure if their pay will go up under the current government though, who ideologically tend to save more than to spend (and who will need - and want - to save a lot of money after the immediate need has passed to spend to protect the country because of Covid-19). Which I think is a huge shame. But I think that’s where we are.

More joined up thinking as in more help at the front end like childhood poverty lack of education and homelessness.
I hope the homeless being housed by St Mungos now across the city are being helped properly instead of just being put there until when ? In fact now writing that when the hotels reopen they will just be dumped on the streets ?
There has to be properly funded housing options in this country and proper options for training not just university coming out with debt.

It’s not sad that there are food banks, it’s disgraceful! People are relying on food banks because their income is too low and they can’t cope. It’s not for charities to feed them. People who are working should receive decent wages. People who can’t work because of age, health issues, caring responsibilities should receive proper support through pensions, benefits, etc.

And I don’t think that current Tory government is going to increase key workers wages. They were asked about it already and refuse to discuss this problem and even recognize this. Of course, it’s good that social care workers will have a special badge from yesterday, but how about their low wages?

Really good point about joined-up thinking, Parsley - I absolutely agree.

I’ve been thinking about the problems preventing joined-up thinking and I wonder if part of the problem is that, each time we have a new government, they have new ideas on how to do things (including on what joined-up thinking and how it can be done best), which can harm it rather than benefit it.

I fully agree greenlynx.

I think to protect vulnerable people from imported diseases like COVID-19 it would help if we quarantined anyone coming into the country (including UK citizens) for a month. They could be taken to special facilities to be held while they are assessed. It wouldn't have to be that expensive for them, I'm thinking Travelodge standards here, though obviously better facilities (bigger rooms, Sky TV etc.) for those wanting to pay more.

Goods coming into the country could also be quarantined. Things that are needed urgently could be disinfected of course which would weed most viruses out.

These changes will make life very different, permanently. They won't be easy. Society has to weigh up whether it is worth it to protect the vulnerable.

In more general terms, people who are not vulnerable to disease but have low income/poor housing etc., I don't think charity is the answer. Giving to charity is optional, and when things are optional most people won't do them. If a government were serious about protecting everyone and giving all a basic standard of living they would need to take drastic measures, such as a very high rate of taxation to fund minimum statutory incomes for all.

Firstly I think we need to work out how we define vulnerable. It is such a loaded and subjective term that it like safeguarding has become unhelpful in that it is so often bandied around inappropriately. Different types of vulnerabilities would require entirely different things.

Charities supplying essential services and products mean those things can't be guaranteed. Vulnerable people need joined up, guaranteed services from people and organisations that are properly trained and paid. Benefits need to be at a decent level and people shouldn't have to fight for basic things. That's things like PIP assessments and support for SEN.

It is really disgusting we have food banks @greenlynx it should no way be acceptable in our society. I also think some people are unable to cook properly relying on takeaways which are nutrient deficit that needs to be addressed by schools or communities.
As does the rise of celebrity culture and influencers needs to stop to be seen for what it is - peddling a fake lifestyle for increasing dissatisfaction amongst the young.

The rise of youth violence needs to be addressed properly why are they killing each other ? Where are the fathers in the communities? How can this be stopped is it through education but some schools are not fit for purpose ?
Some many questions so few answers

Parsley - schools should not be responsible for mopping up poor parenting and peoples poor relationship decisions. Again the ability to cook is a personal responsibility not something for schools or the state to be sorting out for people. The vast vast majority of people have access to the internet, you could teach yourself to cook basic things using you tube and instagram without any issues whatsoever.

This is a perfect example of why vulnerability needs to be defined. I wouldn't class not being able to cook or making poor relationship choices to be 'vulnerabilities' that the state should be making up for. By casting the net of the vulnerable so wide we have stretched it so far as to be meaningless leading to a lack of services for those who do need support that can only be delivered through state intervention.

@lemonsandlimes123 yes you’re right we have stretched our help so far it’s meaningless

Really well put lemonsandlimes. I definitely agree we need to have a clearer definition of vulnerability. My worry is that this definition would change depending on who is tasked to define it and depending on whichever government is in charge at any one time.

So, in terms of what people can do on an individual level to help support people considered to be vulnerable, what would be best? It sounds like each option available has drawbacks and benefits e.g. giving to charity.

volunteering and giving to charity be effective ways of giving help and support to people who need it most?

It’s easy to feel powerless in situations where we read and hear stories every single day (under any government we’ve had really, not just the current government) where people who need support the most are being ignored. How can we help and do our bit?

Sorry, the second para in my post above should say: ‘Would volunteering and giving to charity be effective ways of ...’?

Actually I think it’s also worth increasing this definition to include vulnerable people in other countries eg people affected by natural disasters or conflict.

Just bumping in case anyone has any more ideas. It’s been really interesting to read people’s posts so far on this.

wellwhynot - if you expand it to the whole world then you have even greater issues as on a world scale barely anyone in the west is 'vulnerable' compared with millions of people without access to clean water or living in a war ravaged lawless country for example.

The advantage of charitable and philanthropic approaches is that in the absence of a standard definition of vulnerable people can direct their resources towards people and causes that they think are more vulnerable. However there are limits to what can be done on a charitable scale, though i think the scope of charities like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation are pretty much governmental in scale.

Yeah that’s very true lemonsandlimes - really good point.