Why disabled people are calling for a Covid-19 inquiry

[EmbarrassingAdmissions]

It comes as the latest ONS figures showed more than 22,000 disabled people died from coronavirus, from 2 March to 15 May, making up two-thirds of all deaths.

The statistics suggest working-age disabled women like Ginny are more than 11 times more likely to die from coronavirus than their peers. For disabled men, the death rate was 6.5 times higher than non-disabled men.

"I'm not surprised at all", says Ginny. "Hardly anything has been done to protect disabled women. In fact, the opposite is true. Disabled women are being abandoned and left to die."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53221435

I was taken aback by the way in which some councils used the Coronavirus Act to withdraw services from people receiving it in their own home while also making it also impossible for care homes in some areas to get the relief money.

Why has there been this disproportionate impact by sex? Is this an artefact of the fact that being male seems to be a risk? Or is there another reason why it's affected women in this age-group more?

They compared disabled women against able bodied women and disabled men against able bodied men didn't they?

Is t that the reason why the rate is higher for disabled women? As a woman your chance of dying is much lower. Being clinically vulnerable though pushes up that chance. Men however, even able bodied and healthy men, are much more vulnerable anyway so the difference between able bodied and disabled men isn't as big, whereas an able bodied woman's risk is low so the difference between her and a disabled woman is much greater?

I'm not sure I've explained myself very well but in my head it makes sense. Basically it's because women are at much lower risk to begin with.

Regardless, the way venerable people have been treated is shocking and I hope any enquiry is wide ranging, including care homes.

Just looked at the ONS data. Problem is they have not collected data by type of disability and disability is effectively self-reported in terms of degree:

Disability status was defined using the self-reported answers to the 2011 Census question: “Are your day-to-day activities limited because of a health problem or disability which has lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months? - Include problems related to old age” (Yes, limited a lot; Yes, limited a little; and No).

Nevertheless it is shocking that this is only just coming out and perhaps reflects the NHS's attitude to illness and disability.

My thoughts were fuzzily in line with both of you.

I'd wondered if some of the difference is attributable to the different mortality rate for men and women of working age so the higher number for men would mean a lower multiple, IYSWIM.

And, I had wondered where the disability stats were drawn from and what the definitions were.

Obtaining appropriate data and agreeing definitions is going to be key to any enquiry.

Could it be linked to carers though ? If disabled people are more likely to have different carers or agency carers going into their homes putting them more at risk ?

I think managing spread is of higher significance if the objective is to save more lives. As a country, it's been clearly shown that domiciliary workers in hospitals and care workers (both in institutions and in homes) have been responsible for a significant amount of viral spread. Unwell people need sick pay and need to stay home, anyone in care environments needs effective hygiene and PPE training, staff shouldn't travel between lots of facilities during risky seasons, exit from hospital should be to halfway hospices etc. We need to learn the lessons before a winter resurgence, and frankly we need to keep the new practices because this is how norovirus and flu spread on those environments too at other times, with resulting lives lost every year. So I think a review is needed in a related area, and I worry that an inquiry with this particular remit is too focused on covid, misses any understanding of risk factors and risks distraction from measures that are so clearly needed to ensure long-lasting improvements are made.

I was taken aback by the way in which some councils used the Coronavirus Act to withdraw services from people receiving it in their own home while also making it also impossible for care homes in some areas to get the relief money.

Can I take that in 2 bites?

Home care was withdrawn because councils and care providers had to take stock of what they were doing and how they could continue. Care workers go into a lot of homes every day. They are quite a vector for disease! My aunt had all her care withdrawn and family members had to make quick decisions about who would stay with her - she has MND, is on oxygen and needs 24/7 care. Family stepped in because they could. For those who could not there was a gap in provision until LAs and providers could work out how to do the work safely. That meant that her NN had one care visit a day. I haven't heard about anyone who had no care at all... but wouldn't discunt that being the case for soe, hopefully very few.

Locally our care provider was recruiting from about day 3 of lockdown. Our usually stingy LA had promised the additional money as soon as they heard they would get it. Quite a few of the people I volunteer with took the training and spent their furlough time working as carers.

Secondly - and this is almost the entirety of the reason and complaint in that article - was PPE! And there will be lots of arguements and counter arguements about that for years!

Why women is interesting though. Given men are more susceptable! The ONS will have more to say on that, if they have not done so already!

"It comes as the latest ONS figures showed more than 22,000 disabled people died from coronavirus, from 2 March to 15 May, making up two-thirds of all deaths."

Why is this surprising? Of course more disabled people will die, given that they have conditions that put them more at risk.

I think the question being asked is whether it's "given that...", or whether the care issues caused the deaths rather than the diseases.