By Colin Wiles, housing consultant.

As I write this, on Wednesday morning, the USA is entering a constitutional crisis. I fear it will end badly. But the big news in England this week is obviously lockdown 2. It is less stringent than the first lockdown – schools and colleges will not close, construction and maintenance can carry on, garden centres, DIY stores and play areas can stay open – but nonetheless, it will have a significant and damaging impact upon many residents in social housing. Are you prepared?

One of my constant themes during this pandemic has been the housing inequalities it has exposed. I wrote about how bad housing kills and the fact that COVID-19 deaths were disproportionately high in areas of high density and bad housing.

I also wrote here about the disproportionate impact upon Black and Asian households. In that blog, in May, I surmised that the death rate among these communities was less likely to be caused by genetic or medical factors but was down to poor housing and the fact that many in these communities were more likely to work in dangerous occupations – health care, retail, taxi-driving etc.

This appears to be borne out by the latest ONS study of deaths up to the end of July. It found that males of Black African ethnic background had the highest rate of death involving COVID9 – 2.7 times higher than males of White ethnic background. And in England alone, adjusting
for age and excluding care home residents, the rate of death among Black African males was 3.8 times higher than among White males, and 2.9 times higher for Black African females.

This is quite shocking.

Crucially, the ONS found that “ethnic differences in mortality involving COVID-19 are most strongly associated with demographic and socio-economic factors, such as place of residence and occupational exposures, and cannot be explained by pre-existing health conditions using hospital data or self-reported health status.”

Another key theme for me is that all of the key decisions during this pandemic have been taken by the well-housed, the well-fed and the well-off, often without any genuine regard for the impact their decisions will have on the poor and badly housed.

It has been stated before that one impact of lockdown is that poor people will deliver more stuff to the homes of well off people. I feel there is a growing chasm between those who have safe jobs and the rest of the population – those furloughed or made redundant, or freelancers working in insecure sectors.

For the former the lockdown is not a big problem, some people seem to visibly enjoy it, but for those stuck in overcrowded flats with fragile incomes the consequences will be hard. I fear the wider impacts of suicides, domestic violence, child abuse and deaths caused by delayed
treatments and operations will be severe, but these consequences may not become apparent immediately.

Incidentally, what has happened to our world-beating test and trace system, and the Nightingale hospitals that were supposed to take pressure off the NHS? And where is the evidence of transmission in pubs and restaurants that would justify closing down an entire sector, where many of our residents work?

So, for me, this pandemic has brought into focus our two housing nations, which are growing ever farther apart, with the occupants of the first making decisions about the occupants of the second. One answer to this is to make decision-makers experience life in the second housing nation. Perhaps then they would not rush to make laws that impact so badly on the poor and badly housed.

Do you remember back in the eighties when there was a spate of TV programmes showing politicians trying to live on benefits in social housing? The results were often comedic. The most famous was Matthew Parris in 1984.

He ran out of money with two days to go and was left loitering in a working men’s club, unable to afford a drink, with the gas and electricity in his flat having run out. (The most extraordinary bit of that story is that he spent £2.50 to go and see Newcastle play!). I seriously think we should revive this exercise.

Can you imagine if we required Hancock, Gove and Cummings to live on the tenth floor of a Hackney tower block during lockdown, living on benefits or the minimum wage? It would make great TV, but perhaps they would then be not quite so quick to make rules that impact so badly on the lives of millions of their fellow citizens.

But for the next month, housing providers will need to adjust to the new lockdown. By the time this is published the new regulations should be in place, having been scrutinised in Parliament. I hope you have spent the past few months gathering data on your most vulnerable tenants and putting in place support packages to help them.

Although this lockdown is less severe than in March, the first lockdown saw us coming into Spring and there was a greater sense of optimism and hope. This time we are going into Winter and it could make it hard for many people. The consequences for your staff could also be difficult.

Working at home during the Spring and early Summer will be a comparative doddle to these darkening days. I hope you have put in place measures to support their wellbeing. Good luck with all you do and see you in four weeks!