Boomer Remover: Ageism & COVID-19

Melanie Conlon interrogates coronavirus-related discrimination.

On Sunday the 15th of March 2020, Honi Soit broke the news that a University of Sydney student tested positive for COVID-19. A subsequent tidal wave of panic ensued, raising many questions about campus closing and classes being moved online to help prevent any further spread of the virus. Through the chaos of many last-minute emails and class cancellations, one thing has remained consistent both in the university and the wider community: ageism. 

Despite the university working to transition all units to online learning platforms by Monday 23 March (the decision was announced on social media at approximately 5:30pm on Tuesday the 17th), the concerns of students before this decision was made were often met with indifference. Lecturers, apparently in an attempt to prevent anxiety in students, have reportedly told students not to worry because COVID-19 poses a low risk to their demographic. A similar sentiment is repeated with the government’s decision to not close schools as of yet, since the coronavirus generally poses a low risk to children as most are asymptomatic or only experience mild symptoms when carrying the disease.

While it is important to avoid panic, the encouragement of these ideas are insensitive to older and medically-vulnerable populations. High-risk people are likely to come into contact with university students (and many students are mature-aged and/or immunocompromised themselves). Many students live with vulnerable people and socialise with a variety of demographics every day. It is likely that a student catching the virus on campus would lead to their elderly family members becoming infected. It is also worth noting that there have been multiple cases of otherwise-healthy young people becoming seriously ill from COVID-19.

Around the world the concept of everybody needing to “flatten the curve” by self-isolating to reduce the spread of the virus is gaining traction. The enclosed spaces, high traffic of people and regular close contact on university campuses make it necessary that USyd does move classes online in order to help protect the more vulnerable members of the community, such as the elderly. 

A lack of consideration for the elderly, disabled, immunocompromised and lower-income people in our communities has already been brought to light by the recent panic-buying trend. While crowds of people sprinting into stores at opening time to grapple over packets of toilet paper may make for some amusing TikToks, the situation is anything but comedic for the more vulnerable members of our society who are often left unable to purchase the items they need. Viral videos of younger people hurrying through the aisles with trolleys full of massive packets of toilet paper, only to argue or even physically fight with aged people who insist that they just need one packet, is a sad representation of how the current world views the elderly. Unfortunately this attitude is not limited to grocery shopping, with apathy towards aged people taking on a much darker form on the internet. 

A seemingly growing trend of disregarding the threats of Coronavirus towards the aged population or even seeing their deaths as positive is both alarming and disheartening. The insistence that COVID-19 is nothing to worry about because it “only kills old people” is a disturbingly common sentiment. Some have even suggested that a reduction in the numbers of older people as a result of the virus may have a positive effect on the economy or political sphere. These statements highlight the popular belief that aged people are useless or even burdens on the community because many are retired and not contributing to the economy through employment. The value of people’s lives being determined by their economic status is a slippery slope where it seems that the elderly are the first to be tossed aside. 

Worldwide, there have been many examples of ageism being on full display. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s “herd immunity” comments are a blatant example of both a misunderstanding of science and a complete indifference towards the fact that many elderly people would die if the entire population were infected. A business as usual approach may be a good idea for those who make money off of people continuing to work but it is not good for people who would become infected with the virus and risk serious illness or death.

The majority of memes circling the internet about COVID-19, including on USyd Facebook pages, are harmless attempts to diffuse the tension and provide people with an escape from the near-constant health anxiety in the community. However, some of the jokes circling social media are not so well-meaning, with hashtags like #BoomerRemover trending on Twitter. This particular hashtag is vastly different to harmless “Ok Boomer” jokes, since it almost celebrates COVID-19 killing older people.  Although most of the people taking part in these trends claim to not be serious, the implications of this style of humour can be further-reaching than they realise. Social media is a direct representation of society and ageist attitudes online have the potential to influence real-world behaviours. 

Unfortunately, the media has also played into the negativity. There have been many local stories of people offering to buy groceries for their elderly neighbours and many families are making the difficult decision to stay away from older relatives in order to avoid unknowingly passing along the virus. These stories of everyday people working to protect and support vulnerable people in their communities have not received nearly as much attention from the media as panic-buying and online ageism has. A heavy focus on ageism displayed online may do more harm than good, as some forget the actions of governments when preoccupied with outrage over internet discourses.

The federal government is neglecting their responsibility to protect the high-risk people in our communities. The insistence that it is better for the economy if people keep working and schools remain open (whilst handing out payments to wealthy businesses, including $715m to airlines) is a clear demonstration of politicians once again putting profit over people. The payments given to large corporations show that the government does have the capacity to enable workers to self-isolate instead of demanding that they continue risking their health in order to financially support themselves. 

The limitations on visits to aged care facilities announced by Prime Minister Scott Morrison on 18 March restrict seniors to one short visit from two people per day. This rule seems redundant when considering that most residents in aged care facilities only receive between 1-3 visits per week anyway. Limitations on visits and increased funding to the aged care sector can only go so far - it seems that to actually protect the aged and other high-risk people, the federal government should introduce rules that will make real, immediate progress towards supporting workers and containing COVID-19 in the wider population. This is necessary to reduce the number of high-risk people being infected and avoid overcrowding of hospitals.

Self-quarantine to reduce the spread of COVID-19 cannot be done effectively if most people are still working or going to school. It is crucial that the federal government listens to the advice of health experts and scientists and then takes action to allow this advice to be followed, without sacrificing the financial stability of workers who are from affected industries or who cannot work from home. In Italy, the number of patients overwhelming hospitals has led to the idea that COVID-19 sufferers over the age of 80 should be “left to die” in favour of treating younger people. There is a risk of this also happening in Australia if the virus is not effectively kept at a manageable rate. The issue is not mere speculation; on Monday the 16th of March it was reported by The West Australian that “Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society COVID-19 guidelines tell hospitals not to prioritise elderly, terminally ill in ICU”. Self-isolation as a preventative measure seems to be the best way to avoid those situations and save the most lives; and it needs to begin before cases reach an unmanageable level. 

It is fair to say that if COVID-19 posed a higher risk to other age groups, there would likely be a much bigger response from the public and the government. Socially, it makes sense that the higher the number of people who are threatened, the more concern rises. The government’s lack of a serious response is most likely tied to the fact that the aged usually don’t provide much profit since they are mostly retired. If the virus was threatening the working population or children in the way that it is threatening the elderly, it seems that government responses would be very different. 

If the Coronavirus pandemic has made anything certain, it’s that many people show their true colours when faced with fear. Selfishness and ageism, along with ableism and socioeconomic inequality, have come to the forefront of the conversation surrounding COVID-19 and can no longer be ignored. It is clear that when discussing the issues surrounding this crisis, ageism ties in with many other forms of discrimination and inequity. With many people either perpetuating or being complicit in this dangerous disregard for the aged population, what does it say about humanity, the current economic/political system and the practice of prioritising some lives over others?