Stop patronising our elders. We ALL want our freedom back after the virus.

ONE of my older relatives told me she was unfazed by the lockdown and was still buying her newspaper every day.

She’s a regular reader of this column, so I could hardly rebuke her for venturing out onto the mean streets of her rural town in Perthshire.

In fact, she said she’d continue buying it until forced at gunpoint to back away from the newsagent.

That doesn’t seem to be part of Police Scotland’s strategy yet – and I can only salute her commitment.

Others are passing the time with extensive DIY projects and garden maintenance, and mastering video-conferencing technology, with variable success.

My mum is listening to podcasts and navigates BBC Sounds with aplomb – in itself no mean feat.

In other words, they’re getting on with it, as we all are, clinging to the vestiges of our sanity as the lockdown drags on.

But that section of the population we describe, perhaps sometimes a little dismissively, as the ‘elderly’, are bearing the brunt of this weird and attritional episode.

Barred from physical contact with their grandchildren, they’ve suffered a grievous psychological blow.

True, there are many different ways to contact them remotely – our family had a virtual conversation at the weekend using FaceTime, during which my mother-in-law briefly appeared upside down.

Topsy-turvy times, indeed: but it’s no substitute for a hug, and the whole experience has focused minds on what’s euphemistically referred to as ‘quality of life’ for the over-70s living in these oppressive conditions.

If it’s a staggered exit from lockdown, as seems likely, with some age-groups securing their escape before others, many older folk could facesomething approaching house arrest for months to come.

And many have underlying health conditions which mean they’re ata higher risk than others – though we also know coronavirus also hits the young and active, albeit in far fewer numbers.

It’s a lot to process that this strange half-life will go on for so long, a form of prison sentence with the slight difference that custodial terms tend to have a definite end-date.

Many will be wondering why they worked so hard for a retirement that has been shorn of most of the benefits of leisure time.

But there are also plenty of over-70s who are healthy, with no significant underlying problems, who are alsodreading a long period of incarceration.

Past-times like a trip to the golf course are a thing of the past, and socialising is verboten.

It’s galling to countenance alengthy stretch ahead of negligible interaction with family or the outside world.

We’re sociable creatures at heart, even if technology has made it easierto stay in touch: PMs, DMs, WhatsApp, Messenger, text message, Zoom, email …

But contact of the non-digital variety becomes more crucial in our advanced years (another euphemism).

John Humphrys’ Saturday column in the Mail was sobering, in every sense – he outlined an abstemious regime that probably puts most of us to shame.

He predicted the severe restrictions on our lives would crumble if older people were confined to their homes far beyond the official end of lockdown.

On Radio 4’s Today programme yesterday, there were sprightly pensioners, onefrom Edinburgh whomissed her golf.

The other, who cared for his dementia-stricken wife, wanted to get back on the zip-wire…

Professor Susan Michie, an expert in health psychology at University College London, said the guidelines could risk fuelling prejudice against over-70s, and suggested they could be ‘refined and nuanced’.

(House arrest? Lockdown could be longer for over-70s)

As more data is collected, there’s scope for individuals to assess their own risk –why not have an app so they could input information about their age, and health,and find out their risk level?

Professor Michie said: ‘If people don’t perceive the guidance to be proportionate, there will be problems with adherence.’

The idea of selecting 10 friends and family with whom to socialise – creating social ‘bubbles’- is an innovative measure, and one that might head off a lockdown mutiny.

Granted, it would be difficult to police, but our willingness to comply is likely to rise in direct proportion to the level of trust placed in us by the authorities.

Dr Donald Macaskill, boss of Scottish Care, the body representing the independent Scottish care sector, says the suggestion of agerestrictions for exiting lockdown is a ‘blatant form of discrimination’.

He said lockdown from the perspective of someone living with dementia, either as a sufferer or carer, has been ‘simply hellish’.

The virus has run rampant in our care homes because sadly their occupants weren’t seen immediately as a priority – and it took too long to wake up to the tragedy unfolding in them.

But they also house people with greatly varying levels of health – and some are far more resilient than others.

As Dr Macaskill says: ‘It is one thing to seek to shield those most at risk because of underlying health conditions, it is quite another to use blanket catch-all prohibition.’

The motivation of public health scientists and politicians is, of course, entirely humane: they didn’t fabricate the data showing greater risk for the over-70s.

Eventually,the elderly will be first in line for a vaccine, if one should appear, after the medics, with those whose immune systems are weaker at thefront of the queue.

But as Professor Michie warns, the guidanceas it stands could be interpreted as ‘reinforcing’ prejudice.

The subtext is clear: old people don’t get out much anyway (apart from zip-wiring, golfing, gardening …) so lockdown isn’t ahuge burden for them.

Professor Michie’s recommendation that different age-groups and communities should be consulted on the plans for getting out of this situation is also eminently sensible.

Boris Johnson’s pledge of a more transparent approach, and his departure from the ‘stay at home’ formula in his comebackTV address, should provide some reassurance this hell will be eased soon.

But perhaps one of its legacies will be a re-examination of our attitudes to older people.

Lumping them all in together doesn’t make much sense, even if it is easier for the statisticians and policy-makers.

And the young could do with a reminder that being over 70 doesn’t automatically mean decrepitude.

Possibly some are seeing more of their grandparents and older relatives now – on phone and tablet screens – than prior to the lockdown.

That’s positive, as long as when this is over, as one day it will be (even if it doesn’t feel like it now), that contact is maintained, face-to-face as much as possible.

These stories of ‘old folk’ keeping active and fit might also prove inspirational for younger people, and indeed those in middle age.

There are many, of all ages, who need to stay in isolation; they must be protected not just by government, but by those around them.

Whatever happens, we should stop patronising our elders – even the bloody-minded among them – and remember many of them are just as fed up with these strictures on our normal lives as everyone else.

*This column appeared in the Scottish Daily Mail on April 28, 2020.