Geographic impact of crisis will be hard to manage

The Institute of Fiscal Studies has claimed that the balance between protecting public health and enabling economic activity could look very different in different parts of England.

Part of the IFS Deaton Review of Inequalities, the IFS has said that there is no simple North–South or urban–rural divide in the way that the coronavirus crisis is affecting health, jobs and families across England. Areas whose residents look particularly vulnerable to the health effects are not in general the same as those likely to be hit hardest by job losses. Areas with more children at particular risk, because they are poor or have been referred to children’s services, tend to be different again.

However, the report did suggest that coastal areas are notably vulnerable to both health and economic impacts of the crisis, partly due to the higher rate of elderly population vulnerable to the virus and the large reliance on the hospitality sector.

Furthermore, areas in the northern spine of England are more vulnerable than average to health impacts and impacts on families and children, while London’s younger population is less vulnerable to experiencing serious symptoms from the disease.

While there are some regional patterns in vulnerability, in many cases neighbouring local authorities look set to have very different experiences of the crisis. For example, Nottinghamshire has very different exposure from that of neighbouring Leicestershire on all three dimensions of vulnerability.

Alex Davenport, an IFS Research Economist and an author of the report, said: "There is a small group of local authorities in England where public health, local jobs and families are all more vulnerable than average. While several of these areas are in the North West, the group includes local authorities from Dorset to Northumberland. But it is Torbay and the Isle of Wight that stand out as the most highly vulnerable, reflecting their elderly populations, reliance on tourism and hospitality, and pockets of socio-economic disadvantage."