Overcrowded housing made coronavirus worse.

Inside Housing have looked in some detail at the correlation between mortality from COVID-19 and housing crisis issues (shared housing, overcrowding, density). The full review is well worth a read - excellent journalism combining evidence, analysis and real human stories. Here's a few things to take away - firstly a graph:

For once (maybe the FT should take note) the graph isn't trying to prove a predetermined point, it simply shows that the more overcrowding - data from ONS and NOMIS - you have the higher the levels of COVID-19 mortality. Inside Housing go on to show the correlation extends through numbers of 'houses in multiple occupation' (HMOs), homelessness and social housing waiting lists.

It's no surprise to see that there's a relationship between cramped housing and infection rates, we see similar evidence from Singapore and New York. And other badly hit places like Madrid and Barcelona also have very overcrowded housing with associated health issues. People in these communities aremore likely to be sharing with a vulnerable person, more likely to work in crowded and exposed environments (food service, construction, transport), and more likely to rely on public transport.

It's become commonplace to point at population density as the problem but, as demographer Wendell Cox has streesed, the issue isn't population per se but rather what he calls "exposure denity", the number of close interactions with others that people have in an average day. It's clear that the poorest people in large cities are those most exposed and that two generations or more of inadequate, selfish and NIMBY-driven housing policies have been a big factor making this worse.

It's also worth noting that poor housing miught also be part of the reason for disproportionate mortality and infection among non-white minorities - Inside Housing remind us that while only 2% of UK households are overcrowed, the proportion rises to 30% for Bangladeshi households (15% for Pakistani and Black African).

I hope that, in the reaction to this clear correlation between mortality rates from COVD-19 and poor housing conditions, we begin to think about the reasons why places like London persist with high rates of overcrowding (efforts under the previous London mayor managed to push the rate down slightly but it is now rising again). Partly this is about "affordable" housing but in many respects this is a false lead - the real reason the rent's too damned high is because there is too liitle housing of all kinds. Awful decisions (by the council and the High Court) to refuse developments for too few affordable homes miss the point - yes, we need a more social housing but if a deveolment doesn't provide this accomodation is still contributes to the overall housing stock reducing housing pressures.

At the same time I'd like to see councils in inner London as well as campaign groups like Shelter start to put more pressure on government to reform urban containment policies such as the green belt and to reduce the power of NIMBYs (a minority everywhere but a vocal, influential one) to dictate local planning policies and decisions. Linked to better funding streams for social housing (support access to investment markets, allow greater flexibility on rents and a clearer grant system) this could result in better housing all round. And if delivering more housing choise, more equitable housing and healthier homes requires us to take up a few Surrey golf courses, some redundant airfield and marginal pasture land on the edge of small towns or villages with good connections to the big city, that's a small price for having a city where thousands don't die because where they live is so awful.


...