Regions that have a ‘triple whammy’ of factors will be the worst affected

Individual regions require different approaches to rebuild after the crisis, an IFS study has revealed

NINE areas will be the worst hit by coronavirus due to a “triple whammy” of having large numbers of elderly, high job losses and a lot of vulnerable children, a study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has found.

The IFS also identified just 17 local authority areas likely to escape the harshest effects of Covid-19 because they have fewer older people susceptible to its worst effects, are less reliant on “shut-down” sectors, such as retail and hospitality, and have fewer families with vulnerable children.

The researchers said the study of all England’s local authorities showed the damage from the pandemic would be

“diffuse” and not follow the traditional North-south or urban-rural divides.

They warned this would pose a major problem for the Government and policymakers as it would require a sophisticated package of aid and support to revive different areas with different types of problems.

Coastal towns reliant on tourism, and with big elderly populations, will be hard hit, while even ostensibly affluent areas, many in London, face an economic crisis because they often have large numbers of low-paid retail and hospitality workers, who will be last back into employment.

Torbay and the Isle of Wight top the table as the most vulnerable due to their elderly populations, reliance on tourism and hospitality, and pockets of socio-economic disadvantage. Both are in the worst 20 per cent in each of the three categories used by the IFS to assess the pandemic’s impact.

The other seven are Blackpool, Northumberland, Dorset, Wirral, Gloucestershire, Bury and Lancashire.

“This is a small group of local authorities in England where public health, local jobs and families are all more vulnerable than average,” said Alex Davenport, an IFS Research Economist and an author of the report.

According to the IFS, the 17 local authorities that fare best in the three categories are affluent areas where tourism and hospitality industries make up a smaller share of the local economy and residents are relatively healthy.

The 17, which are in the 20 per cent least vulnerable on all three dimensions, are: Barking and Dagenham, Bexley, Bracknell Forest, Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire, Leeds, Milton Keynes, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, South Gloucestershire, Stockport, Surrey, Trafford, Warwickshire, West Berkshire and Wokingham.

The IFS identified 36 local areas that were highly vulnerable because of high numbers of elderly and “shut-down” jobs, mainly in coastal areas.

“Many coastal towns already rank highly in terms of overall deprivation, and the crisis could be set to make these inequalities with non-coastal areas even wider,” said the IFS.

Local areas in the more northern spine of England – South Yorkshire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire and the Durham area – were vulnerable because their populations were relatively old and “fairly deprived, going back to mining closures, which may also link to poor health”.

Thirty-six other local areas combined populations that were at risk in health terms, with vulnerable children and families. These areas are clustered in the West Midlands – particularly around Birmingham – and in the cities of the North West and North East of England.

Imran Rasul, professor of economics at UCL, and another author of the report, said: “There is no single measure that captures all the different types of vulnerability during this crisis. The risks to public health, local economies and vulnerable families are spread across England in a patchwork.

“The crisis will require policymakers at different levels to coordinate their response, since the geography of vulnerabilities has shifted away from the traditional North–south or urban–rural divides.”