THE lockdown mantra that we are ‘all in this together’ is starting to sound weaker and weaker every day.

We have already established that people in ethnic minorities are more likely to get the virus and suffer its worst effects, as are the elderly and especially people stuck together in cramped care homes.

But as well as the difference between who actually gets the damn virus, it is becoming increasingly clear that there is a vast gulf between how people are going to be affected economically.

While those with the most money will lose a little of their wealth (and indeed, some business owners are raking in a fortune from our misfortune), the poorest people stand to lose everything they’ve got because of the way society is shut down.

Today’s Oxford Mail front page story about the potential ‘eviction crisis’ facing our city is a prime example.

Although landlords of course still need income for themselves and to pay for building maintenance, if their tenants are not given some help then those landlords may end up with no tenants at all.

It is not as if there is less money around: the exact same amount of money exists now as before this whole lockdown started (give or take a few million), but it is slowly trickling from the hands of the many into the hands of the few.

Supermarkets like Tesco, Sainsbury's and Aldi have had as much business as ever, if not more because smaller shops have been unable to compete.

The number of people subscribing to TV streaming services like Netflix has soared, and the number of people shopping on Amazon – well, let's say Jeff Bezos won't be struggling to pay the rent this month.

Indeed, this week it was reported that Bezos could be on track to become the world's first ever trillionaire, partly thanks to lockdown-driven demand which has sent Amazon stock soaring.

The money is still there: the poor do not need to suffer; the struggling do not need to face eviction.

All these problems could be solved, if those with the power and the money wanted to solve them.