The much trumpeted ‘herd immunity’ strategy that the UK was embarked on, at odd with almost every other country facing the pandemic, collapsed yesterday when it was realised that around 250,000 people would die under this plan:

The report, published by the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team on Monday night, found that the strategy previously being pursued by the government — dubbed “mitigation” and involving home isolation of suspect cases and their family members but not including restrictions on wider society — would “likely result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and health systems (most notably intensive care units) being overwhelmed many times over”.

So the herd immunity strategy *was* exactly what this govt were pursuing… rather than max time delay in order to adequately prep our NHS. Like some of us said – very high risk and maybe far too ‘clever’. A quarter of a million deaths said the model. https://t.co/5SVkGpu9R7 — Mike Galsworthy (@mikegalsworthy) March 16, 2020

So why were the government going for this more ‘business as usual’ approach? Inquiring minds want to know… Why was the UK’s plan so wrong? This journalist asked the question on Twitter:

One other dynamic – if [World Health Organisation] China expert is right – above all we need and needed surveillance and information from other countries… it was doctors in contact with counterparts in Italy who have been screaming from the rooftops about our more severe critical care constraints… Such intel available at daily European health ministers vidcall of EU27 plus Swiss -dont know if [the UK] not been invited, or haven’t asked – but if shows we’re late for ex learning Italian lessons, obvious to frontline doctors, surely mutual interest to go

So the UK is making decisions without real-time access to information that EU partners have. Which begs the obvious question when the UK opted to not take part in the EU pandemic response system. Why?

Downing Street has reportedly rejected pleas to keep the EU’s Early Warning and Response System (EWRS) after Brexit – despite the Coronavirus outbreak. The online platform has existed for 22 years to let health chiefs exchange rapid information about “serious cross-border threats to health”. But according to the Daily Telegraph, No10 has rejected pleas to keep it as part of a trade deal – despite even a Department of Health official lobbying for access. A source told the newspaper: “The Department of Health pitched for continued access to the EWRS to be an objective of the negotiations. “But it was blocked because they didn’t want to be accused of seeking more than the basic Canada deal.”

Ah we opted out for Brexit reasons. So had we have remained part of the EU pandemic system, would we have had access to better information and so made the better choice faster?

If so, was the decision, as it seems, made for political and not health reasons?

Has Brexit left us more vulnerable to a pandemic?

So far the evidence says the answer is: yes on all counts.

After all the economic shock of Brexit was always going to be huge even according to the governments own figures (around 7% GDP) so faced with a second shock via the coronavirus on top of Brexit, the UK could end up completely broken.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that Boris sees the coronavirus though an ideological lens, making decisions based on what helps us get Brexit and not what helps less people die.