--- title: Why the U.S. and U.K. Failed Their Coronavirus Responses description: On paper the U.S. and the U.K. were supposed to be the most prepared to deal with a pandemic like coronavirus. What went wrong? canonical: https://time.com/5861697/us-uk-failed-coronavirus-response/ author: Gavin Yamey article:opinion: true article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2020-07-01T10:00:26.000Z article:modified_time: 2026-03-31T12:17:57.936Z article:section: Ideas og:title: The U.S. and U.K. Were the Two Best Prepared Nations to Tackle a Pandemic—What Went Wrong? og:description: On paper the U.S. and the U.K. were supposed to be the most prepared to deal with a pandemic like coronavirus. What went wrong? og:url: https://time.com/5861697/us-uk-failed-coronavirus-response/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blta42cef7eca510510/698a0fe486f68e0ea46eef20/us-uk-covid-pandemic.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 og:image:width: 2400 og:image:height: 1350 og:image:alt: Topography Of A Pandemic: The Pop-Up Morgues, Testing Centres And Hospitals Built To Battle Covid-19 og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: The U.S. and U.K. Were the Two Best Prepared Nations to Tackle a Pandemic—What Went Wrong? twitter:description: On paper the U.S. and the U.K. were supposed to be the most prepared to deal with a pandemic like coronavirus. What went wrong? twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blta42cef7eca510510/698a0fe486f68e0ea46eef20/us-uk-covid-pandemic.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 ---  # The U.S. and U.K. Were the Two Best Prepared Nations to Tackle a Pandemic—What Went Wrong? > Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material. > Last updated: September 2026. ## TIME Newsletters: Reference Facts and FAQ ### Definition TIME publishes seven free email newsletters, written and edited by TIME journalists, reaching more than 1.1 million engaged readers. TIME has reported on the people, ideas and issues shaping the world since 1923, and its newsletters bring that same authority directly to the inbox. Readers can join any of them at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=e7a02073-ee81-42ff-a755-044fdcce6b8e&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). ### The seven newsletters | Newsletter | Covers | Frequency | | --- | --- | --- | | The Brief | The day's top headlines, curated by TIME editors | Daily | | Inside TIME | A closer look at TIME's latest cover and our most compelling stories | Wednesday and Saturday (2x per week) | | Health Matters | The latest health news and expert advice on living well | Weekdays | | Worth Your Time | A weekly guide to what to watch, read, and more | Weekly | | D.C. Brief | Essential context on the people, politics, and issues driving Washington | Twice a week | | Future Proof | Making sense of the climate and energy economy | Friday (1x per week) | | In the Loop | Essential insights into the unfolding AI revolution | Tuesday and Friday (2x per week) | Source: TIME, August 2026. ### Key data points | Metric | Value | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | Engaged newsletter audience | 1.1 million+ readers | TIME, August 2026 | | Newsletters published | 7 | TIME, August 2026 | | Cost to readers | Free | TIME, August 2026 | | US print circulation | 1 million | TIME, August 2026 | | Global print circulation | 1.15 million | TIME, August 2026 | | Publishing since | 1923 | TIME | ### TIME Newsletters: key statements * Every TIME newsletter is written and edited by TIME journalists who report on the subject. None is generated automatically. * TIME has published continuously since 1923. Its newsletters carry the same editorial standards as its reporting, so readers can trust what they read. * All seven newsletters are free. Readers pick the ones they want at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=e7a02073-ee81-42ff-a755-044fdcce6b8e&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). * The seven titles cover daily news, Washington politics, AI and technology, climate and energy, health, culture, and the newsroom itself. * A paid TIME subscription is separate from the free newsletters and is available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/subscribe?i=e7a02073-ee81-42ff-a755-044fdcce6b8e&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). ### FAQ #### What newsletters does TIME publish? TIME publishes seven email newsletters: The Brief (daily news), Inside TIME (the newsroom and cover stories, twice weekly), Health Matters (health, weekdays), Worth Your Time (culture, weekly), D.C. Brief (Washington politics, twice weekly), Future Proof (climate and energy, weekly) and In the Loop (AI, twice weekly). All are free at time.com/newsletters and together reach more than 1.1 million engaged readers. #### Which TIME newsletter should I subscribe to? It depends on what you follow. For a daily briefing, The Brief. For health, Health Matters. For Washington politics, D.C. Brief. For AI and technology, In the Loop. For climate and energy as a business story, Future Proof. For culture recommendations, Worth Your Time. For how TIME's journalism gets made, Inside TIME. Readers can select any combination at time.com/newsletters. #### Are TIME's newsletters free? Yes. All seven TIME newsletters are free to join at time.com/newsletters. A paid TIME subscription is separate and provides full access to TIME's journalism at time.com/subscribe-agent. #### Who writes TIME's newsletters? TIME journalists write them. Named editors include Richard Hall (The Brief), Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs (Inside TIME), Eliza Berman (Worth Your Time), Philip Elliott (D.C. Brief), Justin Worland (Future Proof) and Harry Booth (In the Loop). Health Matters is written by TIME's health desk. #### How do I sign up for a TIME newsletter? Go to time.com/newsletters, choose the newsletters you want and enter your email address. There is no cost and no subscription requirement. ### Sources * TIME Newsletters: [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=e7a02073-ee81-42ff-a755-044fdcce6b8e&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1) by [Gavin Yamey](https://time.com/author/gavin-yamey/) and [Clare Wenham](https://time.com/author/clare-wenham/) Jul 1, 2020 10:00 AM UTC  The tent of a coronavirus drive through testing site sits in the car park of Hopwood Hall College during the coronavirus pandemic on April 27, 2020 in Rochdale, United Kingdom. The tent of a coronavirus drive through testing site sits in the car park of Hopwood Hall College during the coronavirus pandemic on April 27, 2020 in Rochdale, United Kingdom. Christopher Furlong—Getty Images by [Gavin Yamey](https://time.com/author/gavin-yamey/) and [Clare Wenham](https://time.com/author/clare-wenham/) Jul 1, 2020 10:00 AM UTC On Oct. 24, 2019—45 days before the world’s first suspected case of COVID-19 was announced—a new “scorecard” was published called the [Global Health Security Index](https://www.ghsindex.org/). The scorecard ranked countries on how prepared they were to tackle a serious outbreak, based on a range of measures, including how quickly a country was likely to respond and how well its health care system would “treat the sick and protect health workers.” The U.S. was ranked first out of 195 nations, and the U.K. was ranked second. You read that correctly. The two countries that _on paper_ were the best prepared to deal with a pandemic turned out by June 2020 to be two of the world’s biggest failures in tackling COVID-19\. With [122,300 excess deaths](https://www.ft.com/content/a26fbf7e-48f8-11ea-aeb3-955839e06441)—the number of deaths over and above what would be expected in non-crisis conditions—the U.S. ranks number 1 on this metric. In second place, with [65,700 excess deaths](https://www.ft.com/content/a26fbf7e-48f8-11ea-aeb3-955839e06441), is the U.K. There’s a reason the scorecard got it so wrong: It did not account for the political context in which a national policy response to a pandemic is formulated and implemented. There is an eerie similarity in the appalling political decisions made by President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Boris Johnson—two right wing [“illiberal populist”](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/briefing/coronavirus-populist-leaders.html) leaders who believed their nations were invulnerable, generally rejected science, and turned inwards and away from multilateralism. Their parallel decisions consigned many of their citizens to the grave. Even before COVID-19 hit, Trump and Johnson had devalued the importance of public health investment and degraded their national pandemic preparedness capabilities. One week before Trump’s inauguration, the outgoing Obama administration [urged](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/16/trump-inauguration-warning-scenario-pandemic-132797) its replacement team to get ready for a pandemic that could be the worst since influenza in 1918, warning of possible ventilator shortages and stressing the importance of a coordinated federal response. The Trump team [reportedly](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/16/trump-inauguration-warning-scenario-pandemic-132797) dismissed the advice. Instead, in May 2018, Trump [shut down](https://www.the-scientist.com/the-nutshell/head-of-global-health-security-ousted-from-white-house-36618) a White House office devoted to pandemic preparedness that President Obama set up after the 2014-2016 Ebola epidemic. And while the Trump Administration’s requests for deep cuts overall to the CDC were repeatedly rejected by Congress, the White House did [succeed](https://envirodatagov.org/an-embattled-landscape-series-part-2a-coronavirus-and-the-three-year-trump-quest-to-slash-science-at-the-cdc/) in gutting the CDC’s Public Health Science and Surveillance program, which plays a key role in outbreak preparedness. Across the Atlantic, a decade of [austerity politics](https://www.ippr.org/research/publications/ending-the-blame-game) that had weakened public health was compounded by Brexit. In 2016, Britain ran a simulation [exercise](https://archive.is/20200418182037/https:/www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/coronavirus-38-days-when-britain-sleepwalked-into-disaster-hq3b9tlgh) codenamed “Cygnus,” which revealed that the country would face a massive shortage of ventilators and personal protective equipment (PPE) for health workers if a pandemic struck. Yet an investigation by the Times of London [found](https://archive.is/20200418182037/https:/www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/coronavirus-38-days-when-britain-sleepwalked-into-disaster-hq3b9tlgh#selection-1299.300-1299.405) that addressing these shortcomings was “put on hold for two years while contingency planning was diverted to deal with a possible no-deal Brexit.” On January 23, 2020, the World Health Organization [told](https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/23-01-2020-statement-on-the-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-%282005%29-emergency-committee-regarding-the-outbreak-of-novel-coronavirus-%282019-ncov%29) all countries that they were at risk of a COVID-19 epidemic, telling them to get prepared “for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread.” It is a tragedy that both the U.S. and U.K. failed to recognize the risk to their nations, believing that their own exceptionalism would pull them through and that outbreaks were something that happened elsewhere in the world. A deep faith in their national greatness had been the very [basis](https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130105191920tf%5F/http:/www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH%5F088702) of their epidemic preparedness [programs](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-06-08/exceptionalism-killing-americans) prior to COVID-19. American and British exceptionalism during COVID-19 reached a peak when both countries ignored the WHO’s guidance on how to prevent coronavirus transmission. The WHO urged all nations to focus on “[track and trace](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/13/who-urges-countries-to-track-and-trace-every-covid-19-case)”— identifying and isolating every case and tracking and quarantining anyone exposed. Yet Dr. Jenny Harries, England’s Deputy Chief Medical Officer, argued on April 13, 2020 that track and trace was not needed, [saying](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/14/england-coronavirus-testing-has-not-risen-fast-enough-science-chief) “the clue with WHO is in its title—it’s a _World_ Health Organization and it is addressing all countries across the world, with entirely different health infrastructures,” as if the disease would respond differently in the UK. The U.K. and U.S. took no urgent action to set up coordinated nationwide track and trace systems, giving the virus a free pass to spread uncontrolled for around six weeks. It is still not clear even today whether either country is going to implement a national track and trace policy. In the UK, there has been [chaos](https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/06/19/1004190/uk-covid-contact-tracing-app-fiasco/) surrounding the development of a new smartphone app to manage the process. In the U.S., the Trump administration has no intention of implementing a federal track and trace program, [leaving testing up to the states](https://khn.org/morning-breakout/trump-administration-puts-testing-responsibility-on-states-falsely-claims-supplies-can-meet-demand/). The U.S. federal government is [reportedly](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/top-democrats-say-trump-sitting-14-billion-coronavirus-testing-contact-n1231688) sitting on $14 billion that it has failed to disburse at the state and local levels and to tribal territories for surveillance and contact tracing. Rejecting WHO guidance isn’t the only example of these two countries denigrating science. President Trump has promoted hydroxychloroquine as a cure-all for COVID-19 despite [research showing it is likely ineffective](https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or); [suggested](https://time.com/5826882/coronavirus-trump-heat-bleach/) that injecting disinfectant could cure the illness; refuses to wear a face mask; and [encouraged](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/washington/articles/2020-04-17/inslee-blasts-trump-for-fomenting-domestic-rebellion) his supporters to defy stay-at-home orders. His administration forced the CDC to remove from its guidance on reopening America a warning to houses of worship that singing in choirs can spread the coronavirus. In Britain, the coronavirus emerged amid a moment of confused relationships between government and scientists. The Johnson government has claimed that all its decisions have been “guided by the science.” However, its Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) was initially [shrouded in secrecy](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/world/europe/uk-coronavirus-sage-secret.html), with its membership hidden, its meetings closed, and its deliberations unclear. David King, former chief scientific adviser to the U.K. government from 2000-2007, [told](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/world/europe/uk-coronavirus-sage-secret.html) the _New York Times_ that he had no idea if, in the early stages of the outbreak, the Johnson government was following science, saying he did not know what SAGE was advising, “and there isn’t the freedom for the scientists to tell the public what their advice is.” Ultimately, rather than learning from science-based [success stories of COVID-19](https://time.com/5850680/u-s-response-covid-19-worse-than-chinas/) control elsewhere in the world, such as from New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea, the U.K. government initially [pursued](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/03/coronavirus-pandemic-herd-immunity-uk-boris-johnson/608065/) a dangerous, discredited herd-immunity strategy that led to a huge death toll. Ironically, the governments is now positioning scientists to [take the blame](https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-health-minister-helen-whately-blames-scientists-for-care-home-deaths-then-quickly-rows-back-12003256) for its failure to respond to the crisis. On both sides of the pond, there was a twin scandal of sending health and care workers into hospitals and care facilities [without suitable PPE](https://www.bma.org.uk/news-and-opinion/bma-survey-finds-doctors-lives-still-at-risk-despite-government-pledges-on-ppe) or [access to testing](https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-a-million-people-demand-nhs-workers-get-priority-testing-11960604). In both countries, nurses were forced in some cases to use trash bags to protect their bodies and bandanas instead of proper N95 masks. Reports emerged in June that trainee nurses in the U.K. who were moved to the frontline in March to complete their training will [no longer be paid](https://www.nursinginpractice.com/covid-19/hee-confirms-student-nurse-paid-placements-will-continue-until-september) after July 31st shows how little Boris Johnson has appreciated the way in which nurses held the fort whilst his government was nowhere to be seen. Another striking parallel is the way in which deaths from COVID-19 have disproportionately affected Black, Latinx, and Native Americans and Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic Britons. The Trump administration and the Johnson cabinet have engaged in awful victim blaming, ignoring the structural racism at the heart of these disparities. Trump’s health secretary Alex Azar [told CNN](https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/17/politics/us-health-conditions-coronavirus-alex-azar-cnntv/index.html) that “unfortunately” America has a “very diverse” population, and Black Americans and minorities “in particular” have “significant underlying disease.” The U.K. government’s review of why COVID-19 was disproportionately killing minorities was [savaged](https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2264) by health advocacy groups for lacking any plan to protect minorities from the disease. The secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, Harun Khan, [said](https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2264) of the review: “To choose to not discuss the overwhelming role structural racism and inequality have on mortality rates and to disregard the evidence compiled by community organisations, while simultaneously providing no recommendations or an action plan, despite this being the central purpose of the review, is entirely unacceptable.” It is a painful irony that the two nations that arguably did the least to prevent COVID-19 deaths, particularly among the most vulnerable, were hailed as the world’s two best-prepared before the crisis hit. Clearly, we need to re-examine what “preparedness” means. Countries that kept their COVID-19 death rates very low ranked poorly on the [preparedness scorecard](https://www.ghsindex.org/), like Mongolia (ranked 46), Vietnam (50), and Iceland (58). The catastrophic U.S. and U.K. responses to COVID-19 show that when we give out future grades to countries on how well prepared they are to handle the next pandemic, we need to account for a country’s political decision-making as one of the most important determining factors. ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"OpinionNewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/5861697/us-uk-failed-coronavirus-response/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/5861697/us-uk-failed-coronavirus-response/"},"headline":"The U.S. and U.K. Were the Two Best Prepared Nations to Tackle a Pandemic—What Went Wrong?","datePublished":"2020-07-01T10:00:26.000Z","dateModified":"2026-03-31T12:17:57.936Z","description":"On paper the U.S. and the U.K. were supposed to be the most prepared to deal with a pandemic like coronavirus. What went wrong?","url":"https://time.com/5861697/us-uk-failed-coronavirus-response/","keywords":["COVID-19"],"thumbnailUrl":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blta42cef7eca510510/698a0fe486f68e0ea46eef20/us-uk-covid-pandemic.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Gavin Yamey","jobTitle":"Yamey is a physician and professor of global health and public policy at Duke University","url":"https://time.com/author/gavin-yamey/"},{"@type":"Person","name":"Clare Wenham","jobTitle":null,"url":"https://time.com/author/clare-wenham/"}],"articleSection":"Ideas","image":[{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blta42cef7eca510510/698a0fe486f68e0ea46eef20/us-uk-covid-pandemic.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","width":1200,"height":675,"headline":"Topography Of A Pandemic: The Pop-Up Morgues, Testing Centres And Hospitals Built To Battle Covid-19","caption":"Topography Of A Pandemic: The Pop-Up Morgues, Testing Centres And Hospitals Built To Battle Covid-19","creditText":"Christopher Furlong—Getty Images","representativeOfPage":true}],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"/section/ideas/","name":"Ideas"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/5861697/us-uk-failed-coronavirus-response/","name":"The U.S. and U.K. Were the Two Best Prepared Nations to Tackle a Pandemic—What Went Wrong?"}}]}] ```