There are some serious questions to be answered about the UK's response. However, those concerns mostly seem to originate with the political leadership (or, arg

There are some serious questions to be answered about the UK's response. However, those concerns mostly seem to originate with the political leadership (or, arguably, the lack of it) rather than the NHS itself. It has never been the case that the NHS was the only provider of healthcare facilities in the UK or that it did everything "in house". We have biotech firms and medical equipment providers and direct clinical healthcare services in our private sector, too, and the NHS works with many of them routinely. Some of the big questions seem to be about why the government and NHS aren't making use of the capabilities those organisations might be able to provide in this particular situation. I'm not sure the data we have so far does support your claim that everywhere is on the same path regardless of government response. Indeed, your own example of Germany suggests otherwise. There are also the (relative) success stories in Asia where they appear to have managed to avoid imposing the heavy restrictions we've seen in Europe without letting the virus get out of control. The widespread use of testing and the willingness to engage in population-scale track-and-trace programmes seem to be recurring themes in the places with better outcomes so far. It looks like the thinking from governments in the UK and other locked down European nations is rapidly evolving to these heavy lockdowns being unsustainable for more than a few weeks, but possibly being a useful bridge to a time when we can adopt a track-and-trace strategy with a manageable number of cases. This brings us back to the same questions yet again about testing and engagement by the UK leadership with other facilities that might be available.