Well, quite - hollowing the service out and getting rid of spare capacity or slack looks good on the balance sheet but leaves it prone to the slightest unexpected event. As we have seen. Then there was Exercise Cygnus in 2016 which highlighted the vulnerability of the NHS to a 'flu-like pandemic and recommended:

'Meet demand for services

A lack of resources and limited ability to increase supply in face of demand was identified in health disciplines.[5] This affects how emergency plans can be operationalised at a local level, implicating the revision of the "Pandemic Concept of Operations".

Little tactical coordination was observed when the need for services outweighed the capacity of local responders, particularly in communities with excess death, social care facilities and amongst National Health Service staff.[5] The need for more precise protocols was identified to guide health care providers at an operational level should there be a need to drastically step up local response. A suggestion was to implement planning at a regional level as opposed to through local resilience forums for crucial aspects of pandemic influenza response (e.g., excess death). This improves coordination across multiple agencies locally.

Logistically, more health workers and resources such as ventilators, personal protective equipment (PPE) and hospital beds are required to face a large pandemic. Investigation also showed that the reverse triage strategy proposed by the NHS, whereby patients are moved from hospitals to social care, may not be well supported by the current social care system.[5] This requires a high level of teamwork across several corporations, which was detailed through a provided framework but may not be viable under the pressure and widespread impact of a pandemic. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_Cygnus#Meet_demand_for_services

Oh well, that was never going to happen was it! (Facepalm)

I