Coronavirus ‘Plan B’ would cost UK up to £18B, documents warn

LONDON — Boris Johnson has been warned that a five-month switch to Britain's stricter coronavirus "Plan B" would cause up to £18 billion in damage to the U.K. economy, government documents obtained by POLITICO reveal.

The documents outline the thinking at the top of government as the prime minister comes under huge pressure from public health leaders to take action to deal with rising case rates months after England lifted the majority of its COVID-19 restrictions.

They confirm that ministers have looked seriously at moving to their Plan B, with an "assumption" that the alternative strategy — which includes mandatory mask wearing, COVID certification and work-from-home guidance — would have to be in place throughout the whole of winter until the end of March 2022.

Johnson ordered officials to assess the impact of implementing the alternative strategy until next March. But the U.K. Treasury and the Cabinet Office's COVID-19 Taskforce calculate such a step would have an unclear effect on preventing the spread of the virus, while inflicting a huge toll on the economy. A government spokesperson said the presumptions outlined "do not reflect" policy.

'High impact'

On the eve of Chancellor Rishi Sunak's budget statement and government-wide spending review on Wednesday, the internal Treasury impact assessment warns that moving to Plan B would cost the economy between £11 billion and £18 billion in the period up until March 2022 — or more than £800 million per week.

The Treasury's main concern is over the effect that millions of people switching back to working from home would have on businesses, particularly in inner-city areas and towns, while working from home is envisaged to have only a moderately positive impact on reducing transmission.

The Cabinet Office's COVID-19 Taskforce, meanwhile, produced an analysis on introducing COVID status certification for mass events for the proposed five-month Plan B period.

It finds that a COVID certification scheme would reduce transmission at these events by 40-45 percent. But it warns that, because only 2-13 percent of overall community transmission takes place in venues covered by the scheme, there would only be a "moderate impact from reduced community transmission." The figures suggest certification would reduce overall community transmission by 1-5 percent.

Vaccine passports would have a "high impact" on the economy and could cause "wider impacts" exacerbating Britain's supply chain crisis, the assessment finds.

The analysis argues that because certification would be used at venues disproportionately frequented by young people — who are less likely to become seriously ill from COVID — such a step is harder to justify. It also notes that if young people migrate to pubs and small venues not covered by the certification, it will increase the risk of transmission to older and more vulnerable people.

In a key line, the Cabinet Office document concludes that certification is "likely to have a positive impact in reducing transmission, although it is not possible to say accurately by how much."

The Treasury and Cabinet Office documents also show that the data on the health impacts of the government's Plan B is weak, and that officials are unable to clearly advise ministers on how beneficial the alternative strategy would be in preventing the spread of the virus. There is skepticism about the overall value of COVID certification in particular.

However, the documents give a starker warning about the economic impact, with grave predictions from the Treasury about the damage to businesses and the wider economy. Critics of the government may argue these analyses were commissioned by hawkish ministers to come to these conclusions.

The government has been contacted for comment.

Dilemma

The documents help explain how the government has ended up in its current position of not moving to Plan B despite surging cases.

The COVID-19 Taskforce analysis does not find that Plan B would clearly help stop the spread, in what will be seen as an indictment of the government's overall plan.

Instead, the task force looks at a counterfactual of reintroducing more lockdown-style restrictions such as closing venues — a step it says the government is not considering, but which would have a much larger effect on reducing transmission.

That demonstrates the problem for ministers: Plan A is seeing a huge spike in cases and rising hospitalizations; Plan B does not appear to be enough to stop that rise and will smash the economy; and Plan C — introducing even harsher measures — represents a strategy no one at the top of government wants to think about.

A government spokesperson said: "We knew the coming months would be challenging, which is why we set out our autumn and winter plan last month.

"Plan B ensures we are ready, should we need to act, to avoid an unsustainable rise in hospitalisations which would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS. The presumptions put forward do not reflect government policy. The data does not currently show that Plan B is necessary — and there is no planned five month timeline."

This article is part of POLITICO’s premium policy service: Pro Health Care. From drug pricing, EMA, vaccines, pharma and more, our specialized journalists keep you on top of the topics driving the health care policy agenda. Email [email protected] for a complimentary trial.