Image source, HM Treasury

In August 2020, then-chancellor Rishi Sunak launched the Eat Out to Help Out scheme in an effort to protect hospitality sector jobs and boost businesses that had been closed under lockdown restrictions.

It offered a state-backed 50% discount when dining in participating pubs and restaurants on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays during that month.

The scheme was widely used - according to data from booking site OpenTable, restaurant reservations on those days were up by more than half compared with the previous August.

But critics have argued it helped spread the virus.

Matt Hancock and Patrick Vallance - the health secretary and the government's chief scientific adviser during the pandemic - both said they did not know about Eat Out to Help Out until the day it was announced.

The inquiry heard that chief medical officer Chris Whitty referred to it as "eat out to help out the virus", and that Vallance said it was "highly likely" to have fuelled deaths.

Sunak has defended the scheme, saying it prevented "devastating" job losses, and arguing it was not responsible for a second Covid wave.

Nick Triggle
Health correspondent

While ministers are likely to face criticisms for the decisions they took and the way they acted –including where rules were breached by those making them – the scientific advice is also likely to come under scrutiny in the report.

The mantra of "following the science" was used so often, especially in the early days of the pandemic, by decision-makers.

But during evidence sessions it became clear there was a flaw in this approach.

Key advisers admitted they underestimated the speed of transmission and overestimated their ability to control the virus in the early days.

Sir Patrick Vallance, who was the government's chief scientific adviser in the pandemic, said the scientists had been "wrong" to think they could apply measures – such as restrictions on socialising (short of a lockdown) with precision to produce a manageable wave of Covid over the summer – as was the plan up until mid-March 2020.

The narrowness of the advice was also raised.

Expert advisory body Sage defined the debate, but was dominated by infectious disease specialists. There was no formal way to assess harms to mental health, education or deprivation to allow balanced judgements to be taken.

Chief Medical Officer Sir Chris Whitty went on record during the hearings expressing concern about this, while others said opportunities to consider broader consequences were then missed later on in the pandemic.

As we've been reporting, just under 227,000 people died in the UK with Covid-19 listed as one of the causes on their death certificate.

When doctors fill in death certificates, they record the chain of events that led directly to a patient's death based on physical examinations, tests, symptoms and medical records.

For example, someone may have caught Covid, which caused pneumonia, which led to acute respiratory distress syndrome (Ards), culminating in their death. A doctor would list all three as causes.

The most deaths reported in this way on a single day was on 19 January 2021, when 1,490 people were registered.

Another way of looking at the impact coronavirus had on the number of people dying in the UK is by counting the number of "excess deaths" – that's all deaths over and above the expected number since the pandemic began.

As of 5 May 2023, this was more than 208,000 deaths. For most of the previous three years there were above average levels of deaths in the UK.

Larry Byrne sat through nearly every day of the Covid Inquiry hearings holding a photo of his father, who caught Covid and died in a care home during lockdown.

"I had the experience of the undertaker calling me to tell me they'd run out of coffins," he tells BBC Breakfast.

He's a member of a community fighting for justice for bereaved families from the pandemic. He says he knows his father would be telling him to "fight on with this".

Rivka Gottlieb's father died after developing Covid symptoms a day before the first lockdown in March 2020.

"My dad would be alive today if lockdown had happened a week earlier," she says.

She thinks there’s been a "collective societal forgetting" of what she believes were failures during the pandemic, and that the government needs to learn lessons from it.

The governance at the time was "chaotic" and "dysfunctional", she says.

If you have got an experience to share, or queries about the Covid inquiry, you can get in touch in the following ways:  

• Email: bbcyourvoice@bbc.co.uk, external
• WhatsApp: +44 7756 165803 , external 
• Upload your pictures and video  

 Please read our terms & conditions and privacy policy  

 In some cases a selection of your comments and questions will be published, displaying your name and location as you provide it unless you state otherwise. Your contact details will never be published.  

"Did the government serve the people well, or did it fail them?" asked the lead counsel at the start of this part of the inquiry in 2023.

Since then, more than 7,000 documents have been made public from the time, including WhatsApp chats and emails, private diaries and confidential files.

"Is NHS T&T [test and trace] actually achieving ANYTHING?" then PM Boris Johnson wrote on a private note.

"WE ARE NOT READY," one senior No 10 official wrote in his notepad in March 2020. Another leant over and crossed out "NOT READY", replacing it with an expletive.

Read here how BBC News has picked out some of the urgent messages and scribbled notes that shines a light on these critical decisions taken back in 2020.

Nick Triggle
Health correspondent

One of the most contentious decisions during the pandemic was to close schools – except for the children of key workers and some vulnerable children – UK-wide in March 2020 and January 2021.

Up until mid-March 2020 the assumption, and much of the planning within government, had been based on the premise that schools would remain open.

Many have questioned how well pupils were supported when learning moved online. And why, at points, shops, pubs and hairdressers were able to re-open before schools.

There are wider questions too. As the then-president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, Prof Russell Viner, warned: "When we close schools we close their lives."

Image source, PA Media

Mental health suffered and vulnerable children were put at greater risk of abuse.

At the time, Anne Longfield, who was the children's commissioner during the first year of the pandemic, said it was making abuse invisible.

And it was not just schools. At various points children's sport and other activities were banned. In evidence to the inquiry, Boris Johnson has said the rules probably went "too far" for children.

There is a whole separate module on children and young people – but Baroness Hallett will address some of the big decisions that affect children in this report too.

Image source, PA Media

To put things in perspective, here's a reminder of the early days of the pandemic:

• 29 January 2020: First cases of Covid reported in the UK
• 5 March 2020: First person in the UK dies after testing positive for Covid
• 23 March 2020: Prime Minister Boris Johnson announces the first lockdown in the UK
• August 2020: Chancellor Rishi Sunak introduces Eat Out to Help Out, where the government subsidises food and drinks to support the hospitality industry
• 14 September 2020: Rule of Six prevents people from meeting in groups larger than six in England
• 5 November 2020: Second national lockdown in England
• 4 January 2021: Schools reopen
• 6 January 2021: Third national lockdown in England
• 8 March 2021: A four-step plan of easing lockdown restrictions is introduced, starting with the reopening of schools
• July 2021: Most legal limits removed

Image source, PA Media

Hours before the inquiry report is released, Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar called on First Minister John Swinney to give an apology for decisions he made during the pandemic.

John Swinney - who was Scotland's education secretary from 2016 to 2021 and Covid recovery secretary from 2021 to 2023 - said he regrets the suffering that people experienced during the Covid period.

"Ministers acted at all times based on the best information that was available to them at the time," he added.

Image source, UK Covid-19 Inquiry

Today’s report covers Module 2 of the inquiry, which investigated "core UK decision-making and political governance" during the pandemic.

Hearings for this section were conducted between October 2023 and May 2024.

During these sessions, decisions made by then PM Boris Johnson, his government and team of scientists to try to control the spread of the virus were put under the microscope.

The module heard from key figures including Johnson and his chancellor Rishi Sunak, and paid particular scrutiny to the period until 23 March 2020 when the UK entered its first lockdown.

Sunak defended the Eat Out to Help Out scheme which he introduced in August 2020 and said was designed to save jobs. Johnson insisted he did not pursue a "let it rip" strategy – in other words, allowing the virus to spread through the population – in a tetchy exchange with inquiry chair Hallett.

The section of the inquiry also looked into issues from the perspective of the devolved nations; Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, with hearings held separately in those nations.

Jim Reed
Health reporter

Today we get the second set of recommendations from Baroness Hallett and her team.

But the inquiry's first set of findings have already been published – looking as how well prepared the UK was for a pandemic.

In a critical report in July 2024, it found serious flaws in the planning system and a "dangerously mistaken" belief in government that the UK was better prepared than other countries.

It made 10 recommendations – including taking some responsibilities away from the Department of Health and Social Care, and running a major training or planning exercise every three years.

The Cabinet Office officially responded in January 2025, external and is currently in the middle of Exercise Pegasus, which it describes as the "largest ever simulation of a pandemic in UK history" with the results promised "in due course".

Image source, Roger Harris/UK Parliament

Baroness Hallett is responsible for hearing evidence and making findings and recommendations at the inquiry.

She previously conducted other high-profile inquests, inquiries and reviews, including acting as coroner at the inquest into the deaths from the 7/7 bombings in London.

In 1998, she became the first woman to chair the Bar Council – the representative body for barristers in England and Wales.

Hallett was appointed a High Court Judge in 1999, and served on the Court of Appeal between 2005 and 2019.

Image source, Getty Images

Earlier, at 11:30 GMT, a lock-in began at County Hall in central London, giving journalists and experts a chance to read the report for the first time.

We have reporters in the room scouring through the report - thought to be about 800 pages.

The lock-in ends at 16:00, when the second report is released to the public in full. We'll be bringing you the key lines straightaway.

Shortly afterwards, Baroness Hallett will make a statement - we'll have updates here, and you’ll be able to watch live at the top of the page.

We're also expecting to hear from campaigners representing thousands of bereaved families after the report is published.

Nick Triggle
Health correspondent

This marks the second of 10 inquiry modules to be completed. It is, arguably, the one that will be of the most interest.

It is focused on the how the government handled the pandemic – the decisions ministers made about lockdown and other restrictions.

Did they lockdown too late? Did they place too many restrictions on the public? Did they consider the trade-offs fully?

And, of course, what impact did rule-breaking at the heart of government have on public confidence?

Individuals are likely to be criticised. But the aim of the inquiry is to learn how to handle future pandemics better.

Given lockdowns come with huge social, economic and indirect health costs, the conclusions Baroness Hallett comes to regarding those decisions will no doubt spark huge debate.

Jim Reed
Health reporter

Image source, PA Media

The inquiry started work in spring 2022 and has cost nearly £200m to date.

Its scope is so wide-ranging, covering different aspects of the pandemic, that it’s been divided into 10 separate topics or "modules".

Each has its own set of live hearings in which lawyers question the officials and politicians involved in key decisions. The inquiry team also has the power to demand the release of documents and can commission its own research from independent experts.

Hearings for eight of those ten sections have been run to date – including the impact on hospitals and the NHS; the test and trace system; the care sector; and children and young people.

After taking evidence, the chair Baroness Hallett and her team go away and write up their recommendations, a process that can take many months.

Today we get the findings from the second module, which looked just at political decision-making in the pandemic - based on evidence taken from October 2023 to May 2024.

• Read more: What is the UK Covid inquiry and how does it work?

Image source, EPA

A total of 166 witnesses gave evidence in total across Module 2 – including hearings in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

There were 36 days of hearings in London, then 12 in Edinburgh, Cardiff, and Belfast.

The report is expected to run to around 800 pages, and will cover a number of key areas including:

• Did the four UK governments move with sufficient urgency in the early stages of the pandemic?
• Were lockdowns and other restrictions timely and reasonable?
• Were any of the governments properly considering how lockdowns affected different people and communities – the societal impacts?
• What impact alleged breaching of rules by ministers, officials and advisers had

Nathan Williams
Live page editor

Image source, PA Media

Welcome as we start our live coverage, with the Covid inquiry set to publish its second set of findings.

Today's report is for "module two", looking in detail at the political choices made at the time. These include how lockdowns were introduced, the closure of businesses and schools and bringing in previously unthinkable social restrictions.

"Did the government serve the people well, or did it fail them?" asked the lead counsel at the start of this part of the inquiry in 2023

Our reporters are currently in a lock-in in central London, reading the 800-odd page report for the first time. We'll bring you the key lines after the embargo lifts later this afternoon.

Stick around as we keep you up to date on what's happened so far in the inquiry, and remind you of the crucial decisions made during the pandemic.