Sam Hancock
Live reporter

That's all for today's coverage - we appreciate you following this live text and stream.

• We heard that the UK's top civil servant told colleagues at the height of the pandemic that Boris Johnson "cannot lead". Read our new report here
• For the upsum of our political correspondent Nick Eardley, you need head no further than his earlier post on this page
• And for a reminder of what the Covid-19 inquiry is all about, head here

Updates were brought to you by Sam Francis, Thomas Mackintosh, Imogen James, Marita Moloney, Krystyna Gajda, James FitzGerald, Andrew Humphrey and me.

Image source, PA Media

First we heard from Martin Reynolds - the head of Boris Johnson's private office when he was prime minister - and then another aide of the then-PM, Imran Shafi. Both faced questions from Hugo Keith KC, the inquiry's lead counsel.

Here are the key takeaways:

• Martin Reynolds admitted government failings on Covid planning - and apologised "unreservedly" for parties in Downing Street during lockdown
• Exchanges in a WhatsApp group of top officials weren't kept after the "disappearing messages" function was switched on. Reynolds said he couldn't recall why, but insisted the information would have been recorded in other ways
• Shafi said the Cobra emergencies committee was focussed on short-term plans, leading to a lack of Covid control measures
• He said original lockdown plans were changed constantly, as the government couldn't decide whether it should aim to contain the virus, implement herd immunity or mitigate it
• Shafi wrote a note in his diary which quoted someone as asking: "Why are we destroying economy for people who will die anyway soon?" He said he couldn't recall who said this, but believed it to have been Johnson himself
• The inquiry also heard there was a period of 10 days in February 2020, coinciding with half-term, during which Johnson wasn't briefed at all
• A reminder that Johnson's spokesman has declined to comment on the evidence, but says the former PM is "co-operating fully" with the inquiry

The inquiry will continue tomorrow with Lee Cain and Dominic Cummings being called up.

Image source, Reuters

The Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK group has been giving its reaction to today's hearing.

“It was hard to keep up with the number of horrific revelations that came out of the Covid inquiry today," says spokesperson Charlie Williams.

"As we’ve always suspected, instead of preparing as cases spread across the globe and within the UK, the government wasted time debating 'herd immunity' even when it was clear this would lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths."

Williams makes specific reference to a note in the diary of Imran Shafi, read out in evidence today, reading "why are we destroying economy for people who will die anyway soon". Shafi could not recall "for sure" who said this, but thought it was Boris Johnson.

Johnson's spokesperson has declined to comment on today's evidence - but says the former PM will give oral evidence in due course and is co-operating fully.

Nick Eardley
Political correspondent

The evidence we've heard today does not paint the government in a good light in the weeks running up to the pandemic.

But perhaps the most damning evidence was the criticism of Boris Johnson as prime minister.

It's a big deal that the most senior civil servant in the country thought his boss was changing his mind every day, and was openly questioning his leadership.

The chief scientific adviser - Sir Patrick Vallance - thought Johnson was weak and indecisive.

Martin Reynolds seemed to confirm Johnson received no briefings over a 10-day period in February 2020.

Then there was the note, written by an aide, documenting a meeting between Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak. "Why are we destroying the economy for people who will die anyway soon," the note allegedly asked.

Those words will be hard to read for bereaved families.

There are questions for Rishi Sunak too. Imran Shafi confirmed his flagship scheme had been dubbed: "Eat Out To Help Out The Virus" by England's chief medical officer.

Sunak will give evidence later in the year. So will Boris Johnson - they will both have a chance to get over their side of things.

But before then, it could get even more uncomfortable for Johnson. His former-aide-turned-nemesis Dominic Cummings will appear before the inquiry tomorrow.

Imran Shafi's evidence session concluded with him taking questions from representatives of the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group, and a representative of people who have suffered with long Covid.

He was asked why long Covid was not taken more seriously. The inquiry heard there was evidence in October 2020 that this was a concern - but there was no official advice until January 2021.

Shafi admits Boris Johnson was “more sceptical than most” about the existence of long Covid. But the scepticism was not the reason for the delay, he argues.

A written note on long Covid was drafted but never delivered to Johnson, because both Shafi and Chris Whitty agreed on delivering it "face-to-face" - believing he was more likely to ignore a note from “an anonymous bureaucrat”.

Today's hearing has just drawn to a close, but we'll continue to bring you some of those final remarks on this page.

Baroness Hallett confirms that the hearings will resume at 10:00 GMT tomorrow.

Shafi is asked whether he thinks Boris Johnson "understood the differences between how lockdowns and social distancing restrictions impacted adults and children?"

He says he thinks the former PM did understand that.

Jim Reed
Health reporter, BBC News

Just a few minutes ago, Imran Shafi was asked about the Eat Out To Help Out scheme put in place by Rishi Sunak when he was chancellor to encourage people back into pubs and restaurants in the summer of 2020.

Remarkably he was asked if chief medical officer Sir Chris Whitty had described it as "Eat Out To Help Out The Virus".

Shafi confirmed that was the case.

Rishi Sunak, now prime minister of course, is sure to be asked more about that in December when he gives evidence to the inquiry, amid talk that advisers like Whitty were not asked about the health impacts in advance.

Boris Johnson was the most likely source of a quote in Shafi’s notes describing lockdowns as “killing the patient to tackle the tumour," he tells the inquiry.

Handwritten notes from a meeting between Johnson and the then chancellor Rishi Sunak record someone saying: “Large number of people who will die. Why are we destroying the economy for people who will die anyway soon?”

Shafi says he “can’t say for sure” who said those words but thinks it was Johnson.

Shafi did admit that Johnson "didn't want a lockdown" initially, even as evidence mounted that the pandemic was taking hold. Johnson believed other steps, based on scientific advice, might be effective first, he argues.

Hugo Keith KC then reflects on the days in March when lockdown in London was considered as the capital city was, at the time, "ahead of the epidemiological curve".

He then shows another note between senior members of the cabinet and Downing Street who discussed locking down London.

"Go now," underlined with an exclamation mark is written down - Imran Shafi says this was said by Michael Gove.

Keith goes on to say that a press conference with Boris Johnson and Mayor of London Sadiq Khan was planned in the coming days but it was called off.

Asked if the PM wanted to lockdown, Shafi replies: "He definitely didn't want to lockdown."

Image source, Covid inquiry

Shafi is presented with notes from a meeting, which shows the NHS had raised concerns it wouldn't be able to cope with demand if we didn't go into lockdown.

Hugo Keith KC says, despite the warnings on 9 March, the UK still hadn't gone into lockdown on 19 March - which Shafi acknowledges.

He says there are notes in Shafi's notebook - which he shows him - that suggest Dominic Cummings and Matt Hancock weren't in agreement about lockdown.

Comments from Boris Johnson suggested the UK was on a "war footing" and asked for definitions of vulnerable groups, and what was meant by social distancing.

The UK went into lockdown measures on 23 March.

Image source, Crown copyright

Hugo Keith KC is discussing the beginning of March in 2020, when Covid became increasingly worse.

Looking at hospital capacity, Keith shows data that says the number of people that needed an intensive care bed in that March "massively exceeded" capacity.

"Was any more needed to raise the alarm," he asks?

"No", Shafi responds.

"But, did the government pull the alarm cord on 9 March?"

"It did not," Safi says. He said it was "frightening" that even if they implemented all their plans, they would still be "overwhelmed".

"This was the time in which I was becoming increasingly concerned about the approach that we were taking. It's then another thing as a relatively junior official to question the entire approach that we've been taking."

He adds that advice was often changing over that period.

Image source, Covid inquiry

Image source, Covid inquiry

A page from Imran Shafi's notebook on 28 February 2020 is shown to the inquiry. It appears to quote Johnson as saying "biggest damage done by overreaction" during a meeting on that day.

In another image of the notebook shown to the inquiry, there is also a reference to the PM being "sceptical that our interventions will do anything".

What was that a reference to, Hugo Keith KC asks? Shafi thinks Johnson was referring to "non-intrusive measures" like encouraging handwashing at the time.

Keith presses: "Where was the debate that more stringent measures would be required?"

Shafi answers: "Again, it's not here."

Hugo Keith KC asks why Johnson did not have any meetings or even emails about Covid between 14-24 February 2020.

Shafi says he's not entirely sure why that was the case. He mentions that the PM was on leave during that period.

If anything "urgent" had come up, he would have definitely passed it along, Shafi says. But nothing was flagged as such.

With hindsight, they should have spent every day in February preparing for Covid, he says.

The impacts of lockdownpublished at 16:03 Greenwich Mean Time 30 October 2023

16:03 GMT 30 October 2023

Jim Reed
Health reporter, BBC News

In his evidence, Mr Shafi said he felt there was no "proper discussion" in February about the merits of mitigate versus surpression.

With hindsight, he said, ministers should have been given more information to weigh up these different options.

Why does this matter? Lockdown had a huge impact on society - from children's education through to the economy, to rates of domestic violence.

Other critics of the government's approach say surpression - or lockdown - was introduced too late on 23 March. They say if the decision had been made even a week earlier, then tens of thousands of lives may have been saved, and the total time we were locked down could have been shortened.

The big question: mitigate or lockdown?published at 16:00 Greenwich Mean Time 30 October 2023

16:00 GMT 30 October 2023

Jim Reed
Health reporter, BBC News

Imran Shafi is now being asked about one of the most controversial - and hotly debated - areas of government policy in the first few months of the pandemic.

The government's original plan was to try to 'contain' the virus for as long as possible by finding cases and isolating them.

That really didn't work for long - partly because it was being introduced or 'seeded' into the UK not from China but from travellers coming from Italy, France, Spain and other European countries.

Then there was a short period of time around the start of March 2020 when ministers moved to a 'mitigate' strategy. That involved asking people to wash their hands and work from home if possible.

This was the plan most closely linked to 'herd immunity' - where it was expected that the most vulnerable would be better protected, while many younger, fitter people would catch the virus and develop some degree of immunity before the winter.

By the second week of March it was clear to most scientists advising the government that the virus was spreading too quickly and mitigate wouldn't work.

Everything had to be rethought and a new plan - called 'suppression' - would be needed to protect the NHS. In reality, surpression meant a full lockdown.

Imran Shafi is taken through details of another meeting at the end of February - weeks before the UK locked down.

Hugo Keith KC points to human-to-human transmissions in Italy where lockdowns at the time had been imposed.

"Alarm bells should have been ringing, did we have the right plans should it come to the UK on this scale?" he asks.

Shafi says he was trying to push more details to the prime minister, which Keith accepts.

"The government as a whole was in a position where the alarm bells were not being rung loud enough. There was no plan or focus on what would happen," Keith continues.

Shafi replies: "I think there was too much focus on excessive death management and not enough focus on preventing those deaths."

He is then read a communication from the time when he said "the fetishisation of Cobra is so tiresome".

Keith asks what is meant by this, but Shafi says he cannot recall.

But, he adds he thought there were "quicker ways of taking action".

Image source, Crown copyright

Imran Shafi speaks about failings of what he calls "the centre" and how Boris Johnson ended up having to do work that should have been the business of others when it came to getting hold of virus-fighting tools.

"If you look in March, the prime minister was having to spend quite a lot of his own time doing manufacturing calls to arms for ventilators and trying to inspire people to create PPE.

"I think a reasonable question I would have is, could we have deployed the centre earlier."

Hugo Keith KC continues his questioning, picking holes in the government's response to the pandemic.

He asks why they didn't get to grips with the spread of Covid and create control measures.

"I don't know," Shafi replies. They were focussed on the immediate, he says, instead of looking to the future.

He agrees that Cobra was better-placed to cope with an immediate crisis as opposed to a long-term one.

Discussing a Cobra meeting in February 2020, Keith says how they didn't touch on responses to Covid, including test and trace, PPE, control measures or non-pharmaceutical interventions.

And despite Keith calling it a whole-government crisis, Shafi agrees that the Department for Health and Social Care took the lead and held more responsibility, leaving others with less control.

"I think that's right," the former private secretary says.

The inquiry has just returned from their break, but just before they paused for 15 minutes, Imran Shafi was asked by Hugo Keith KC if he accepts now that "control" of Covid had already been lost by the time the government published its action plan on 3 March 2020.

"When you look at the facts now, yes," Shafi said.