Laura Foster
Health correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

Some interesting insight from Whitty just now into how scientists and the UK Government have interacted over the years.

“In an emergency, everyone is clamouring for scientific advice. They are desperate to get scientists in the room.

“Between emergencies, you have to kind of elbow your way in.”

Remember Whitty has been in his position as chief medical officer for England since 2019 but prior to this has held multiple scientific advisor roles in government.

These include interim government chief scientific adviser from 2017 – 2018, chief scientific adviser for the department of health and social care between 2016 and 2021 and chief scientific adviser at the Department for International Development (DFID).

He says that within government there’s a lack of understanding of science between emergencies and feels this is “a big risk”.

Jim Reed
Health reporter

This topic is something likely to get a lot more attention in module two of the inquiry, due this autumn.

But Whitty just touched on one of the main difficulties faced by scientists and policy makers in the first wave of Covid - the lack of data they could depend on.

If you don't have fast and reliable data you are "driving in the dark", he says

"It can be very difficult to work out what the right decisions are and this caused significant problems in the first part of the response," he added.

Whitty says politicians need accurate data as they are often being asked to trade off significant risks.

The development of medical treatments and interventions also depend on research and data, he adds.

Nick Triggle
Health correspondent

As he did before the break for lunch, Whitty has stressed one of the key weaknesses the UK faced was the inability to scale up quickly.

At the start of the pandemic the government was relying on eight Public Health England labs and in March, just as the virus was taking off the government announced it was stopping testing in the community. The infrastructure was just not there, ministers and officials argued.

That contrasts to South Korea that was able to put in place a testing system quickly. Within a month of the first death, South Korea was testing three times the number of people than the UK was.

The UK lost the ability to track the virus and potentially slow its spread pretty much immediately.

Laura Foster
Health correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

This morning Whitty answered questions about the government’s scientific group Sage and how it operates.

This afternoon, Hugo Keith KC is going straight in with questions about “maintaining capability”.

In short, he’s asking what Whitty feels needs to be done so the UK can deal with future pandemics and emergencies.

The inquiry is now resuming after a lunch break.

We'll start the afternoon's proceedings with more from Chris Whitty.

Laura Foster
Health correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

A small group of anti-vaccine protestors have gathered outside the inquiry.

There are seven of them and each is holding up a yellow sign and one is shouting into a megaphone that "Covid is a sham".

They’re also calling for the police officers at the door of the building where the inquiry is being held to “arrest the government”.

This part of the inquiry is looking at the UK's preparedness for the pandemic - rather than whether lockdowns were the right policy.

But in discussing why government committees hadn't prepared for lockdowns beforehand, Sir Chris Whitty says the policy was "the big new idea" and a "very radical thing to do".

Jim Reed
Health reporter

The Covid Inquiry is pausing for lunch as Hugo Keith KC continues to question England's Chief Medical Officer, and one of the most recognisable faces of the pandemic, Sir Chris Whitty.

Here are some of the key things he said:

• Whitty described a national lockdown as the "very big new idea" of the Covid pandemic which he called a "very radical thing to do"
• It was "very difficult" for a group of independent scientists to start planning for a full lockdown in advance, without being told to by a senior politician, he said
• He defended the make-up of the Sage group of independent scientific advisers, which he co-chaired during Covid, but said the economic and societal impacts of planning need to be better considered through a different mechanism
• He told the inquiry that one of the key weaknesses the UK faced was its inability to scale up a response quickly, for example through testing
• He said some other countries, such as South Korea, were able to put in place a testing system much more quickly
• He called out the abuse of independent scientists in the pandemic, calling threats aimed at experts as "extremely concerning"
• He paid tribute to the families affected saying that he spent twelve weeks working on Covid wards, and saw the devastation "first-hand"

The inquiry is now taking a break and will resume at 13:45 BST with Sir Chris Whitty.

Stay with us for reaction from the morning as well as updates throughout the afternoon.

Laura Foster
Health correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

An unusual sound has been heard a couple of times during this morning’s proceedings – the occasional laugh from the lead counsel.

Though this is not something Chris Whitty is doing deliberately.

It happened first when he was speaking too quickly for the transcribers to note his evidence down.

But more recently when he was explaining how Sage works – the government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies – after being questioned about whether more thought should have been given to the economics of a situation when Sage meet.

“If you had two economists on Sage you would not be in a situation with an economically competent body – it would be a competent scientific body with two economists”, he says.

But Whitty is making a point here that will most likely be unpacked more in the Autumn when the inquiry begins to look at lockdowns.

“I don’t think Sage people - including myself - have the competence to assure government that they’ve considered the economic problem, and they can now give a central view on it. I think that would have to be done separately”.

Nick Triggle
Health Correspondent

Hugo Keith KC asks whether there is enough diversity of thought in the expert committee Sage, which advised the government during the pandemic.

There were no economic or social experts in the group.

Whitty has defended the make-up of the group, which he co-chaired during the pandemic, saying it is a scientific group and it would be too unwieldly if you started adding all sorts of different experts to it.

Instead, he says the economic and societal consequences of responding to a pandemic should be done separately through a different mechanism.

But – and this became clear during the pandemic – the government did not do this.

This meant Sage’s advice and observations dominated the narrative and, some have claimed, created too narrow a prism through which the response to Covid was judged.

The focus of the debate became about how you could stop the virus, not whether the steps being taken to stop the virus were proportionate given the consequences of things like restricting gatherings and closing schools.

Jim Reed
Health reporter

Whitty makes what he feels is a key point.

He says the "big new idea" in Covid was a lockdown - specifically a mandatory stay-at-home order put in place in law.

Various connected policies, from school closures to quarantine to border controls, may have been considered in the past, but a full national lockdown had not been thought about before 2020, he says

It would have been "very surprising" if any committee made up of independent scientific experts could have considered a lockdown in advance, he continues.

"That's my point, that it is very difficult to go beyond a certain level unless you are told to do it externally," he adds.

Hugo Keith KC then puts to Whitty that some elements of lockdown policy, such as mandatory quarantine, had been raised after Exercise Alice - a planning exercise that took place in early 2016.

Sir Chris says those recommendations - although useful - were designed to deal with a smaller-scale outbreak of the Mers virus.

Whitty says the lockdown was the "big new idea" during the pandemic, describing it as a "very radical thing to do".

He describes lockdown as an “extraordinarily major, social intervention with huge economic and social ramifications."

When asked about Sage, Whitty says the body used to meet only when asked to by the Cabinet Office, but that changed in response to the Ebola crisis in Africa after recognising it should be able to be called irrespective of whether Cobra had been convened.

He adds that the UK is good in terms of identifying risks of emerging diseases - albeit with some gaps - but is less capable of responding to those risks.

Laura Foster
Health correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

Sir Chris Whitty’s composure so far echoes his appearances at Downing Street press conferences during the pandemic.

He is speaking calmly, clearly and with authority as he is questioned by Hugo Keith KC, one of the most prominent barristers in the UK.

He is maintaining eye contact throughout with his hands clasped, breaking only slightly to make the odd gesture.

Will this change if the questioning becomes more of a grilling?

When asked if there was anything that could be done to prevent the abuse scientists faced, Sir Chris answers: “The main thing that could be done is that the people who do this should understand that their [the scientists'] work is appreciated hugely by a great majority of the population.”

When it comes to consistency of approach across government during the Covid pandemic by the advisers in different state departments, Professor Whitty says: “Most of the chief advisers came from different parts of academia and it brings independence and different expertise.”

And he added that a close working network between the chief scientific advisers allows a degree of technical discussion between the people who know one another.

Laura Foster
Health correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

The Lead Counsel for the Inquiry tells Professor Whitty that though his evidence is very clear, he’s speaking too quickly for it to be transcribed.

All the evidence heard at the hearings is written up and published at the end of every day and published online.

Whitty apologises to Hugo Keith KC, adding "my enthusiasm is running away with me".

Jim Reed
Health reporter, BBC News

Interesting point made by Sir Chris - very early in his evidence - about the level of abuse experienced by some scientists involved in the Covid outbreak.

He called abuse and threats aimed at independent experts as "extremely concerning".

"We should be very firm in saying that society very much appreciates the work of these people, who put in considerable amounts of time, usually for no recompense," he told the inquiry.

In January 2022, a man was jailed for eight weeks after he accosted Whitty in a London park.

Professor Chris Whitty says the team of 19 who worked with him at the peak of the Covid pandemic was the right one for the job, adding in his view a small, very good group is easier than a larger "unwieldly" group.

Whitty adds that the UK generally has a "very strong system" and had learned from other systems in the "global north and west", but added they don't have sight of other systems in China and parts of Asia, meaning that there are opportunities to learn from those in parts of the world in future.

Jim Reed
Health reporter

Just after being sworn in, Sir Chris Whitty makes the point that he spent 12 weeks through the pandemic working on Covid wards.

"Can I just say to the families [affected], I saw the extraordinary devastation caused by Covid first-hand," he told the inquiry.

Sir Chris is a qualified medical doctor and would often work shifts at hospitals through the pandemic.

His deputy Jonathan Van-Tam also helped administer vaccine jabs in his spare time.

Laura Foster
Health correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

The inquiry has heard how Professor Sir Chris Whitty has already provided written evidence not just for this module which looks at how prepared the UK was for the pandemic, but also for module two.

Module two is looking at the decisions made by governments during the pandemic – including those on lockdowns and restrictions.

He’s not being asked questions about that today though.

Today is about what happened before early 2020 and his experiences as both a clinician and member of government.