James FitzGerald
Live reporter

We're going to end our live coverage of today's Covid inquiry evidence session now - thanks for following along.

If you want to keep reading about the day's developments, head to our main news story here.

And if you're interested, more generally, in what the inquiry is actually investigating and how it works - head to this explainer.

Today's coverage was brought to you by Barbara Tasch, Wedaeli Chibelushi, Simran Sohal, Emma Owen, James Harness, Sam Hancock and me.

Image source, PA Media

And so another lively day at UK Covid inquiry comes to end, following hours of evidence from Prof Sir Jonathan Van-Tam - England's former deputy chief medical officer - and earlier Prof Sir Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer.

Here's a quick round-up of what we learned from each:

Van-Tam

• Told the inquiry he considered leaving his job in 2020 after his family received death threats - and said he wanted to ensure this didn't put people off applying for high-level jobs in the future
• He said he and Whitty had differing ideas about how seriously Covid should be taken at the very start of the pandemic
• Van-Tam said an earlier lockdown would have been preferable, but acknowledged this was easier said with "the benefit of hindsight"
• The professor said he was "absolutely not" consulted on the government's Eat Out to Help Out scheme - something that's also been said by Whitty and Sir Patrick Vallance, another top pandemic-era official
• On mass gatherings, he called out the government's decision to allow the continuation of mass sporting events at the beginning of the pandemic, saying this was "unhelpful"
• And Van-Tam criticised the Covid tier system, which saw different areas of the country given different levels of restrictions - saying it could've worked in theory, but was too slow in practice and didn't "serve us very well at all" as a result

Whitty

• The main headline from the remainder of Whitty's (extended) evidence session was his condemnation of the "herd immunity" mentality - which he said he tried hard to argue against
• He said it would have been "inconceivable" to make this an actual goal of policy as "it would have led to extraordinarily high loss of life"
• The BBC's health editor Hugh Pym filed some further, handy analysis of Whitty's evidence here

JVT's revelations over risks to family will shock manypublished at 17:01 Greenwich Mean Time 22 November 2023

17:01 GMT 22 November 2023

Hugh Pym
Health editor

He was a household name during the pandemic, and known affectionately by his initials JVT.

It will now come as a shock to many that Sir Jonathan Van-Tam and his family were at such risk over their own safety that police advised them to moved out of their home one night.

Typically of Van-Tam, he made light of it by saying they decided to stay because of the cat.

He went onto make a more serious point - with a warning that in a future crisis, people might not want to take on high-profile jobs because of the stresses that go with them.

Another leading player in the response to the Covid crisis has already revealed his concerns about fears for his family’s safety. Sir Patrick Vallance, the former chief scientific adviser, said in his witness statement he had considered resigning.

And Sir Chris Whitty, who was accosted in a public park, has warned before about scientific experts being put off taking on these roles.

The pandemic and lockdown were unprecedented in modern times, and the public profile of these three leading officials was unparalleled.

It is a sobering thought that some might think twice about following in their footsteps, if there's a repeat of the crisis.

Here's the moment Prof Sir Jonathan Van-Tam said the government's Eat Out to Help Out scheme "didn't feel very sensible to me" - and that he'd only learned about it on the television.

Asked about the policy in the Commons earlier, PM Rishi Sunak (who was the chancellor during the pandemic) insisted the government took advice from scientific advisers throughout the pandemic.

He's due to give his own evidence to the inquiry at a later date.

Before today's hearing drew to a close, inquiry lawyer Hugo Keith KC was given the chance to ask a final question - which had been passed onto him.

It's about a paper Van-Tam wrote in 2017 - and Keith wonders if the document warned of the "potentially explosive" risk of a contagious virus breaking out in a care home.

"I guess we did," answers Van-Tam - saying they will have studied the literature and relevant epidemiology.

Samuel Jacobs also asked questions - on behalf of the Trades Union Congress (TUC).

He asked Van-Tam similar questions about financial support for self-isolation that he asked of Sir Chris Whitty this morning.

Van-Tam acknowledged there had been different conditions for different workers, and stressed that financial support "an essential part of the package".

He said it was "relatively easy" for people in well-paying jobs - with employers who allowed them to self-isolate and work from home - but not everyone had been in that situation.

He added: "I think it was enormously difficult for people who are not fortunate enough in our society to have those kind of jobs where it was essential to earn money to actually be out of the house."

Image source, UK Covid inquiry

Before the day's hearing drew to a close, questions were asked by Kirsten Heaven - representing the Welsh faction of Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice.

She put it to Van-Tam that public messaging during the pandemic was a challenge. Specifically, she suggested, the devolved nations sought more notice from the UK government about policy announcements.

Van-Tam said he didn't complaints about this in the meetings he attended, but that it didn't seem a "strange concept".

Image source, UK Covid inquiry

The day's hearing has been drawn to a close by inquiry chair, Baroness Heather Hallett.

She acknowledges the threatening messages earlier mentioned by Jonathan Van-Tam, which he says he and his family received during the pandemic.

Hallett says such threats are "too awful to contemplate". She tells Van-Tam that the "vast majority of the population abhors such conduct" and are "enormously grateful" for the work that he and his colleagues did during a crisis.

She implores him to "ignore the violent, criminal, idiot element."

There are more lines to bring you from the closing stages of today's hearing - we'll have those for you shortly.

Hugo Keith KC, of the UK Covid inquiry, has finished asking his questions. We're now hearing from representatives of specialist groups who are given the chance to ask further questions about their area of expertise.

Up first is Pete Weatherby KC, representing the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group.

We're listening in and will bring you any significant updates right here. Remember, you can watch the inquiry live by tapping the play button at the top of this page.

Van-Tam is now asked if he was consulted on the government's Eat Out to Help Out scheme.

"Absolutely not," he replies.

(His boss Sir Chris Whitty has said the same thing - as has the government's chief scientific adviser during the pandemic, Sir Patrick Vallance.)

Asked what he would have said if he had been consulted, Van-Tam replies: "I would have said, 'this is exactly encouraging what we've been trying to suppress and get on top of over the last few months'."

"It didn't seem sensible to me."

Onto October 2020, Van-Tam is asked about the government's "tier" system, which saw different areas of the country put into different tiers of restrictions.

"It was clear that we were losing control of the virus bit by bit in the autumn - and it was clear that the tier system to my mind was not working efficiently" Van-Tam tells inquiry lawyer Hugo Keith KC.

He says, theoretically, it could've worked - but there were too many delays in implementing tiered restrictions. "The system just seemed interminably slow", Van-Tam says, adding:

The inquiry lawyer's now asking about a letter Van-Tam wrote in May 2020, in which he warned Cabinet Secretary Simon Case about restrictions being lifted too early.

At the time, Van-Tam said "there was a risk this would all go too fast".

Why did he write the letter, Keith asks, instead of "continuing to co-operate"?

"I wanted to leave a mark in the sand here."

Why put it in a letter rather than just saying it?

"Because people like you have come back to it now," Van-Tam says, adding he wanted to "lay down a trail of writing"

Van-Tam is now asked how he evaluated certain risks during the pandemic.

He says that while mass gatherings - particularly outdoors - are of "very limited epidemiological effect", it's the things "around" those gatherings that are "more concerning", such as attendees going to pubs, bars or restaurants.

He acknowledges that there's a bit of a quandary for the government here - because big mass gatherings like football matches have a big significance to many people.

"It's always very difficult to separate the optics from the actual epidemiological effects," Van-Tam says - but he acknowledges that the continuation of mass sporting events early in the pandemic was "unhelpful".

Image source, UK Covid inquiry

Prof Sir Jonathan Van-Tam is back in his seat for more questioning - all of which you can watch live by pressing the play button at the top of this page.

We'll continue to bring you news lines - stay tuned.

Sunak looks set to be asked about advice sought for Eat Out to Help Outpublished at 15:31 Greenwich Mean Time 22 November 2023

15:31 GMT 22 November 2023

Ellie Price
News correspondent

While we wait for the inquiry to resume, here's something that was brought up a little earlier in the House of Commons...

Eat Out to Help Out was the scheme which offered us all a tenner towards a meal out. The idea, dreamt up by the Treasury, was to get the ailing hospitality industry going after the first lockdown.

And it keeps coming up in this Inquiry. We've already heard senior civil servants in Downing Street didn't know about it before it was launched.

This week we hear the government's two most senior scientific advisors at the time didn't either.

On Monday Sir Patrick Vallance - the UK's chief scientific officer- said he didn't know about it until it was announced. He said, had he, "our advice would have been very clear". Today Prof Sir Chris Whitty had a similar view.

But at Prime Minister's Questions earlier, Rishi Sunak insisted the government took advice from scientific advisers throughout the pandemic.

Whether that's the same as the Treasury asking for advice on this specific scheme - he was the chancellor at the time - is almost certainly a question he'll be asked when he's up in front of the inquiry in the next few weeks.

Here's the moment Van-Tam detailed the "extremely hateful" messages that he and his family received during the pandemic - which prompted police to urge them to temporarily leave their home.

Before this short break, Van-Tam was also asked for his thoughts on when the UK government imposed its first series of Covid restrictions in March 2020 - including the full lockdown, introduced on 23 March.

They arrived "not a day too soon", the former deputy chief medical officer said.

However, with the "benefit of hindsight", introducing measures seven to 14 days earlier would have been "more timely", he added.

Van-Tam told the inquiry that it's almost impossible to say whether a lockdown could have been avoided altogether, but there were "almost certainly no alternatives".

Just before the break, Van-Tam gave some more detail about the beginnings of Covid - specifically how he and Prof Sir Chris Whitty had occasional differences of opinion. Particularly - initially - about how alarmed they should be about the disease.

Using one of his trademark metaphors, he compared himself to someone "who chases the bull" and Whitty as someone who studies the bull and makes a "more thoughtful and qualified decision".

"It wouldn't have been possible to wake up Sage and Cobra because I was getting a bit excited about something based on instincts," Van Tam said, explaining how he was going off scientific instinct whereas Whitty had to take a slower, more considered approach.

Van-Tam said he and Whitty are "great friends" and clarified that he doesn't think Whitty was "remotely tardy" - rather they were simply doing their jobs.

Baroness Hallett has called a 15-minute break - and we'll continue to let you know what was said just beforehand.

She said Van-Tam's evidence would be completed in today's session.

Image source, UK Covid inquiry

The questioning and conversation has now turned to whether and when Van-Tam had concerns that the spread of Covid-19 would turn into a pandemic.

Keith reads from Van-Tam's written evidence. It says: "I absolutely understood in my mind's eye that it was a question of when, not if, things would progress."

Van-Tam then says that what led him to those conclusions was that he knew "how notoriously difficult to control respiratory viruses are"; that this version of coronavirus was novel; and that the diagnostics would not be sophisticated or upscaled anywhere at that point.

He adds that his general experience told him he "did not like the look or feel of this".