Hugo Keith KC raises the topic of "behavioural fatigue" - when people stopped following Covid restrictions as they had lost patience.

A witness statement given to the inquiry by former PM Boris Johnson says he was told by Whitty in the early pandemic days that restrictions would test the "limits of human patience"

Whitty admits that his communications on this topic, including during the televised news conferences, were "really poor".

He says he was later "told off" by Sage for this, and consequently began to steer officials away from this concept.

Whitty is getting looser with his language now. He clearly feels very strongly about the herd immunity discussion.

He says the idea put forward by some that herd immunity would be passively established was quite different from trying to achieve it as a policy goal.

"It was essentially a mashed up understanding of some papers based on modelling, which were not aiming for this as a goal at all," Whitty adds.

Whitty says that it was a communication error to give the impression that herd immunity was being sought.

"We didn't help the public by having a debate that I think quite rightly upset and confused a lot of people," Whitty adds.

Keith asks Whitty whether he was in the position to stop ministers and advisers debating herd immunity.

Whitty says he attempted to do three things:

• Educate the "small" number of people who thought herd immunity was a good idea, by telling them "the implications were not what they thought it was"
• Discourage officials from publicly talking about complex concepts, like herd immunity, if they didn't properly understand them
• Stress herd immunity was never an official government policy

Whitty is asked about the issues with herd immunity and risks to public.

"We had no idea" whether the population would get to the natural herd immunity threshold, Whitty says, but more importantly he says those theoretical 80 percent of the population would "carry all of the risks" of an infection.

He says people in risk categories, such as older people, people with disabilities and people with immunosuppression, had a very significant risk of mortality.

The only situation in which that would not have been the case is if there had been a huge amount of non detected asymptomatic cases.

In all other circumstances, Whitty says, it would have led to a "very large loss of life".

Whitty says he laid it out in a paper in March 2020 about this because he thought that point had become "extremely muddled in the public debate".

What is herd immunity?published at 09:55 Greenwich Mean Time 22 November 2023

09:55 GMT 22 November 2023

Jim Reed
Health reporter, BBC News

We'll be hearing a lot about herd immunity in this session. It occurs when a large proportion of the population becomes immune to a disease, making person-to-person transmission unlikely.

It can be achieved in one of two ways: through vaccination or infection.

In early March 2020, most scientists thought it was inevitable that coronavirus would spread across the country.

A "mitigation" strategy was put in place - voluntary measures like hand-washing and advice to work from home, designed to reduce, but not completely stop, transmission.

Government officials and scientific advisers, including Sir Patrick Vallance, then linked this plan with herd immunity in media interviews.

That provoked a backlash, as it appeared to suggest the government was willing to let an unknown virus infect large parts of the population.

Giving evidence, Sir Chris Whitty said there was a "large amount of chatter" about herd immunity "by people who had at best half understood the issue."

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."

Whitty is now asked about herd immunity and what percentage of the population had been infected by June 2020.

"I am cautious of the possibility that herd immunity was achievable at all," Whitty says.

He caveats his answer by saying that if a Covid infection had provided people with lifelong immunity completely against the disease it would have taken around 80 percent of the population to get it to achieve that.

Less than 20 percent of the population had had the virus by June 2020 Whitty says.

"Well, well short of what you'd have needed even if herd immunity was a possibility," Whitty adds.

Image source, Crown Copyright

Picking up from where he left off yesterday, inquiry counsel Hugo Keith KC reads through emails sent by members of Sage (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) during the early days of the pandemic.

In these emails, some of them sent to No 10 adviser Ben Warner, the scientists express "a very high degree of alarm" and call for "more stringent control measures" than the government had planned.

Whitty agrees that Sage were right to be concerned, but insist that the government reacted appropriately.

Image source, Crown Copyright

Sir Chris Whitty takes his seat for a second day to give evidence at the UK's Covid inquiry.

Stay with us and we’ll bring you all the updates here, and by pressing Play at the top of this page.

Professor Sir Jonathan Van-Tam, the former deputy chief medical officer for England, has arrived at the Covid inquiry this morning where he is expected to give evidence later today.

The inquiry ran out of time on Tuesday and will therefore continue questioning Sir Chris Whitty today from 09:30 GMT.

Professor Dame Angela McLean, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, is scheduled to be questioned this afternoon but it is unclear whether time will allow for this.

Image source, EPA

Yesterday, we saw Sir Chris Whitty endure hours of questioning about his role as one of the government's foremost advisers during the Covid pandemic.

Here’s what the papers had to say about the hearing:

The Guardian called it a “marathon evidence session” in which Whitty said he had urged government officials not to use terms they didn’t fully understand, like “flatten the curve”.

The Daily Mail noted there were a number of “tense exchanges” between Whitty and Hugo Keith KC, the inquiry lawyer tasked with questioning.

In one of these exchanges, Whitty firmly rejected reports he had initially warned the government of overreacting to Covid.

Unlike some of the witnesses that came before him, Whitty "pulled his punches" on criticising ministers, The Sun and The Times highlighted. He resisted personally criticising then-PM Boris Johnson, instead saying the way Johnson made decisions was "unique to him".

Hello and welcome to our live coverage of the Covid inquiry.

For over a month, the inquiry has been hearing evidence for its second investigation - examining UK decision-making and political governance during the pandemic.

Yesterday we heard from Professor Sir Chris Whitty, the government’s chief medical officer for England. He’ll be giving evidence again today from around 09:30 GMT.

Later, we are also expecting to hear from the former Deputy Chief Medical Officer for England, Professor Sir Jonathan Van-Tam. The exact time we will see him is not known, due to yesterday's session with Sir Chris Whitty overunning into today.

There will be both text coverage and a stream of today’s proceedings, which you can watch live at the top of the page by pressing the play button.

Today we saw Sir Chris Whitty endure hours of tough questioning about his role as one of the government's foremost advisers during the pandemic.

He firmly rejected many suggestions raised by Hugo Keith KC, such as reports he had initially warned the government of overreacting to Covid. He also largely refused to criticise then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson and other leading officials.

Whitty did, however, make a few admissions. For example he told Keith that allowing mass gatherings in March 2020, when cases were spreading, sent the wrong message.

The inquiry ran out of time today and will continue questioning Whitty tomorrow. Sir Jonathan Van-Tam, former deputy chief medical officer for England, is also scheduled to appear.

Thank you for joining us today. Please join us again tomorrow.

The Covid inquiry will return for proceedings tomorrow where it's expected that Sir Chris Witty will continue to give evidence.

Here's what we learnt from England's chief medical officer, so far:

• Whitty denied that the UK's Covid teams did not consult with foreign nations on tackling the pandemic, saying he met with the WHO director-general and was "absolutely dependent" on international experts
• He did accept that the UK went too late on locking down the first time, saying that he wanted to balance the risks of going too early
• Whitty said that a lock down was still not being considered in February 2020 but that they were looking at restricting mixing between households
• The inquiry heard from Whitty that the UK's prime minister at the time, Boris Johnson, took decisions in a "unique" way and had "difficulty in reaching a clear and consistent position"
• He did agree, with hindsight, guidance that allowed for outdoor mass gatherings sent the wrong message as to the seriousness of Covid
• Whitty also revealed that the UK's flu pandemic plans were not "useful" at all for the Covid pandemic and a new plan needed to be made from scratch

Disagreements revealed, as Jonathan Van-Tam due to give evidence tomorrowpublished at 17:09 Greenwich Mean Time 21 November 2023

17:09 GMT 21 November 2023

Hugh Pym
BBC News Health Editor

Image source, Getty Images

The inquiry earlier revealed intriguing details of debates between Sir Chris Whitty and his senior colleagues in Whitehall, Sir Patrick Vallance and Sir Jonathan Van-Tam, as well as their differing opinions.

Vallance previously told the inquiry he would have gone earlier with the first lockdown in March 2020 and that Whitty was more cautious, with concerns about the impact of public health.

Whitty has said today that the differences were small and he was worried about the implications for deprived areas. But he conceded that lockdown happened too late.

In mid-January he was warned by Van-Tam that there was a risk of a significant pandemic, and the inquiry was told Whitty said it was best to wait and monitor.

Challenged on this, Whitty said there wasn't any alternative at that early stage.

Van-Tam is scheduled to give evidence to the inquiry tomorrow.

Earlier Sir Chris Whitty said that the UK "didn't have a useful plan" to deal with the Covid pandemic.

He recalls looking at the flu pandemic plan where it became clear that it was not fit to meet the Covid-19 outbreak.

Watch below as he describes why the plans weren't fit for purpose.

Here's a bit more from the inquiry before it adjourned for the day.

Keith pulls up an email sent by Whitty to fellow Sage adviser Professor Neil Ferguson on 21 February.

In it, Whitty responds to Ferguson's warning of Covid's potential spread in the UK.

Whitty told Ferguson: "Implications of the UK being the first country in the world to abandon containment... are not trivial."

Keith asks Whitty why he was wary of the UK declaring it had failed containment, i.e. minimising the transmission of Covid from one individual to another.

Witty says that at the time of sending this email the UK only had recorded, if he remembers correctly, under 10 cases of Covid and no deaths from the virus.

In a global pandemic, declaring containment to be dead is "much better done" in step with other countries, Whitty argues.

Image source, Crown Copyright

That's it for today's proceedings says Baroness Hallett, but stay with us for more analysis and reflections of today's evidence.

The inquiry continues tomorrow morning at 09:30 GMT when we will be reporting even more from the Covid Inquiry.

Should mass gatherings have been banned?published at 16:30 Greenwich Mean Time 21 November 2023

16:30 GMT 21 November 2023

Jim Reed
Health reporter, BBC News

Image source, Getty Images

In March 2020, as Covid started to spread quickly across the UK, it was one of the most hotly debated decisions made by ministers.

On 7 March the prime minister went to see England play Wales at Twickenham, shaking hands with captain Owen Farrell.

The following week the Cheltenham horse racing festival was allowed to go ahead with 250,000 fans.

And that same week, thousands of Atletico Madrid fans flew into Liverpool to watch their team play in the Champions League when lockdown rules would have stopped them watching a game in Spain.

The government has always defended letting those events go ahead - saying the scientific advice from Sage supported its decision.

The argument was that gathering outside was probably safer than banning fans or closing the events down, which could lead to thousands of people going to more risky venues like pubs instead.

Asked about that today, Sir Chris Whitty said he didn't disagree with the science behind that decision.

But he said not enough attention was paid to the message it was sending: that the government couldn't have been that worried about the virus or it would have banned mass gatherings.

"The problem was not the gatherings themselves, but the impression they gave of normality at the time when what you're trying to signal is anything but normality," he said.

If he had his time again, it is one of the things he would "certainly push to do differently," he added.

Image source, Getty Images

Whitty now speaks about outdoor mass gatherings and sporting events - which, he says, were not initially seen as a significant factor in transmitting infections.

As a reminder, sporting events - including the Cheltenham Festival - were allowed to take place in March 2020.

With hindsight, Whitty says that messaging was not helpful.

"Seeing mass gatherings signalled to the general public that the government can't be that worried," he says.

He says the gatherings themselves probably didn't have a "major material affect directly" - but the message was important.

Hugo Keith KC, the lead counsel to the Covid inquiry, is questioning Whitty over the government's plans to slow down the spread of transmission.

Whitty says "there was recognition of a significant threat" by ministers.

But he adds one problem was, prior to the pandemic, many people didn't understand the idea of exponential growth.

Exponential growth means the pace of new cases increasing over time.

Keith continues to push Whitty, asking if ministers were able to sufficiently recognise the "massive, existential threat" of the pandemic?

Whitty says he was doing his best to get the government to understand what exponential growth of the virus meant.