Nadia Ragozhina
Live reporter

Thanks for being with us as we brought you the Covid inquiry proceedings and the testimony of Sir Patrick Vallance, the government's former chief scientific adviser.

• You can read about what we've learnt over the course of the day and the significance of Vallance's revelations here.

One of the things the inquiry heard today was about the differing views of Sir Patrick Vallance and chief medical officer Professor Sir Chris Whitty in the early stages of the pandemic. Vallance said the lockdowns should have come in earlier.

Tomorrow, Tuesday 21 November, Whitty will take the witness stand, and we will get to hear what he thought of the timing of lockdown and more. So join us again.

Jim Reed
Health reporter

It's difficult to digest five hours of questioning, much of it dense, and examining in detail the way scientific advice was communicated through the pandemic.

In one sense much of Vallance's testimony covered areas we have heard about before in this inquiry.

He said he felt - with hindsight - the UK was about a week too late in entering the first national lockdown.

That might not sound like a huge delay but, at the time, we now know Covid cases were doubling every three days.

A seven- or ten-day wait would have meant thousands of extra infections and, potentially, thousands more hospitalisations and deaths.

Then there is the second lockdown in the autumn of 2020. Vallance suggested that lessons were not leant and "flip-flopping" in Downing Street meant that restrictions were again brought in too slowly.

Of course ministers had to also weigh up the impact of those restrictions - on the economy, on education and on society in general.

Both Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak will get a chance to respond to these claims, and the others made today, when they give evidence in person next month.

Jim Reed
Health reporter

Image source, EPA-EFE/REX/Shutterstock

Sir Patrick Vallance has finished more than five hours' worth of detailed evidence about the major decisions taken during the pandemic. Here are some of the highlights form his testimony:

• In the early months of the pandemic, he said he was concerned over the speed of the government's "operational response", when it became clear Covid infections were rising sharply
• The first national lockdown, announced on 23 March 2020, was imposed about a "week too late", he added

• He said Boris Johnson was "clearly bamboozled" by some scientific concepts and briefing the former PM was "hard work" at times, although the situation was similar in other European countries
• Vallance confirmed scientific advisers were not consulted in advanced about the Eat Out to Help Out scheme, introduced by then-Chancellor Rishi Sunak in the summer of 2020
• Vallance said it was "highly likely" that the scheme led to more deaths

• "He is so inconsistent," he wrote about Boris Johnson at the time. "We have a weak, indecisive PM."
• Vallance says Johnson had been "very sceptical" about long Covid, and briefly suggested the virus should be allowed to "rip" through the population
• His diaries showed he was particularly critical of political decision-making in the run up to the second national lockdown in the autumn of 2020
• In another diary entry he described some cabinet ministers as "meek as mice" when shown the plan for the tier system of regional restrictions in England

Just before the hearing closed fort he day, Vallance was asked more about measures taken to close schools in a bid to reduce Covid transmission.

Sam Jacobs, representing the Trades Union Congress, read out a diary entry written by Vallance in 16 September 2020.

"Complete chaos over schools and what they should do. No one had any answers," Vallance wrote.

And in January 2021, he said in a separate diary read: "NHS in London is in real trouble.. govt needs to lockdown more firmly and take the advice on schools".

"Schools is a complete mess largely due to DFE [Department for Education]"

Looking back, Vallance tells the hearing he was "obviously frustrated" and "obviously very concerned".

Image source, UK Covid inquiry

Danny Friedman KC - who acts for four national disabled peoples organisations - is asking Vallance about whether Sage was sufficiently informed about the risks of the pandemic to disabled people.

Vallance says that there is a policy and operations group within the Cabinet Office that should have driven this.

He also tries to stress that Sage (as the scientific group) and the government (as the client) have different roles in their relationship.

Friedman asks why no diversity of expertise was sought to help Sage tackle the issue.

When prompted by Friedman, Vallance agrees that it would have been helpful to have people with a focus on the impact Covid had on mortality rates and quality of life for disabled people advise the government. "We didn't have it - it would be useful going forward," he adds.

That's all for today's hearing - and there are a few final lines to bring you from the closing moments, so make sure to stay on this page.

It is the turn of Rajiv Menon KC, who is representing a number of children's rights organisations.

He asks Vallance about children being included in the rule of six, a law that banned gatherings of more than six people at certain points in the pandemic.

Vallance says: "On the rule of six we were pretty clear that we didn't actually think that had an enormous basis in anything.

"Why six? Why not eight? Why not ten? We couldn't tell anyone which was better or worse."

Menon also reads a handwritten note, written by Vallance during the height of the pandemic, which acknowledged "school closures have obvious unequal and potentially long-term detriment on children".

Reflecting on this comment, Vallance says Covid restrictions were "not the easy option".

"We were aware at all times that these carried particular risks," he said.

Image source, UK Covid inquiry

A quick line to bring you from Downing Street while the questioning of Vallance continues.

It's declined to comment on a suggestion reportedly made by Rishi Sunak - who was then the chancellor - that it would be acceptable to "just let people die" from Covid in October 2020.

(Vallance's diary says those alleged words from Sunak were reported by Dominic Cummings, who was then the chief adviser of PM Boris Johnson. Vallance didn't directly quote Sunak.)

Downing Street also declined to comment on whether or not Sunak had taken scientific advice on the potential risks of the Eat Out to Help Out scheme before unveiling it.

A spokesman said: "The prime minister is due to give evidence before the inquiry at the time of their choosing. That's when he'll set out his position."

Jim Reed
Health reporter

We have heard a lot more this afternoon about the run up to the second national lockdown in England, which started on 5 November 2020.

It's clear Vallance and other scientists were extremely concerned about the Covid case data from mid-September onwards and the risk the NHS could again be overwhelmed.

A meeting of the Sage group of advisers on September 21, external said a "package of interventions" would need to be adopted to reverse an exponential rise in cases and a short, circuit breaker lockdown should be considered.

That advice was rejected by Boris Johnson, then Chancellor Rishi Sunak and other officials at the time.

By 28 October Simon Stevens, the chief executive of NHS England, said hospitals only had between 14 and 24 days until they could become overwhelmed in high prevalence areas.

Throughout this time Vallance's diary entries show he was frustrated with decision making in Downing Street.

"He is so inconsistent," he writes about Boris Johnson on 28 October. "We have a weak, indecisive PM."

On 30 November he adds: "PM says we need to act. French style national lockdown... [He] then argues that letting it go might be [the] better economic route."

"Meeting ended with no decision and going round in circles".

The second national lockdown in England was announced on 31 October that year, and came into force on 5 November.

You may have noticed that the live video stream at the top of this page has stopped working. This is because of a technical issue. We are working to fix it and hope it will be back up and running soon.

Image source, UK Covid inquiry

Next up is Philip Dayle, a representative of the Federation of Ethnic Minority Healthcare Organisations, who asks Vallance about inequalities during the pandemic.

Vallance says that he was "aware" the pandemic and the measures required to tackle it would have an unequal impact.

He says he stands by his witness statement which says that the virus "fed off inequality and drove inequality".

Pressed on whether this knowledge formed part of the advice given at senior decision-making levels, Vallance can't recall exactly how early he drew attention to this.

But, he says he thinks it was "pretty early on" - and that Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer for England, did the same.

Claire Mitchell KC from Scottish Covid Bereaved asks Sir Patrick Vallance about further questions about how the Covid response differed among the devolved administrations.

Mitchell says London became the UK's Covid hotspot early in the pandemic - and asks Vallance whether he was involved in any discussions about implementing border controls between England and Scotland and England and Wales.

To which Vallance says no.

"I don't recall that being a discussion," he adds, but that there may have been "policy people" involved in such talks.

A more detailed examination into Scotland's response to Covid-19 will come in module 2A of the inquiry - while Scotland is also having its own Covid inquiry.

Shortly before that question from Nia Gowman, Vallance was read another of his October 2020 diary notes by Pete Weatherby KC.

In it, Vallance described a meeting of ministers and officials, held over video call.

"Someone clearly not on mute - baby crying and then she starts singing 'the wheels on the bus' - somehow symbolic of the shambles" he wrote.

He also wrote that cabinet ministers presents were "meek as mice" when the PM and then-health secretary Matt Hancock brought up a proposal for a three-tier system of restrictions.

The system was rolled out in England later that month, despite government scientific advisers calling for a short lockdown. In his diary entry, Vallance said this decision was a "massive abrogation of responsibility".

Nia Gowman, representing Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice Cymru, is now asking about how information was passed between the devolved governments.

She questions whether chief scientific advisers in devolved nations were "disadvantaged" in their access to data.

Vallance says he thinks not - and adds that information received from the devolved administrations was "incredibly important", singling out Scotland in particular.

The inquiry considers the Eat Out to Help Out scheme and Weatherby repeats the statement from earlier today, that Vallance did not know about the decision to introduce the scheme until it had already been actioned.

Asked whether the scheme increased the number of deaths, Vallance replies: "It's highly likely to have done".

In reference to Vallance's written statement, Weatherby reads a note from Vallance that suggests that although he wasn't consulted on the policy, ministers were aware of the guidance at the time - which indicated that there would be a surge in infections with the policy change.

Image source, UK Covid inquiry

They're back again - with the next questions coming from Pete Weatherby KC, a representative of the group Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice.

You can stream the hearing live by pressing the play button at the top of the page.

The inquiry is taking a quick break and will be back in 15 minutes. We'll catch you up on the latest lines shortly, so stay with us.

O'Connor shows the inquiry more notes from October 2020.

Vallance wrote at the time: "We have a weak indecisive PM". He also described the right-wing press as "culpable" in decision-making on Covid measures.

Commenting on it now, he says the note was due to a "late-night moment of frustration".

He goes on to add that Johnson "was influenced a lot by the press" in his decision-making during the pandemic.

O'Connor brings up another diary excerpt that seems to suggest that on that day, 25 October 2020, Boris Johnson was unconcerned about Covid deaths.

Vallance wrote: "PM meeting begins to argue for letting it (Covid) all rip. Saying yes, there will be more casualties but so be it - 'they have had a good innings'."

The inquiry hears that Johnson may not have been alone in thinking this way. According to Vallance's diary, Dominic Cummings said: "Rishi [Sunak] thinks just let people die and that's okay".

Vallance wrote at the time: "This all feels like a complete lack of leadership."

Image source, UK Covid inquiry

Commenting on it now, Vallance says he was recording what must have been "quite a shambolic day".

However, he notes that Johnson was variable and might have said something totally different the next day, e.g. that he wanted "no deaths at all".

Vallance's diary entry from the following day appears to confirm this statement, with Johnson taking a different view. According to the entry, Johnson said the Covid death toll was "terrible".

It's worth us issuing a reminder that Johnson and Sunak are both going to get a chance to put forward their own versions of events to the inquiry.

Vallance says Matt Hancock did understand the possible effects of long Covid, but criticises the then-health secretary for other reasons.

Vallance tells the inquiry that Hancock had a habit of saying things which he "didn't really have a basis for too enthusiastically and too early... without having any evidence, and then had to backtrack.”

Vallance says that he is not sure whether Hancock did this out of "overenthusiasm" or deliberately.

When O'Connor asks Vallance if Hancock said things that weren't true, Vallance replies simply: "Yep."

Head here to read about what Hancock told the inquiry himself back in June. He said he was "profoundly sorry" for each death that happened during the pandemic.