Inquiry counsel Hugo Keith KC points now to Boris Johnson's characterisations of long Covid.

Keith puts it to Johnson that he questioned the condition "for quite some time" - and "equated it to Gulf War syndrome repeatedly".

This refers to an unexplained illness that affected veterans from the 1991 war with no one cause identified.

The inquiry was also shown a document on long Covid, on which in October 2020 Johnson had scrawled "bollocks" in the margin and "this is Gulf War syndrome stuff".

Johnson tells the inquiry he is sure his assertions have "caused hurt and offence to huge numbers of people who have that syndrome".

He said he regretted "very, very much" his use of language.

Image source, Covid inquiry

The former PM and the inquiry lawyer are going back and forth on how much consideration the government gave to the relative impacts of lockdown and coronavirus on different communities.

Hugo Keith KC asks whether the needs of individual groups are included in any notes or minutes he can point to - Johnson says no, but claims he was thinking about this "the whole time".

He says the government was aware that "relatively affluent professional classes" were going to be "better placed to cope with" the pandemic than others.

"Large numbers of black and minority ethnic community members" are largely represented in sectors like non-essential retail and hospitality, he goes on, so they were "particularly disadvantaged".

"I know that this was one thing we were thinking about as a particular reason for being anxious about the effect of lockdown," he finishes.

Johnson has been challenged on an apparent contradiction in his evidence.

The former PM tells Hugo Keith that, in hindsight, he wanted more meetings with devolved administrations - while accepting that Michael Gove, who he put in charge of overseeing these discussions, did a "very very good job".

But Keith pulls up Johnson's written statement, which shows the ex-PM saying it would be "optically bad" for the prime minister to have meetings with first ministers.

In the statement, he fears it would look like a "mini EU" or a "council" in a federal structure.

Image source, Covid Inquiry

Georgina Hayes & Lisa Summers
BBC Scotland News

While on the subject of devolved administrations, it's worth remembering that a separate Covid inquiry in Scotland is ongoing and looking at the nation's handling of the pandemic.

At the Scottish Covid inquiry, which is also hearing evidence today, a bereaved daughter describes Boris Johnson’s apology to Covid victims and their families as “totally unacceptable”.

Sharon Mair, whose mother died in a care home, says that on she could not hug family and friends at her mother’s funeral on 15 May 2020.

On the same day, the prime minister and his staff enjoyed wine and a cheese in the Downing Street garden.

“So while we were saying goodbye to my mum and not even able to bring somebody into her back garden to have a cup of tea with us, those who were making the rules were breaking the rules,” she says.

Iain Watson
Political correspondent

Boris Johnson himself has accused the devolved administrations of "leaking" from Cobra meetings - describing this as a "problem" and that they had their own electorates in mind.

One of the lessons, he suggested, was to the need to have a single message.

Image source, PA Media

The inquiry is back from a short break and lawyer Hugo Keith KC asks Johnson whether the devolved administrations worked well together to make decisions during the pandemic.

"Overwhelmingly, the collaboration was excellent," Johnson replies. "There was far, far more that united us than divided us - it was really a big UK effort and the country pulled together."

The more "limited" issue came, Johnson adds, when the devolved administrations were "understandably" communicating directly with their own electorates.

"There were going to be times when they differed from the main UK [government] effort and I thought that was sometimes at risk of being confusing in a time when we really needed to land messages simply," Johnson explains.

Little of the Boris bombast - but plenty of spinpublished at 15:31 Greenwich Mean Time 6 December 2023

15:31 GMT 6 December 2023

Iain Watson
Political correspondent

Boris Johnson isn't on trial here but sometimes it feels like he is.

The inquiry has already heard from former aides Dominic Cummings - who described Johnson as the "trolley" due to the way he would change direction on things - and Lee Cain, who suggested he didn't have the "skill set" to deal with the pandemic.

This afternoon, we're hearing the ex-PM's defence.

So far we have seen very little of the Boris bombast - but he was visibly agitated with what he saw as the suggestion that he should have agreed a course of action before talking to Rishi Sunak, the then-chancellor, about the risks to the bond markets and the government's ability to raise cash.

"I had to go through the arguments," was Johnson's view. But to his detractors, that will seem a very positive spin being put on indecisiveness and a lack of leadership.

Iain Watson
Political correspondent

Image source, Covid inquiry

Although the inquiry is about learning lessons, rather than apportioning blame, Boris Johnson was asked a question that went to the core of his political reputation.

If the government he ran had been more alert and less distracted, would it have locked down perhaps two weeks earlier and improved outcomes?

A Johnsonian catchphrase was that he "followed the science" but here he blames it too - saying the Sage advisory body didn't realise how fast the virus was advancing.

But he says he went "pretty fast from flash to bang" when they realised.

According to Keith, the inquiry has "three direct questions" for Johnson.

Firstly, he asks the former PM was it his position lockdown was absolutely necessary?

"I believe that it was and believe that it helped to suppress the R-rate," Johnson replies.

Secondly, if the government had acted sooner, could the need for a mandatory stay at home order have been avoided?

Johnson says he doubts this in his view.

Thirdly, Keith asks if the lockdown could have been imposed earlier had the government "not been blindsided by" behavioural fatigue and herd immunity and had a better understanding of data.

Johnson says the only condition he accepts is data.

"That was the key thing which Sage lacked and was the sudden appreciation we were much further along the curve than they thought," he answers.

The inquiry lawyer now shows the inquiry correspondence between Johnson and other key figures in government on 26 March.

In it, Johnson says he "agrees [with] every word" of an opinion piece written by Professor John Lee in the Spectator magazine, titled: How deadly is the coronavirus? It’s still far from clear, external

The former NHS consultant pathologist said it "certainly seems reasonable, now, that a degree of social distancing should be maintained for a while", but added that "when drastic measures are introduced, they should be based on clear evidence".

"In the case of Covid-19, the evidence is not clear. The UK’s lockdown has been informed by modelling of what might happen. More needs to be known about these models," he wrote.

Keith asks why, in light of Johnson's endorsement of Lee, the ex-PM still pushed on with a lockdown. Johnson says he "couldn't take the gamble with public health".

Iain Watson
Political correspondent

When being quizzed if he locked down late, it is worth remembering that there were members of Boris Johnson's own party who felt that this measure was draconian, an unacceptable limit on individual liberty, and an economic disaster.

But Johnson has said he gave these views "short shrift" when reaching the decision on lockdown and wouldn't "gamble" with public health.

While most of the questions up to now have been around why the government didn't act sooner, Hugo Keith KC challenges Johnson on whether the country could not have gone into lockdown when it did.

As he is answering, Chair Baroness Hallett - in a rare interruption - reminds Johnson that he previously said some in government were advocating for no lockdown at all.

"Did you consider the arguments to say you should never go that far?" she asks.

Johnson says he did but that he gave it "pretty short shrift" at that stage because he thought his job and the number one duty of government "was to protect human life".

"I felt I had to do what I could to give them [healthcare workers] the best possible chance. I had no other tool," he says.

Jim Reed
Reporting from the inquiry

The inquiry is now talking about the decision to order a mandatory lockdown on 23 March 2020 across the whole UK.

The public were told they "must stay at home" with exemptions for visiting the shops for basic necessities, going to work where "absolutely necessary" and exercising once a day.

But already by that point a series of restrictions were already in force. On 16 March the public were asked to voluntary stop social contact with others. Later that week schools were closed and bars and restaurants were shut.

Boris Johnson is being asked why the government didn't wait to see if those earlier measures would work before taking a drastic step and ordering a full mandatory lockdown.

He "no longer had the luxury of waiting", he says, adding: "By this stage, the scientific advice was becoming much more precautionary and I sensed we had to do more.

Lawyer Hugo Keith KC turns his attention now to a meeting Boris Johnson held on 19 March 2020 with Russian media mogul Evgeny Lebedev.

The meeting appeared in Johnson's diary "as a personal, social matter" - which Keith cites ex-senior aide Dominic Cummings as saying was "not the best use of your time during this crisis".

Johnson says Lebedev "doubtless wanted to know about what was happening to London and wanted to be informed".

He adds it "must have been Covid-related".

Image source, PA Media

Hugo Keith is continuing to question Johnson chronologically about the early days of the pandemic, and next asks if he knew lockdown was inevitable the week before it was announced.

He brings up a set of WhatsApp messages between the former PM's adviser Dominic Cummings and former Director of Communications Lee Cain.

In them, Cummings says Johnson is "melting down", and is "back to Jaws mode", adding: "I've literally said same thing ten [expletive] times and he still won't absorb it."

According to Johnson, Cummings was referring to a conversation between him and former Chancellor Rishi Sunak where he had to talk about the "costs" and "downsides" of a lockdown.

"It would have been totally negligent not to have had such a conversation," Johnson says, adding: "I'd made up my mind - we [were] getting on and doing it, we [were] not being diverted."

Sage advised against banning events like Cheltenham and Champions Leaguepublished at 14:38 Greenwich Mean Time 6 December 2023

14:38 GMT 6 December 2023

Jim Reed
Reporting from the inquiry

The decision to allow major sporting events to go ahead in the second week of March 2020 was controversial at the time.

On 7 March Johnson himself was in the crowd to watch England beat Wales at Twickenham.

The next week, horse racing's Cheltenham Festival went ahead with 250,000 spectators, while 3,000 Atletico Madrid football fans flew to Liverpool for a Champions League match.

The scientific advice at the time, from Sage, was that banning these events would do little to reduce the spread of the virus, and might actually make things worse by pushing fans inside pubs and other smaller venues.

Image source, Getty Images

Keith brings up advice in March 2020, which said there was no need to shut large sporting events - such as the Cheltenham Festival and Champions League footbal at Anfield.

"The closure of mass gatherings would have sent a vital message," Keith puts it to Johnson.

Johnson sayd: "With hindsight, as a symbol of the government's earnestness rather than being guided by the science, we should perhaps have done this."

He adds: "At every stage I was weighing massive costs."

Earlier in the inquiry, England's chief medical officer Sir Chris Whitty made the same point - saying even if the effect on transmission was not major, banning mass gatherings would have sent an important message.

Inquiry counsel Hugo Keith KC turns his attention to a meeting of the Cobra emergency group on 12 March 2020 - which Boris Johnson chaired.

He shows the inquiry a document given to the meeting at the time, titled: "What would the effect be on the NHS of interventions?"

On it are two graphs showing how many people might require a hospital bed under two circumstances given.

The first demonstrates what might happen if no measures were implemented, the second if a seven-day isolation period and household isolation were implemented.

Johnson says he remembers being shown the graphs, adding: "I was bewildered, to be honest."

"In either case, we are facing an absolutely intolerable situation."

He adds that the graph "makes it clear that things were going wrong".

Image source, Covid Inquiry

The strategy on herd immunity at the start of the pandemicpublished at 14:21 Greenwich Mean Time 6 December 2023

14:21 GMT 6 December 2023

Nick Triggle
Health correspondent

In the early weeks of March, senior government advisers were talking about achieving herd immunity. Boris Johnson has admitted that phrase caused a lot of confusion.

Prof Chris Whitty, England’s chief medical officer, told the inquiry last month its interpretation got “mashed up”.

He made it clear that herd immunity - in terms of getting to the point where enough people have been infected, that the virus cannot spread anymore - was not being pursued.

Instead, what the government was initially planning – and which the first lockdown put a stop to – was to manage the initial wave in the hope it would happen over the summer and not during the winter when the NHS was busy.

To do that requires being able to slow transmission and protect the most vulnerable when infections are reaching a peak.

What the scientists had not appreciated was just how quickly Covid was spreading, which led to the fear it would quickly overwhelm the NHS if drastic action wasn’t taken.

Keith, the inquiry lawyer, asks Johnson about the concept of herd immunity - which is the point at which a population is protected from a disease, either by enough people being vaccinated or by people having developed antibodies by having the disease.

He brings up a text from Johnson on 14 March 2020 which suggests he was still debating the herd immunity argument.

Johnson explains that at a 12 March press conference, former chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance said that some measure of herd immunity could help "flatten the curve".

He says that this made people believe the government was "trying to allow this thing to pass through the population unchecked" which he says was not the case.

The objective was to save lives by protecting the NHS, the strategy was to suppress the curve and keep R below 1.

Herd immunity would be a by-product of this "very difficult" campaign, the former PM insists, rather than the aim.