The UK Covid inquiry has adjourned for the day. If you're just joining us here are the main headlines from today:

• Disease expert Prof Mark Woolhouse says he warned Scotland's chief medical officer, Dr Catherine Calderwood, about coronavirus in January 2020 but felt the risks were not being taken seriously.
• The professor of infectious disease epidemiology at University of Edinburgh agrees with the suggestion that officials "froze" in the face of the evidence about the virus.
• Prof Woolhouse also says Dr Catherine Calderwood was "not listening" to his warnings.
• He says the stay at home order introduced during the pandemic was "never necessary".
• The academic also argues that schools stayed shut far longer than necessary and says he was “baffled” by their closure in January 2021.
• Stephen Reicher, professor of psychology at the University of St Andrews, says fear was used to “frighten people into adherence" during the pandemic. He says you can be more effective by showing respect to the public.
• Legal expert Dr Pablo Grez says very few of the coronavirus regulations were debated by MSPs
• Prof Susan McVie told the inquiry the England Scotland travel ban was felt by police to be impossible to enforce.

That's all from the live page team today. Calum Watson and Graeme Esson were the editors. Ashleigh Keenan-Bryce and Craig Hutchison were the writers. Join us for tomorrow's live coverage when First Minister Humza Yousaf is due to give evidence.

Image source, Getty Images

Lady Hallet thanks Prof McVie and says Alister Jack, through no fault of his own, will not be called tomorrow.

The evidence session tomorrow will now start with Liz Lloyd, Nicola Sturgeon's former chief of staff.

In the afternoon First Minister Humza Yousaf will give evidence.

Baroness Hallett says some of the legislation which was drafted in England during the pandemic had been "nonsensical", and asks how Scotland compared.

Prof McVie says some regulations had been "absolute gobbledygook".

She gives the example of a policy memorandum on the rule of six, which tried to explain how many adults and children were allowed to gather at one stage of the pandemic, and what their ages could be.

"I can see the intention, which was to try and be clear, but it was impossible for people to understand," she says.

"You can see why police officers and members of the public would have been very confused about whether they were commiting an offence."

Usman Tariq says the Scottish government introduced in late December 2020 a ban on travel between Scotland and England.

Prof McVie says this was a ban on cross-border travel between Scotland and England as the concern was about the spread of a new variant in England.

The academic explains it was a complex regulatory shift.

She says there was a tension between the government's intention and the practicalities of policing.

Police Scotland made it clear they would not be routinely or proactively stopping vehicles.

The restriction was described as impossible to enforce by a Police Scotland representative.

Prof McVie says it was an example where there might have been better communication between government and the police.

Prof McVie says the Scottish government website blurred the line between what was law and what was guidance.

The University of Edinburgh expert tells the inquiry about when the first minister talked about exercising once a day.

The academic says it was only ever a law in Wales, it was guidance only in Scotland, but the first minister referred to it as a rule.

Prof McVie says regulation changes caused problems for policing at an operational level.

The speed and frequency of regulations were a source of frustration to senior officers, she says

The academic says on one occasion regulations were enacted before the police even saw them.

She says Police Scotland took a very pragmatic approach to changes in the regulations and never wavered from the four Es approach.

Prof McVie says when frontline police officers were interviewed they talked about the difficulties of going on leave for two days and coming back to changed regulations.

She says it was sometimes not clear what was a rule and what was considered "guidance".

Usman Tariq turns to the Police Use of Covid-19 Fixed Penalty Notices in Scotland, external report.

Prof McVie explains the report was shared with the independent advisory group and analyses the use of fixed penalty notices.

She explains the Four E strategy was introduced very early in the pandemic and it was intended as an easy to remember strategy:

1. Engagement
2. Explanation
3. Encouragement
4. Enforcement

The academic says there was a genuine desire any impact of policing would be as minimal as possible.

Prof McVie says a quirk of a new incremental fining system an individual offended again the fine would double, and would continue to double up to a maximum of £960.

There was very little parliamentary scrutiny of regulations, she says, but she adds that in this instance the lord advocate intervened.

The lord advocate issued guidance to say police officers could only issue a fine of up to £480, or four fixed penalty notices.

"There's no clear evidence you need enforcement to make people comply," says the academic.

Prof McVie says we don't have the data necessary to determine the cause and effect of police enforcement on patterns of death.

As the death rate increased the number of fixed penalties increased and when it fell the number of fixed penalties fell, she explains.

"There's no evidence that more enforcement led to less death and less spread," she says.

The police role was more about trying to mitigate negative effects of people being in close proximity to each other.

Usman Tariq turns to the use of fixed penalty notices which delivered an on the spot fine.

Prof McVie says a fixed penalty notice means you don't criminalise someone, the public understand it and it keeps people out of the criminal justice system.

She says only 121 people were subject to criminal proceedings up to March 2022 under the coronavirus regulations and only five went to prison.

Image source, Getty Images

In February 2021 one of Scotland's top police officers said discretion and common sense were what made lockdown policing a success.

Police Scotland was given emergency powers in March 2020, external to ensure the safety of the public during lockdown.

33,000 people reviewed the force's performance during the pandemic.

Deputy Chief Constable Will Kerr told BBC Scotland the force "didn't seek" the extra powers and knew it had to had to tread carefully.

He said that at the start of the first lockdown police knew people would be frightened and that the unprecedented rules could have been perceived as draconian.

Read more here

Prof Susan McVie has carried out research into policing during the pandemic and also served on an advisory group to Police Scotland.

Her research involved interviewing officers and people issued with fixed penalty notices, linking police data with health data and looking at underlying health issues of those who encountered enforcement.

Prof McVie's most recent publication through the university is on the use of fixed penalties by police in England and Wales during the pandemic.

Prof Susan McVie, professor of quantitative criminology at the University of Edinburgh, is sworn in as the next witness.

Dr Grez says there might be circumstances where an emergency response is needed and an "affirmative procedure" may be necessary to make regulations quickly.

Usman Tariq turns to the lessons learned during the pandemic.

Dr Grez explains in 2022 the Scottish Parliament discussed how to improve the system.

He says there was an improvement made by demanding a minister make a statement on such measures.

To trigger emergency powers the Scottish government now has to make a declaration subject to a vote in the parliament, he says.

Dr Grez says stakeholders must be consulted before enacting regulations and there is also a sunset clause.

Dr Grez explains that the 28-day period can be reset by new regulations being made before MSPs get the chance to debate the previous ones.

The legal expert says a weakness is the possibility of constantly evading parliamentary scrutiny through extending the expiry date of regulations with new regulations.

He says they do not argue the Scottish government abused this position but "it does indicate there might be a weakness in the instrument".

Dr Grez found only about 9% of regulations were debated in Scottish Parliament, and debates typically lasted 5 to 10 minutes.

Dr Grez explains a variety of methods of implementing laws which were available to the Scottish parliament.

A procedure known as "made affirmative", Mr Tariq says, was the method most prominently used by the Scottish government during the pandemic.

Dr Grez says: "A minister can make legislation that can enter into force before parliament approves it but legislation that will lapse unless approved by parliament within 28 sitting days.

In his research, Dr Grez found almost all the regulations were brought in using this method.

He says: "A simple way to explain it is, a Scottish minister drafts legislation which contains a number of measures. For instance, prevent people from going outside their homes.

"That legislation enacted by a minister can enter into force almost immediately after being made without parliament having discussed whether this is an appropriate measure or not."

Usman Tariq, the junior counsel to for the inquiry, introduces the next witness Dr Pablo Grez from the University of Strathclyde and runs through his CV.

Dr Grez says parliament performs a key role in the exercise of powers and its role is to hold ministers to account.

He explains that in an emergency compromises must be made between the need for powers and scrutiny.

The balance of expediency on the one hand and constitutional principle on the other might change, he says.

Image source, Getty Images

Prof Reicher gives the example of self-isolation to demonstrate the importance of trust and support.

"The whole point of the testing system, the billions spent on it...was to get people to self isolate and if you didn't...you were wasting your money."

He says figures on adherence to self-isolation rules show it could be as low as 18.2%

"The reason for that is it's an extremely difficult thing to do."

He refers to the £500 test and trace support payment brought in by the UK government to support those who tested positive for Covid.

"A, was a small amount of money. B, only one in eight workers qualified for it and C, 67% of people who applied didn't get it so it was a small amount of support compared to other places."

He says there was far more support in some other places in the world.

He cites the example of New York where there was even support to help people walk their dog.

Prof Reicher explains people were being asked to inject a vaccine into their body, with some people saying how important it is but with others saying "don't trust them" and that the authorities are trying to exert control.

In the end you have to decide who you trust, he says.

"Trust is absolutely at the core of how you respond."

He again stresses the importance of engagement and of treating people with questions with respect and responding to them.

The professor warns against dismissing those with questions as fools.

Lawyer Heather Arlidge continues to question Stephen Reicher, a professor of psychology at the University of St Andrews.

Later on this afternoon we'll hear from Dr Pablo Grez from the University of Strathclyde and then Prof Susan McVie, professor of quantitative criminology at the University of Edinburgh.