The UK Covid inquiry took evidence from Professor Mark Woolhouse and Professor Stephen Reicher on the seventh day of its hearings in Scotland. Here are some of the key points:

• Prof 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.

Image source, PA Media

Prof Reicher discusses his experiences in the Scottish Covid Advisory Group (SCAG) and the collaboration of behavioural science with medical and scientific advice to influence change.

He says that establishing a "social contract of trust" was central to everything they did.

"I used to say at the beginning that behavioural sciences will be important until vaccines come along, but I was wrong.

"Vaccines achieve absolutely nothing as long as they're in the bottle. It's getting vaccinated that makes the difference."

He says the behavioural and medical elements needed to go together at every stage.

"Absolutely key to addressing that is creating that social contract of trust," he adds.

Prof Reicher turns to vaccine hesitancy and points out more deprived groups and ethnic minorities are less likely to vaccinate.

He suggests there is good reason why some groups had less trust in government.

It's perfectly reasonable to have concerns about injecting something into your body, says Prof Reicher.

How do we get people to see that the government is on their side, he ponders.

Prof Reicher says: "Vaccine certification gave traction to the anti-vax narrative that they are trying to control us."

He points out that you shoud engage more with the public to get them vaccinated.

"Always respect people, listen to them, engage with them."

Using his teenage son as an example, Prof Reicher explains the importance of thinking of "we" as a community, and not in terms of yourself as an individual in terms of analysing cost and risk.

"If he was thinking individually, he might say to himself 'I might as well go out because the risk to me is relatively minor and the cost of staying in at 18 or 19 with your elderly parents is huge'. So you do the cost/benefit analysis and you go out.

"If you think in collective terms now, not the risks and benefits to myself as an individual but to the community, I say to myself if I go out, I might spread the disease and I might kill somebody who is elderly or vulnerable and so the risk calculation flips completely."

Prof Reicher says there was much misunderstanding of risk perception

He says using "fear to frighten people into adherence," had problems.

Fear leads to a feeling of doom and that nothing can be done, the academic adds.

He explains the core concept is empowerment, and you disempower when you talk about threat without mitigation.

Prof Reicher says you can be more effective by showing respect to the public.

Prof Stephen Reicher explains we should not have feared the public but rather brought them together as a community.

"They're not the problem, they're the most precious resource you have."

Prof Reicher says he believes mistakes were made early in the pandemic when referring to "social distancing" when really it was physical distancing that was required.

He explains that in times of stress and strain, people need an element of socialisation and coming together.

"The importance of physical connection - not only for physical but also for mental health - feeling part of a community...benefits you.

"I was acutely aware of this 'tension' from the start and a lot of my work has been around how mass gatherings, collective behaviour which is often seen in negative terms is actually rather good for us in fostering a sense of community and improving our physical and mental health."

Lawyer Heather Arlidge now stands to begin questioning of Stephen Reicher, professor of psychology at the University of St Andrews.

Scientists disagreed on what should be donepublished at 12:16 Greenwich Mean Time 24 January 2024

12:16 GMT 24 January 2024

Lisa Summers
BBC Scotland Health Correspondent

Prof Mark Woolhouse had wanted early action to control the spread of coronavirus in early 2020 and expressed his frustrations that he could not get the ear of the then chief medical officer, Dr Catherine Calderwood.

By the time lockdown measures were introduced, he didn’t think there was an exit plan.

He disagrees with the actions Scotland took next.

After the first wave, the language from the first minister and others shifted to a cautious approach where "no Covid death was acceptable", and people were asked to spare the NHS.

Prof Woolhouse says this approach failed to recognise all the other harms that Covid was causing with people not going to hospital for many other reasons and things like education being disrupted.

It also points to disagreements between scientists about what to do at this point. This is something we may see ministers questioned on next week.

Prof Woolhouse tells the inquiry the Scottish advisory group wanted to increase compliance with the need to self-isolate.

He was concerned in Scotland that they were only finding half the cases.

If you could find the other half you could strengthen the whole test and protect approach, he says.

"We needed mass testing," he adds.

The final thing the group wanted was more being done to protect the most vulnerable.

"Scottish government never embraced, fully, the idea that you could do more to protect the vulnerable, and that would just directly save lives."

As Mr Dawson concludes his questioning of Prof Woolhouse, Lady Hallett asks a follow up question. She asks what other things could have been done alongside being "very cautious" about relaxing restrictions.

Prof Woolhouse said: "The Scottish government put all its eggs in one basket really."

This was the test and protect programme which, he says, was not in itself sufficient to keep on top of any possible resurgence of the virus.

Image source, PA Media

Prof Woolhouse says he doesn't understand why schools were closed in January 2021 during the second wave,

"It baffles me," he tells the inquiry.

This is not a public health problem that is going to go away, continues the academic.

Prof Woolhouse says the issue of school closures was handled badly during the pandemic with them staying shut far longer than necessary.

He says he feels very stongly about "what we did to the children".

"It wasn't necessary, but we did it anyway," he continues.

The University of Edinburgh academic goes on to says his strategy would have allowed schools to remain open for the whole pandemic.

Mr Dawson questions Prof Woolhouse on the decision to close schools and the benefit of it at that stage.

Prof Woolhouse said: "Closing schools I accept essentially as a precautionary measure of the first lockdown because, lets face it, people had to be panicking at that stage. It was necessary or justifiable.

"But we should have realised much more quickly - based on the evidence from around the world - this was not an essential element of our lockdown."

Prof Woolhouse says he "argued repeatedly" over the summer that schools in Scotland could have reopened in May 2020, just as they had in Denmark.

However, he did praise the Scottish response for reopening schools earlier than elsewhere in the UK.

"One of the possible elements of the way the pandemic was managed in Scotland is we were one of the first to reopen schools. Particularly when there was a lot of resistance to it."

Image source, Getty Images

Arresting people for going for a walk in the mountains was "utterly absurd", says Prof Woolhouse.

"It devalues the whole idea of social distancing, anyone can see this is nonsense."

He also highlights the outrcry about people going to beaches, but says there was never, ever an outbreak caused by going to the beach.

Prof Woolhouse says more was learned about the risk of infection as the pandemic progressed but says that was not reflected in policy changes.

Mr Dawson points to Prof Woolhouse statements that the stay at home order should have been released earlier and that there is scientific evidence that it would not have tipped the R number above one.

"I would take that further. The stay at home order was never necessary." Prof Woolhouse says

"The job was already done by the measures. There's actually evidence in the Scottish government's own report that was the case."

Mr Dawson questions which other measures should have been released more quickly.

Prof Woolhouse said: "Outdoor activities. We had very good evidence coming back from China that the novel coronavirus transmits poorly outdoors - very poorly. So there was pretty much zero public health benefits to keeping us indoors, we never needed to do that."

There are "caveats" to that however, says Prof Woolhouse

Prof Woolhouse says by the end of the summer in 2020 Scotland was flirting with a zero Covid strategy which shows officials did not think the virus was here to stay.

He points out the Scottish government wanted to adopt a more cautious easing of lockdown than in England.

The University of Edinburgh academic says his concern was what there didn't appear to be a long-term strategy.

He doesn't think the Scottish government understood the "see-saw" nature of the pandemic.

Prof Woolhouse says he told the Scottish govenment they should plan for a second wave in Scotland.

The academic says: "I don't think they had any understanding, not just in Scotland but in the UK, that they were going to get a second wave."

He points out that the virus remains a serious threat and says in 2024 hundreds of people are going to die of Covid in Scotland.

"I think we're not paying enough attention to Covid."

Scientists felt their warnings were ignoredpublished at 11:28 Greenwich Mean Time 24 January 2024

11:28 GMT 24 January 2024

Lisa Summers
BBC Scotland Health Correspondent

Prof Mark Woolhouse was one of a number of scientists in the UK who were frustrated that their warnings about the gravity of an emerging pandemic were not being listened to as early as January 2020.

He had written to chief medical officer Dr Catherine Calderwood on at least two occasions in January 2020 but felt that he was not being listened to.

It took Prof Woolhouse until the very end of February to secure a meeting with the CMO, two days before the first case was confirmed in Scotland.

By then he was warning that no action would result in the NHS being overwhelmed and the only way to avoid that would be to introduce severe social distancing within days rather than weeks.

He also warned that there would need to be an "exit strategy" because these kind of severe restrictions come with huge consequences.

But it was almost a month later before a full lockdown was announced. Prof Woolhouse felt, even then, that the government did not have "the faintest idea" how long it would last.

Prof Woolhouse says when Scotland went into lockdown he does not think the Scottish government had "the faintest idea how long we would be in it for".

He goes on to explain the elderly were "very, very vulnerable" and he says they had the idea of protecting those who are around the vulnerable, known as "cocooning".

The University of Edinburgh academic tells the inquiry he didn't think the UK government's initial action plan would work.

He says the tone did change in March with Dr Gregor Smith getting more involved with Dr Calderwood.