Professor Chris Whitty, England’s chief medical officer, became one of the most recognisable faces of the UK’s response to the Covid pandemic.
He has been giving evidence to the Covid inquiry in a session that will last until Wednesday. Here are five things we have learnt from his evidence so far:
The UK locked down too late
Sir Patrick Vallance told the inquiry on Monday there were tensions between him and Professor Whitty over how soon lockdown measures should be taken. In his own evidence, Professor Whitty admitted that, in hindsight, the nationwide lockdown introduced on 23 March, 2020 came too late. Professor Whitty insisted that the differences between him and Sir Patrick were “extremely small” but that he was “very aware” that arguments were finely balanced between the risk of going too early and the risk of going too late. He added: “My view is, with the benefit of hindsight, we went a bit too late on the first wave.”
Boris Johnson’s style was “unique” to him
Unlike Sir Patrick, Professor Whitty did not keep a daily diary in which he recorded pithy observations of the then prime minister’s style of governing. The chief medical officer declined to criticise Mr Johnson, but said: “The way Mr Johnson took decisions was unique to him.” Hugo Keith KC, lead counsel for the inquiry, replied: “That’s a euphemism if ever I heard one.” Professor Whitty added the former PM had “quite a distinct style”.
There was no plan for a Covid pandemic
The inquiry heard a lot of evidence in the first module earlier this year that the UK government’s pandemic planning were centred on a possible flu outbreak, where symptoms were obvious and vaccines already existed, but there was minimal preparation for a different virus that spread without symptoms and for which there were no jabs. Professor Whitty confirmed that this was correct in his latest evidence. He said it was “pretty clear” the pandemic flu plan “wasn’t going to give us any particular help” and it was “woefully deficient”, adding: “We didn’t have a plan that was going to be useful from a prevention or management point of view.”
The Fovernment wasn’t “electrified” by the Covid emergency
Mr Keith’s line of questioning to several witnesses has focused on the weeks between the end of January, when the first UK Covid cases were confirmed, and early March, when apparently the machinery of government worked incredibly slowly to deal with the oncoming pandemic. Professor Whitty said central government was not “electrified” by the crisis in early February, even though alarm bells were ringing from scientists on Sage and other groups, and cases were soaring in other countries. Professor Whitty said the Government would have paid more attention if modelling had predicted that more than 100,000 people would be killed in a terrorist attack, rather than a public health emergency. Referring to that period in February, he said there was an “opportunity where we could probably have moved up a gear or two across Government”, adding: “Had we essentially had the central Government electrified by this – I’m not saying the outcome would have been different, but I think it would at least have led to a stronger all-of-Government think-through of all the potential consequentials.”
Allowing mass gatherings was “logically incoherent”
Professor Whitty said he would “take ownership” of advice given by Sage to the Government in early March 2020 that the risk of people attending crowded outdoor events, such as the Cheltenham Festival and football matches, was relatively low. He said: “What we really were not paying enough attention to, and it is sort of obvious with hindsight, is the message this was sending – that seeing mass gatherings going on signalled to the general public that the Government couldn’t be that worried because, if it was, it would be closing the mass gatherings. The problem was not the gatherings themselves, which I don’t think there is good evidence that they had a material effect directly, but the impression it gives (the public) of normality at a time when you are trying to signal anything but normality. It is in a sense technically correct and logically incoherent to the general public, quite reasonably.”
