It was ‘logically incoherent’ to allow mass gatherings at the start of the pandemic, Professor Chris Whitty told the Covid Inquiry today.
Britain’s chief medical officer said it was understandable that the public had been confused by apparent concerns about the spread of the virus, while events involving large numbers of people remained unaffected.
Inquiry witnesses have already been asked about the decision to go ahead with the Cheltenham Festival and the Champions League match between Liverpool and Atletico Madrid in early March 2020, as cases continued to spread across Europe.
Both events were subsequently identified as potential factors for virus growth in a damning report from the Commons Health and Science Committees.
Sir Chris said today: ‘What we didn’t really pay enough attention to, and it’s quite clear in retrospect, is the message this sent – that seeing mass gatherings was a signal to the general public that the Government was not that worrying , because if it were, the mass gatherings would be closed.
England’s Chief Medical Officer (pictured today) told the Covid Inquiry there was a ‘very small’ difference between the pair in early 2020 as he was more concerned about the knock-on effects of measures to stop the spread of the virus to counteract.
Inquiry witnesses have already been asked about the decision to go ahead with the Cheltenham Festival (pictured March 13, 2020) and the Champions League match between Liverpool and Atletico Madrid in early March 2020, as cases continued to spread across Europe.
In March 2020, thousands of Atletico Madrid fans flew to Liverpool to watch their team play in the Champions League (pictured, March 11, 2020), even though lockdown rules would prevent them from watching a match in Spain.
‘I think the problem was not the meetings themselves, which I don’t think there is good evidence that they directly had a material effect, but the impression it gives of normality at a time when what you are trying to convey is anything but normality . .
“It’s technically correct in a way and logically incoherent for the general public, very reasonable.”
He said it was right for him to “take ownership” of the advice given to the government by colleagues on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage).
He said he also warned ministers about the “drawbacks” of Covid lockdowns, but admitted they felt inevitable.
Sir Chris said he was being more cautious than others in imposing strict restrictions on the public as the infection sweeps through the population, amid concerns about the impact on mental and physical health.
He said he was “blunt” with ministers but did not tell them what to do when they made decisions.
He also denied falling out with Sir Patrick Vallance over whether Covid restrictions should have been introduced earlier.
But he admitted there was a “very small” difference between the two at the start of 2020 as he was more concerned about the knock-on effects of measures to curb the spread of the virus.
And Sir Chris hit back at claims by the inquiry’s lead lawyer, Hugo Keith KC, that he would have preferred to let events play out a bit before imposing restrictions.
The expert seemed irritated by the question and said: ‘I have rejected and will continue to reject your characterization of this as an ‘overreaction’ because it implies that I felt that in some sense the action should not have taken place.
“What I thought should happen is that people should be aware that without action very serious things would happen, but the harms of those actions should be made transparent.
‘I don’t think that’s incorrect.’
But he added: “My view, in retrospect, is that we went a little too late on the first wave.”
Earlier in the day, Sir Chris also told the inquiry that the way Mr Johnson made decisions during the pandemic was “unique” and that he had a “distinct” style.
The UK’s plans for the flu pandemic were also not at all “useful” and “woefully inadequate” for the Covid pandemic and a new plan had to be created from scratch, he said.
But he admitted that ministers who repeatedly said they were “following the science” became a “millstone” around scientists’ necks during the pandemic, amid concerns about political opportunism.
Confusion over how to “flatten the curve” and the R rate – the reproduction number of cases – was also sometimes caused by ministers not fully understanding the technicalities of the science, he admitted.
‘My view was that there was quite a bit of fanciful discussion taking place, including between people who, in my opinion, did not fully understand the technical aspects they were talking about, if I’m being blunt, which led to quite a confused public debate.’
But Sir Patrick (left), the government’s former chief scientific adviser, said yesterday that he “didn’t have quite the same concerns” and instead thought: “we need to get on with this”. However, Sir Chris (right) said claims of a friction between the two experts – initially exposed in a book by another top scientist – had been included to make things ‘more exciting’.
He added: ‘On several occasions, as you have probably had the privilege of reading my rather boring, compared to other people’s, WhatsApps, I beg people not to try to talk about some of these issues because ( they) can be confusing.’
Previous witnesses called to the inquiry faced foul-mouthed rants from the likes of Dominic Cummings, repeatedly branding those at the top of the government as ‘c***s’.
The Government would also have paid far more attention to the risks of Covid if it had been a terrorist or geopolitical threat, rather than a natural threat, Sir Chris also claimed.
He agreed with Mr Keith that there had been a ‘systemic failure’ and argued that if MI5 had warned that 100,000 people could die in a terrorist attack; the chances that the system would have continued as it did would have been “quite small.”
Sir Chris will continue to testify tomorrow.