south _ health infrastructure. the case of south korea, and i this with colleagues from south korea, it was after they— colleagues from south korea, it was after they had a bad experience with something _ after they had a bad experience with something and they wanted beat things— something and they wanted beat things up and they did put up in the case of— things up and they did put up in the case of germany, they use base to be able to— case of germany, they use base to be able to do— case of germany, they use base to be able to do that. absent either public— able to do that. absent either public investment over some period of time, _ public investment over some period of time, you — public investment over some period of time, you cannotjust switch public investment over some period of time, you cannot just switch this on at _ of time, you cannot just switch this on at short— of time, you cannot just switch this on at short notice or an industrial base _ on at short notice or an industrial base well— on at short notice or an industrial base well designed for it, it would be much _ base well designed for it, it would be much more difficult. there are a number— be much more difficult. there are a number of— be much more difficult. there are a number of other reasons and i think in a sense, — number of other reasons and i think in a sense, it— number of other reasons and i think in a sense, it doesn't have to go into— in a sense, it doesn't have to go into them — in a sense, it doesn't have to go into them in— in a sense, it doesn't have to go into them in great depth but those were major barriers to it. i think there _ were major barriers to it. i think there was— were major barriers to it. i think there was something about the interrelationship of the nhs system but i'm _ interrelationship of the nhs system but i'm not really the person to answer — but i'm not really the person to answer questions on it. we but i'm not really the person to answer questions on it. we have had some evidence _ answer questions on it. we have had some evidence about _ answer questions on it. we have had some evidence about the _ answer questions on it. we have had some evidence about the multitude l answer questions on it. we have had l some evidence about the multitude of small laboratories which were perhaps institutionally incapable of being scaled up. you must have, well, of course, you are absolutely well, of course, you are absolutely well aware of the absence of such a system in january 2020. well aware of the absence of such a system injanuary 2020. your understanding shows, of course, also, doesn't it? that you are well aware of how other countries were responding. of course, you are on top of the detail of what other governments and countries were doing to respond to the pandemic. yes. was the (mo to respond to the pandemic. yes. was the cmo consulted during the course of the pandemic on the decision to disband public health england? n disband public health england? i don't recall being consulted either formativ— don't recall being consulted either formally or informally. i think i will sort — formally or informally. i think i will sort of— formally or informally. i think i will sort of told this is going to happen — will sort of told this is going to happen. my view is my colleagues in pubiic— happen. my view is my colleagues in public health england did this extraordinarily professionally. i think— extraordinarily professionally. i think arguments either way. in terms of spitting _ think arguments either way. in terms of spitting of the public, the heatth— of spitting of the public, the health system from the rest of it, i actually _ health system from the rest of it, i actually think the uk hsa system has been created as a very good one but this wasn't_ been created as a very good one but this wasn't a — been created as a very good one but this wasn't a situation where i was sitting _ this wasn't a situation where i was sitting down in meetings and saying, shall we _ sitting down in meetings and saying, shall we lead to this change? that was not _ shall we lead to this change? that was not part of what i was doing and, _ was not part of what i was doing and. to— was not part of what i was doing and. to be — was not part of what i was doing and, to be fair, i don't think it was _ and, to be fair, i don't think it was necessarily a good reason why would _ was necessarily a good reason why would have — was necessarily a good reason why would have been because that was a structural— would have been because that was a structural question, not with the clinicai— structural question, not with the clinical or— structural question, not with the clinical or a _ structural question, not with the clinical or a public—health one in the ordinary sense. all clinical or a public-health one in the ordinary sense.— clinical or a public-health one in the ordinary sense. all right. can we now look. _ the ordinary sense. all right. can we now look, please, _ the ordinary sense. all right. can we now look, please, add - the ordinary sense. all right. can we now look, please, add sage? | the ordinary sense. all right. can i we now look, please, add sage? of course, the scientific advisory group for emergencies, which you co—chaired. you say, again, rather pithily, in your statement, that, as co—chair of sage, you are likely to be biased. in its favour. and it is not obvious to you what an alternative better mechanism for the provision of scientific advice would be. where are aware of how other countries had set up their scientific advisory systems? yes. so, scientific advisory systems? yes. 50. because _ scientific advisory systems? yes. 50. because i'd — scientific advisory systems? yes. so, because i'd been _ scientific advisory systems? yes. so, because i'd been a _ scientific advisory systems? yes. so, because i'd been a chief scientific— so, because i'd been a chief scientific adviser and government during _ scientific adviser and government during several emergencies of different types, including being adviser— different types, including being adviser for a short time an interim basis, _ adviser for a short time an interim basis, i_ adviser for a short time an interim basis, i was — adviser for a short time an interim basis, i was well aware of systems around _ basis, i was well aware of systems around the — basis, i was well aware of systems around the world going into the pandemic, and we have also, sir patrick— pandemic, and we have also, sir patrick and — pandemic, and we have also, sir patrick and i have had the privilege of talking _ patrick and i have had the privilege of talking to a lot of our colleagues from other nations about their systems around the world. and their systems around the world. and the many— their systems around the world. and the many good systems. so the fact that we _ the many good systems. so the fact that we had the sage system is not where _ that we had the sage system is not where we _ that we had the sage system is not where we were doing it in ignorance, in general, _ where we were doing it in ignorance, in general, and i think most people certainty— in general, and i think most people certainly in — in general, and i think most people certainly in europe would agree with this, the _ certainly in europe would agree with this, the uk system of integration of science — this, the uk system of integration of science into government, in my view, _ of science into government, in my view, stilt— of science into government, in my view, still is — of science into government, in my view, still is short of where it should — view, still is short of where it should be, _ view, still is short of where it should be, arguably, by some distance _ should be, arguably, by some distance. but in fact, better than a large _ distance. but in fact, better than a large number of our neighbours. we do, large number of our neighbours. we do. at _ large number of our neighbours. we do. at least, — large number of our neighbours. we do, at least, have a network of advisors — do, at least, have a network of advisors mechanism. we do have a very empowered, dry the empowered government chief scientific adviser so i government chief scientific adviser so i think— government chief scientific adviser so i think the sage system has some pluses— so i think the sage system has some piuses and _ so i think the sage system has some pluses and minuses but, as i say, i couldn't— pluses and minuses but, as i say, i couldn't see — pluses and minuses but, as i say, i couldn't see another system internationally we looked at that and said — internationally we looked at that and said if only we had had that we would _ and said if only we had had that we would be _ and said if only we had had that we would be in — and said if only we had had that we would be in a much better shape. looking _ would be in a much better shape. looking at — would be in a much better shape. looking at a more narrow way at some of the particular aspects of, surrounding how sage worked, and number of witnesses have noted that the tension that you identify in your statement between having a group that is small enough to allow significant debates and having a body that is large enough to be more representative but so large that it acts contrary to the ability to have acts contrary to the ability to have a properfocus acts contrary to the ability to have a proper focus to debate, acts contrary to the ability to have a properfocus to debate, do acts contrary to the ability to have a proper focus to debate, do you assess that balance was correctly drawn in the case of sage? were the... was its membership sufficiently diverse in terms of comprising notjust epidemiologists and modernists and behavioural scientist but members of other disciplines? i scientist but members of other disciplines?— disciplines? i think in the very first meetings _ disciplines? i think in the very first meetings of— disciplines? i think in the very first meetings of sage - disciplines? i think in the very first meetings of sage i - disciplines? i think in the very first meetings of sage i think| disciplines? i think in the very. first meetings of sage i think it was too — first meetings of sage i think it was too small. and i think it was recognised — was too small. and i think it was recognised as that answer patrick did a _ recognised as that answer patrick did a lot — recognised as that answer patrick did a lot of— recognised as that answer patrick did a lot of work to try to deal with— did a lot of work to try to deal with that _ did a lot of work to try to deal with that. arguably, the other bits of the _ with that. arguably, the other bits of the pandemic, arguably had got too large — of the pandemic, arguably had got too large because there was a very wide spread of outstanding scientist but less— wide spread of outstanding scientist but less easy for people to challenge one another so there is undoubtedly a sort of point between those _ undoubtedly a sort of point between those which is the most effective one _ those which is the most effective one it _ those which is the most effective one it is — those which is the most effective one. it is important, also, to recognise _ one. it is important, also, to recognise that sage is not a fixed body. _ recognise that sage is not a fixed body, even — recognise that sage is not a fixed body, even in the single emergency. so peopie _ body, even in the single emergency. so people come onto it and go of it, depending _ so people come onto it and go of it, depending on what the set of problems are that are being considered. so, the only person who is actually— considered. so, the only person who is actually fixed on the sage is the government chief scientific adviser. all others _ government chief scientific adviser. all others and to dame angela, who you will— all others and to dame angela, who you will be _ all others and to dame angela, who you will be seeking to come in the week— you will be seeking to come in the week ail— you will be seeking to come in the week all others come and go as needed — week all others come and go as needed for the particular needs of that time — needed for the particular needs of that time. you make a new, whether or not— that time. you make a new, whether or not those — that time. you make a new, whether or not those members, of whom you have spoken. — or not those members, of whom you have spoken, came from other particular— have spoken, came from other particular disciplines beyond epidemiology of behavioural science or modelling? there was quite a wide range _ or modelling? there was quite a wide range of— or modelling? there was quite a wide range of people came and went at different— range of people came and went at different points. all of them are very considerable and millions. i think— very considerable and millions. i think it — very considerable and millions. i think it depends how far you are talking — think it depends how far you are talking about going. so i don't think— talking about going. so i don't think that we went, we certainly don't _ think that we went, we certainly don't go — think that we went, we certainly don't go into, for example, economics, at all. we don't go into, for example, economics, at all.— don't go into, for example, economics, at all. we will come to that issue- — economics, at all. we will come to that issue. there _ economics, at all. we will come to that issue. there were _ economics, at all. we will come to that issue. there were a _ economics, at all. we will come to that issue. there were a sort - economics, at all. we will come to that issue. there were a sort of. that issue. there were a sort of boundaries _ that issue. there were a sort of boundaries for _ that issue. there were a sort of boundaries for sage. _ that issue. there were a sort of boundaries for sage. quite - that issue. there were a sort of boundaries for sage. quite lot | that issue. there were a sort of. boundaries for sage. quite lot of the hard — boundaries for sage. quite lot of the hard work scientifically was done _ the hard work scientifically was done in — the hard work scientifically was done in the subcommittees and by the middle _ done in the subcommittees and by the middle of— done in the subcommittees and by the middle of 2020 there were quite a number— middle of 2020 there were quite a number of— middle of 2020 there were quite a number of subcommittees brought in experts _ number of subcommittees brought in experts in _ number of subcommittees brought in experts in areas relevant to, for example. — experts in areas relevant to, for example, social care to childcare and so _ example, social care to childcare and so on — example, social care to childcare and so om— and so on. may ask you then, directly. _ and so on. may ask you then, directly, professor, _ and so on. may ask you then, directly, professor, a - and so on. may ask you then, directly, professor, a number and so on. may ask you then, i directly, professor, a number of witnesses have spoken of how there was a deficiency of experts dealing specifically with matters such as infection control or community mobilisation? the public facing side of public health, as opposed to the biomedical specialists, of public health, as opposed to the biomedicalspecialists, dealing of public health, as opposed to the biomedical specialists, dealing with issues such as modelling and epidemiology and so on. i issues such as modelling and epidemiology and so on. i think, robabl epidemiology and so on. i think, probably sense, _ epidemiology and so on. i think, probably sense, you _ epidemiology and so on. i think, probably sense, you could - epidemiology and so on. i think, probably sense, you could make| epidemiology and so on. i think, | probably sense, you could make a case for _ probably sense, you could make a case for almost infinite numbers of scientists — case for almost infinite numbers of scientists. perfectly reasonably. i think— scientists. perfectly reasonably. i thinkthat. — scientists. perfectly reasonably. i think that, in the case of, for example. _ think that, in the case of, for example, ppe and all the various kind of— example, ppe and all the various kind of thing is the media was doing in terms _ kind of thing is the media was doing in terms of— kind of thing is the media was doing in terms of infection control, that was not _ in terms of infection control, that was not actually dealt with by sage, that was— was not actually dealt with by sage, that was dealt with completely separately on a four nations basis so the _ separately on a four nations basis so the scientist dealing with that, it was— so the scientist dealing with that, it was done by different strand. just as, — it was done by different strand. just as, for— it was done by different strand. just as, for example, the deployment of vaccines— just as, for example, the deployment of vaccines was done by the gc vi mechanism, not through sage put up is important _ mechanism, not through sage put up is important to understand that even for science _ is important to understand that even for science advice, only bits of science — for science advice, only bits of science advice that really sage was supposed _ science advice that really sage was supposed to and did have as its central— supposed to and did have as its central actions were things that were _ central actions were things that were advised to ministers on the more _ were advised to ministers on the more general areas and there are large _ more general areas and there are large numbers of other scientific bodies, — large numbers of other scientific bodies, formal and informal, feeding into other— bodies, formal and informal, feeding into other bits of advice, including into other bits of advice, including into government, but also to the medical— into government, but also to the medical profession and indeed to the general— medical profession and indeed to the general public. so i don't think sage _ general public. so i don't think sage should be seen as the only vehicle — sage should be seen as the only vehicle it — sage should be seen as the only vehicle. it was the vehicle, informally, it is the vehicle for getting — informally, it is the vehicle for getting science into cobra and in reality— getting science into cobra and in reality it — getting science into cobra and in reality it had a wider remit than that but— reality it had a wider remit than that but it — reality it had a wider remit than that but it was definitely bounded. but the _ that but it was definitely bounded. but the reality, professor, was that sage, which is, of course, the only soul or primary, perhaps, scientific advisory body for the government in the face of this pandemic, did include in its membership, a significant number of modellers by medics, behavioural scientists, there wasn't in fact a significant number of experts who were dealing with the coal face of how the pandemic might impact upon the country and, therefore, aware of what measures might have to be taken and recommended in terms of infection control, community mobilisation, intensive care. beyond the attendance of public health england and nhs are obviously attending the committee. would you agree? i attending the committee. would you auree? . attending the committee. would you a. ree? ., attending the committee. would you aree? . , ., ,, attending the committee. would you arree? ., , ., ,, agree? i have said previously, you could have — agree? i have said previously, you could have enormous _ agree? i have said previously, you could have enormous membership agree? i have said previously, you - could have enormous membership but sage's _ could have enormous membership but sage'sjob_ could have enormous membership but sage'sjob was not could have enormous membership but sage's job was not to either promulgate policy, promulgate practice, — promulgate policy, promulgate practice, although i was very keen and so _ practice, although i was very keen and so patrick was very keen that it only considered things that were practical. — only considered things that were practical, so discussing theoretical things— practical, so discussing theoretical things that were not practical was not a _ things that were not practical was not a good — things that were not practical was not a good use of time. but very many— not a good use of time. but very many of— not a good use of time. but very many of the scientific inputs to government were not for sage and i cannot— government were not for sage and i cannot repeat that strongly enough. sage was _ cannot repeat that strongly enough. sage was on the route for certain sorts— sage was on the route for certain sorts of— sage was on the route for certain sorts of questions. it was not the only mechanism by which government was in _ only mechanism by which government was in receipt of scientific advice. there _ was in receipt of scientific advice. there were — was in receipt of scientific advice. there were many other mechanisms for formal— there were many other mechanisms for formal and _ there were many other mechanisms for formal and informal.— formal and informal. would you acce -t formal and informal. would you accept that _ formal and informal. would you accept that the _ formal and informal. would you accept that the government - formal and informal. would you l accept that the government came formal and informal. would you - accept that the government came to see sage as the primary route of advice, dealing with all scientific aspects of the pandemic, and therefore, would have been the king, naturally, to sage to have reflected in its advice on appropriate elements of infection control and mobilisation and so on and so forth because sage was advising on non—pharmaceutical interventions and social interventions? yes. non-pharmaceutical interventions and social interventions?— social interventions? yes, i'm not actually disputing _ social interventions? yes, i'm not actually disputing the _ social interventions? yes, i'm not actually disputing the basis - social interventions? yes, i'm not actually disputing the basis on - actually disputing the basis on which — actually disputing the basis on which the question is being asked but i which the question is being asked but i think— which the question is being asked but i think you also have to accept that, _ but i think you also have to accept that, if— but i think you also have to accept that, if you — but i think you also have to accept that, if you want a challenge and if you want _ that, if you want a challenge and if you want and remembering, particularly, the beginning of sage we usually had maximum of two or three _ we usually had maximum of two or three hours— we usually had maximum of two or three hours between sage beginning and cobra _ three hours between sage beginning and cobra actually meeting. you do have to _ and cobra actually meeting. you do have to have a limit to the number of people — have to have a limit to the number of people who are around the table and you _ of people who are around the table and you do— of people who are around the table and you do have to make judgments. many— and you do have to make judgments. many of— and you do have to make judgments. many of which will not be ideal judgments. and it is not that they are not— judgments. and it is not that they are not the — judgments. and it is not that they are not the best, they are not, in our view, — are not the best, they are not, in our view, the _ are not the best, they are not, in our view, the best available, but other— our view, the best available, but other people could have come to a different _ other people could have come to a different set of conclusions about who should be around the table. but ithink— who should be around the table. but i think other people wouldn't do is come _ i think other people wouldn't do is come to— i think other people wouldn't do is come to a — i think other people wouldn't do is come to a different conclusion that it should _ come to a different conclusion that it should be infinitely larger. i think. — it should be infinitely larger. i think, whoever was chairing sage, would _ think, whoever was chairing sage, would say— think, whoever was chairing sage, would say there has to be a manageable limit where people can actually _ manageable limit where people can actually challenge one and other rather _ actually challenge one and other rather than simply everyone goes round _ rather than simply everyone goes round and — rather than simply everyone goes round and says their piece. because, if that— round and says their piece. because, if that is— round and says their piece. because, if that is the — round and says their piece. because, if that is the case, you might as well— if that is the case, you might as well not — if that is the case, you might as well not have sage at all. it has -ot well not have sage at all. it has got to _ well not have sage at all. it has got to be — well not have sage at all. it has got to be seen as, you know, discursive _ got to be seen as, you know, discursive and challenging environment, not simply a representative body of people reading — representative body of people reading out, this is my script for today _ reading out, this is my script for toda . ., , ,., reading out, this is my script for toda. ., , ., today. professor, the question wasn't biting — today. professor, the question wasn't biting as _ today. professor, the question wasn't biting as a _ today. professor, the question wasn't biting as a view - today. professor, the question wasn't biting as a view of - today. professor, the question i wasn't biting as a view of whether they should be infinite membership for a hugely expanded membership. it addressed the balance between members of the research and teaching institute, the buyer medics, the modellers and public health practitioners. given that, as is obvious, sage was formed and constituted itself, certainly in the ayes of the government, the scientific advice tab to the pandemic. would you agree that that balance wasn't correctly struck? i balance wasn't correctly struck? i agree that other people might have struck— agree that other people might have struck the _ agree that other people might have struck the balance differently, which — struck the balance differently, which is — struck the balance differently, which is a _ struck the balance differently, which is a different point completely and where they are the chief medical officer they could have come to a different conclusion but so _ have come to a different conclusion but so patrick and i took the view that. _ but so patrick and i took the view that. given — but so patrick and i took the view that, given the questions villagers are asking — that, given the questions villagers are asking anything i would like to differentiate maybe this is where some _ differentiate maybe this is where some of— differentiate maybe this is where some of the confusion comes from, sage _ some of the confusion comes from, sage only— some of the confusion comes from, sage only with the advised ministers and only— sage only with the advised ministers and only ministers for particular sets of— and only ministers for particular sets of questions. government is a much _ sets of questions. government is a much larger— sets of questions. government is a much larger body and was advised by multiple _ much larger body and was advised by multiple different routes. i think it is also. — multiple different routes. i think it is also, we need to be a little bit careful— it is also, we need to be a little bit careful that if you have the people. — bit careful that if you have the people, when they say sage didn't have all— people, when they say sage didn't have all the expertise, they actually _ have all the expertise, they actually mean is that sage didn't have _ actually mean is that sage didn't have their— actually mean is that sage didn't have their particular expertise and preferably them, that is a different thing _ preferably them, that is a different thing again. but i think many of the challenges — thing again. but i think many of the challenges were not quite legitimate. i got written to by specialist groups, as did sir patrick. _ specialist groups, as did sir patrick, distinguished groups of distinguished scientist, quite regularly, saying why are we not represented better on sage, and we are all— represented better on sage, and we are all legitimate questions. i'm not disputing this but i am saying have _ not disputing this but i am saying have to _ not disputing this but i am saying have to make a judgment at some point _ have to make a judgment at some point and — have to make a judgment at some point and you have to have a group which _ point and you have to have a group which is _ point and you have to have a group which is not — point and you have to have a group which is not unwieldy.— point and you have to have a group which is not unwieldy. don't wish to send too which is not unwieldy. don't wish to spend too much _ which is not unwieldy. don't wish to spend too much longer— which is not unwieldy. don't wish to spend too much longer on - which is not unwieldy. don't wish to spend too much longer on this - which is not unwieldy. don't wish to. spend too much longer on this point, professor put everything some of those witnesses may bulk at the proposition that they were only advocating a wider membership in order to reflect their own position. so make that is not what i was trying to say but i think they genuinely would feel that their expertise was one that this country would have benefited from the foot of a not disputing that but i'm just saying it was not often theology that wrote to say can we have more anthropology or anthropology wrote to say can we have more public health? �* . ., , ., health? and the argument that should be more experts _ health? and the argument that should be more experts with _ health? and the argument that should be more experts with infection - be more experts with infection control— be more experts with infection control and so on and so forth. and, as you _ control and so on and so forth. and, as you say. — control and so on and so forth. and, as you say, judgment call. in hindsight. _ as you say, judgment call. in hindsight, it is no doubt a proposition of which you would agree that there _ proposition of which you would agree that there should have been a greaterm _ that there should have been a greater... focus on that sort of discipline? _ greater... focus on that sort of discipline? get the maximum income in terms _ discipline? get the maximum income in terms of— discipline? get the maximum income in terms of the advice that, you've tot in terms of the advice that, you've got to— in terms of the advice that, you've got to remember that i also had the benefit _ got to remember that i also had the benefit of— got to remember that i also had the benefit of huge numbers of people giving _ benefit of huge numbers of people giving me — benefit of huge numbers of people giving me advice not to sage so, for example. _ giving me advice not to sage so, for example. i— giving me advice not to sage so, for example, i met regularly, regularly, with the— example, i met regularly, regularly, with the directors of public health across _ with the directors of public health across the — with the directors of public health across the entire country and extraordinarily able and dedicated and experienced group and they gave me public— and experienced group and they gave me public health advice from all parts _ me public health advice from all parts of— me public health advice from all parts of the country, not through the sage — parts of the country, not through the sage mechanism and though these mechanisms were replicated for sir patrick— mechanisms were replicated for sir patrick in— mechanisms were replicated for sir patrick in other areas and so on. i 'ust patrick in other areas and so on. i just think. — patrick in other areas and so on. i just think. i— patrick in other areas and so on. i just think, i think you should be a bit cautious — just think, i think you should be a bit cautious of implying that sage was the _ bit cautious of implying that sage was the sole mechanism by which science _ was the sole mechanism by which science entered government. it was one route _ science entered government. it was one route for one set of issues and ithink— one route for one set of issues and i think that — one route for one set of issues and i think that is where i think some of the _ i think that is where i think some of the understanding somewhere arise from _ of the understanding somewhere arise from in _ of the understanding somewhere arise from. , ., , . of the understanding somewhere arise from. ,~. , ., ,., of the understanding somewhere arise from. , ., ., from. in your statement you made the oint that from. in your statement you made the point that legitimate _ from. in your statement you made the point that legitimate outlier _ point that legitimate outlier opinions often tended to dominate media discussions but thejob of sage was to provide a central view of current science. central in whose view? . . of current science. central in whose view? . , ., view? that is part of the 'udgment of these. so — view? that is part of the 'udgment of these. so what _ view? that is part of the 'udgment of these. so what we _ view? that is part of the judgment of these. so what we wanted - view? that is part of the judgment of these. so what we wanted to i view? that is part of the judgmentj of these. so what we wanted to do with sage. — of these. so what we wanted to do with sage, and this is true for all sage. _ with sage, and this is true for all sage. not — with sage, and this is true for all sage, notjust true with sage, and this is true for all sage, not just true for with sage, and this is true for all sage, notjust true for this, is as best— sage, notjust true for this, is as best we — sage, notjust true for this, is as best we could, say, at this point in time. _ best we could, say, at this point in time. at _ best we could, say, at this point in time. at this— best we could, say, at this point in time, at this level of knowledge of this pandemic, as it happened, in this pandemic, as it happened, in this particular case, which, of course. — this particular case, which, of course, developed very substantially over the _ course, developed very substantially over the first 18 months of the pandemic, this is where we think the midpoint _ pandemic, this is where we think the midpoint of— pandemic, this is where we think the midpoint of national and indeed international science is. so it wasn't — international science is. so it wasn't the _ international science is. so it wasn't the job of sage to advocate for one _ wasn't the job of sage to advocate for one position or another, it was the job of— for one position or another, it was the job of sage to sense the midpoint and say to ministers, at this point— midpoint and say to ministers, at this point in— midpoint and say to ministers, at this point in time, here is the midpoint. _ this point in time, here is the midpoint, and also, at this point in time. _ midpoint, and also, at this point in time. here— midpoint, and also, at this point in time. here is— midpoint, and also, at this point in time, here is the spread. which, of course. _ time, here is the spread. which, of course. was — time, here is the spread. which, of course, was in some areas, quite narrow _ course, was in some areas, quite narrow. there are some areas where it was _ narrow. there are some areas where it was pretty — narrow. there are some areas where it was pretty universal agreement and then— it was pretty universal agreement and then quite a lot of areas where there _ and then quite a lot of areas where there is— and then quite a lot of areas where there is quite a widespread and it was appropriate and necessary that that was. _ was appropriate and necessary that that was, to the best of our ability. _ that was, to the best of our ability, reflected in the way we described it to ministers. one last ruestion described it to ministers. one last question on _ described it to ministers. one last question on this _ described it to ministers. one last question on this topic _ described it to ministers. one last question on this topic made - described it to ministers. one last question on this topic made by - described it to ministers. one lastl question on this topic made by me. elsewhere in your statement, in the context of describing how difficult it was to contemplate, injanuary and february, the notion that there might in due course have to be a full lockdown, mandatory stay at home order, effectively suppressing day—to—day life and closing all high—risk, welcome indeed, every major economic and social activity, and you say this, that the absence of contemplation of that notion, of that possibility, might be considered a failure of imagination by a group of scientists who understood the nature of epidemics and their history. if anybody was going to understand the lessons to be learned from past pandemics, and the necessary epidemiological lessons, it was surely the members of sage. what did you mean by that reference to a failure of imagination?— reference to a failure of imagination? reference to a failure of imauination? ~ _, ,, reference to a failure of imauination? . .., ~ ., imagination? welcome i think that, so, within sage, _ imagination? welcome i think that, so, within sage, certainly- imagination? welcome i think that, so, within sage, certainly i - imagination? welcome i think that, so, within sage, certainly i was. imagination? welcome i think that, | so, within sage, certainly i was one of the _ so, within sage, certainly i was one of the people he was most concerned that we _ of the people he was most concerned that we captured the reality of previous — that we captured the reality of previous pandemics. so let's start off with _ previous pandemics. so let's start off with that. and, for example, i was. _ off with that. and, for example, i was, throughout, and i think this has been — was, throughout, and i think this has been pointed out by some of the other— has been pointed out by some of the other witnesses, concerned about the fact that _ other witnesses, concerned about the fact that there would be a surge in winter. _ fact that there would be a surge in winter, irrespective of where the first wave — winter, irrespective of where the first wave occurred. and that was partly _ first wave occurred. and that was partly for — first wave occurred. and that was partly for logical reasons were partly — partly for logical reasons were partly because if you look back over the last. _ partly because if you look back over the last, the three significant flu pandemics, for example, in the 20th century. _ pandemics, for example, in the 20th century, starting in the 1918 one, the first— century, starting in the 1918 one, the first wave is actually fairly moderate. in the winter surge that followed _ moderate. in the winter surge that followed it— moderate. in the winter surge that followed it was, in fact, killed a lot more — followed it was, in fact, killed a lot more people than the first wave. that was— lot more people than the first wave. that was critical fatwas of that were _ that was critical fatwas of that were not— that was critical fatwas of that were not picked up in the modelling. that was— were not picked up in the modelling. that was not the reason that the modelling could not pick that up. it wasn't _ modelling could not pick that up. it wasn't derived from modelling. it wasn't derived from modelling. it was derived from common historical experience — was derived from common historical experience. so there is a lot of things— experience. so there is a lot of things that we could usefully pick up things that we could usefully pick up from — things that we could usefully pick up from previous pandemics. secondly. _ up from previous pandemics. secondly, within previous pandemics, lar-e secondly, within previous pandemics, large number of mp ayes had been used _ large number of mp ayes had been used and — large number of mp ayes had been used. and we were aware of them and modelled _ used. and we were aware of them and modelled them. including... is used. and we were aware of them and modelled them. including. . ._ modelled them. including... is that a reference — modelled them. including... is that a reference to _ modelled them. including... is that a reference to quarantines - modelled them. including... is that a reference to quarantines and... l modelled them. including... is that| a reference to quarantines and... so make self isolation and the like. school _ make self isolation and the like. school closures, stopping contact professions. these are things that have been— professions. these are things that have been done over decades or centuries — have been done over decades or centuries and these are mechanisms that were _ centuries and these are mechanisms that were well known. the idea of essentially, by law, looking down all of— essentially, by law, looking down all of society, is not something which _ all of society, is not something which had _ all of society, is not something which had previously been used. and you could _ which had previously been used. and you could argue, and i think it is a reasonable — you could argue, and i think it is a reasonable to argue, the bad is something we should have cottoned an earlier— something we should have cottoned an earlier stage. in reality, in my view. — earlier stage. in reality, in my view. the _ earlier stage. in reality, in my view, the band of situations when that would — view, the band of situations when that would be relevant is in fact relatively— that would be relevant is in fact relatively narrow. so if the pandemic was much milder, like the swine _ pandemic was much milder, like the swine flu _ pandemic was much milder, like the swine flu pandemic, then it would be seen quite _ swine flu pandemic, then it would be seen quite reasonably disproportionate. and end of the r was let— disproportionate. and end of the r was let it _ disproportionate. and end of the r was let it say, 12, rather than to be committed and probably not be affected _ be committed and probably not be affected because i wouldn't be the force of— affected because i wouldn't be the force of transmission would be too great _ force of transmission would be too treat. �* . force of transmission would be too treat. �* , ., i. force of transmission would be too treat. �* , ., ,~. . great. i'm 'ust going you there. we will be great. i'm just going you there. we will be coming _ great. i'm just going you there. we will be coming back, _ great. i'm just going you there. we will be coming back, of— great. i'm just going you there. we will be coming back, of course, - great. i'm just going you there. we will be coming back, of course, to l will be coming back, of course, to the epidemiologicaljustification for lockdown is in a later part of your evidence but, just on this point of principle, if there was a failure to cotton on to the notion of possibility of a mandatory stay at home order, does not necessarily follow that the government wasn't made aware, in good time, that possibility? that the government wasn't advised in good enough time that this was an option? and had sage been alert, perhaps, imaginatively, to this being a possible intervention, consideration would have been given to that possibility at an earlier and more appropriate stage? same again think what you see with sage and maybe we will come that later because there is quite a lot of layers of technical points behind it is ward sage was clearly advising by the time we get to the middle of march is that it ministers intended to prevent the nhs from being overwhelmed, which is one of the principal drivers, they had many others including reducing the loss of life, they were going to have to significantly reduce interactions between households and individuals. and there were a variety of ways this could be done that of the question about whether it was done by law, actually, is not a scientific question, it is apolitical and, to some extent, legal question, not a scientific one. now, when you say where they are aware of this possibility? what it clearly had been used by china, so that was very recent, it was all over the newspapers and politicians were aware that that possibility existed. and, indeed, started to be used across europe although not that far in advance, actually, of where we did it in the uk by a matter of daysin we did it in the uk by a matter of days in general. so the principle that this was actually available as a policy responds didn't require sage to make that point. that was just simply and minor commentary on what you'vejust said just simply and minor commentary on what you've just said but did sage look in detail at a mandatory lockdown in part of what they were thinking about an early and mid february? i think the answer is no and that is pretty clear from the minutes we did. we did, the other hand, look at ways of keeping household separated in terms of advice to stay at home. is household separated in terms of advice to stay at home. is provider of scientific — advice to stay at home. is provider of scientific advice _ advice to stay at home. is provider of scientific advice on _ advice to stay at home. is provider of scientific advice on these - advice to stay at home. is provider of scientific advice on these issues| of scientific advice on these issues to governments, surely it was incumbent on sage to put forward not the chinese, but sage to put forward as a possible policy response, the notion— as a possible policy response, the notion of— as a possible policy response, the notion of a — as a possible policy response, the notion of a lockdown and to do so in good _ notion of a lockdown and to do so in good time? — notion of a lockdown and to do so in good time? would you agree that general— good time? would you agree that general proposition question i can make _ general proposition question i can make you — general proposition question i can make you have in your many documents from me _ make you have in your many documents from me when and where i make the point _ from me when and where i make the point that— from me when and where i make the point that we need to find out how to get— point that we need to find out how to get are — point that we need to find out how to get are below one, which is the key thing — to get are below one, which is the key thing for getting away to turn over. _ key thing for getting away to turn over, which is really what we were talking _ over, which is really what we were talking about and i think the phrase i talking about and i think the phrase i used _ talking about and i think the phrase i used was — talking about and i think the phrase i used was that china had thrown the kitchen _ i used was that china had thrown the kitchen sink— i used was that china had thrown the kitchen sink at this and we needed to work— kitchen sink at this and we needed to work out— kitchen sink at this and we needed to work out what was the way we could _ to work out what was the way we could achieve it with the least... i am paraphrasing but you'll find the e-mail_ am paraphrasing but you'll find the e—mail there. am paraphrasing but you'll find the e—mailthere. it is am paraphrasing but you'll find the e—mail there. it is notjust my view — e—mail there. it is notjust my view that _ e—mail there. it is notjust my view. that would have been a shared view. that would have been a shared view around — view. that would have been a shared view around sage members. you know, you can _ view around sage members. you know, you can argue _ view around sage members. you know, you can argue that we should have gone _ you can argue that we should have gone for— you can argue that we should have gone for a — you can argue that we should have gone for a maximalist model. if, i think. _ gone for a maximalist model. if, i think. i_ gone for a maximalist model. if, i think. idon't— gone for a maximalist model. if, i think, i don't want to put anyone into a _ think, i don't want to put anyone into a difficult position, but were we to— into a difficult position, but were we to have — into a difficult position, but were we to have been instructed by ministers. _ we to have been instructed by ministers, what would happen if we did the _ ministers, what would happen if we did the chinese approach? that would be something which sage would undoubtably have looked at what of the question, actually, i think is would _ the question, actually, i think is would it— the question, actually, i think is would it have been appropriate for a group _ would it have been appropriate for a group of— would it have been appropriate for a group of scientists to come up with what i _ group of scientists to come up with what i consider to be a radical proposition to put it to government? ithink— proposition to put it to government? i think that _ proposition to put it to government? i think that is a debatable question, actually. but, you know, we were _ question, actually. but, you know, we were already very clearly making the case _ we were already very clearly making the case that we would need to significantly reduce interaction between households and lockdown one of the _ between households and lockdown one of the ways in which you can do that _ of the ways in which you can do that. white men were going to leave at their— that. white men were going to leave at their otherwise i will get protests. i shall return at 22. —— we are _ protests. i shall return at 22. —— we are going _ protests. i shall return at 22. —— we are going to leave it there. they're — we are going to leave it there. they're going to take and bake for ten or 15 minutes now. he of course became a household name during the covid pandemic flu to begin regular televised news briefings, didn't he? to the whole country. alongside their then prime minister boris johnson. he said during his two hours of giving evidence there that, with the benefit of hindsight, he said it we a bit too late during the first covid wave in 2020. he also rejected the idea that he warned against lockdown, saying he only made sure the downside of such actions were clear. as we know, we have been hearing for the past few weeks, the inquiry currently looking at pandemic decision—making. no one is going to be found guilty or innocent, they are trying to establish exactly what happened, how decisions were made so that, if it were to happen again, they could make the right decisions, certainly, the benefit of hindsight. will get more analysis on what he had a say in the past couple of hours shortly. now want to bring another story. a court in belfast has begun hearing a case challenging controversial legislation which would change the way in which killings during the troubles in northern ireland are investigated. the new system would grant a conditional amnesty to suspects who cooperate with the process to establish the facts behind the killings. it is opposed by nearly all victims groups who are arguing that it would breach human rights law. ministers have said they believe the legislation is in line with the uk's international obligations. well, the deputy director of amnesty international spoke to the press a little earlier alongside family members of victims. let's take a listen. you make today's case is usually significant. not only for the victims challenging this law but for every troubles victim having truth and justice to cruelly denied to them. we have repeatedly warned the uk government that if they push this through we will see them in court. that is what we're doing here today. today is day one in the fight back against this law. that prioritises perpetrators at the expense of victims rights. call on the irish government to swiftly make a decision to take the case. it is not right that the burden of legal challenge falls solely on the shoulders of victims. we know it has been said in recent days a decision will be eminent in the coming days and we call on them to follow through with their opposition to this law and take that case. i opposition to this law and take that case. . ., ., , opposition to this law and take that case. . ., ._ ., opposition to this law and take that case. . ., ., ., ., case. i am here today to fight for my husband _ case. i am here today to fight for my husband and _ case. i am here today to fight for my husband and for— case. i am here today to fight for my husband and for each - case. i am here today to fight for my husband and for each and - case. i am here today to fight for l my husband and for each and every other victim that needs this law to be changed and for the courts to please listen and help us. we are here today. _ please listen and help us. we are here today, the _ please listen and help us. we are here today, the uk _ please listen and help us. we are here today, the uk government | please listen and help us. we are - here today, the uk government passed a law which— here today, the uk government passed a law which denies us our rights, the rights — a law which denies us our rights, the rights of all the victims and we are here _ the rights of all the victims and we are here to— the rights of all the victims and we are here to fight that today. | the rights of all the victims and we are here to fight that today.- are here to fight that today. i have been fighting _ are here to fight that today. i have been fighting for— are here to fight that today. i have been fighting for 26 _ are here to fight that today. i have been fighting for 26 years - are here to fight that today. i have been fighting for 26 years and - are here to fight that today. i have been fighting for 26 years and i i are here to fight that today. i have | been fighting for 26 years and i am prepared to go another 26 years. i will go for as long as i have go until i get truth and justice for my husband. let as get more on the covid—19 inquiry, chris whitty has started to give evidence, he has spoken about how advice was given between him and sage, and how important it was to look at consequences and benefits of all advice. my all advice. my advice was the advice of sage, the advice of sage at this point was extremely clear that without actually would get to be in deep trouble. we said that from the 16th onwards, extremely clearly. it is important in giving advice that the downsides of the advice are also laid out. that is good medical practice, and also good civil service practice. it doesn't mean you do not think that the action should occur. by the time we got to the 23rd, the options available, unless we wish to see very heavy loss of life, work narrow, but they needed to hear the downsides nevertheless. sir patrick vallance chief medical officer gave his statement at the inquiry yesterday.