Covid inquiry: Sir Patrick Vallance says scientists "used as human shields" by government

Top scientists were "used as human shields" by the government during the Covid-19 pandemic, according to the chief scientific adviser.

As the UK's Covid-19 inquiry continues, evidence has been submitted by Sir Patrick Vallance, who headed up the Government Office for Science in the pandemic. He says the scientists were not involved in policy making - despite the government claiming to "follow the science".

During the pandemic he kept a diary, with extracts from this being read out to the inquiry panel. On one day he wrote that Downing Street was "chaos as usual" and wrote that prime minister Boris Johnson was "all over the place".

"On Friday, the two-metre rule meeting made it abundantly clear that no one in Number 10 or the cabinet office had really read or taken time to understand the science advice on two metres," he added.

"Quite extraordinary.

"[Boris Johnson is] so inconsistent, it’s like bipolar decision-making."

A submission from the British Medical Association (BMA) said the UK Government failed to “provide clear, consistent and visible public health messaging” throughout the pandemic, including on working from home and socialising.

It said: “The Eat Out to Help Out initiative encouraged social mixing and confused public health messaging during 2020, suggesting that it was safe for people to socialise before vaccines were available and when the risks of Covid-19 remained high.

“In 2020 alone, the government campaign around working from home initially encouraged it, then required it, then encouraged it again, then strongly discouraged it, then encouraged it again and then required it again.

“This pattern continued throughout 2021 and into 2022. This lack of clarity and consistency undermines the public’s understanding of and confidence in core public health messaging.

“Further, high-profile failures of MPs, senior advisers and civil servants to adhere to the rules fuelled mistrust and misinformation and further impacted the effectiveness of public health messaging.”