UK lockdown needed to be 'earlier, harder and broader', Sir Patrick Vallance says but admits there was no scientific basis behind 'rule of six'
Covid lockdowns should have been ‘harder’, ‘broader’ and introduced ‘earlier’, Sir Patrick Vallance hinted today.
Addressing the Covid Inquiry, No10’s former chief scientific adviser said it was the ‘most important lesson’ he learned during the pandemic.
His comment mirrors claims made by other influential scientists, who criticised the Government for being too slow to introduce the original blanket shutdown in March 2020.
Yet critics question whether drastic restrictions were ever needed, given the major knock-on effects they had on the economy, education and NHS.
It was also revealed today that Sir Chris Whitty had warned against more restrictive Covid measures.

Addressing the Covid Inquiry, No10’s former chief scientific adviser said it was the ‘most important lesson’ he learned during the pandemic
In diary extracts, Sir Patrick said his peer – who regularly appeared alongside him at Downing St press briefings – was ‘more cautious than me’ and ‘worried about pulling the trigger too soon’ and wanted to take a ‘slightly slower path’.
He told the inquiry his colleague was concerned ‘that there would be more than just the issue of the direct cause of death from the virus’.
While Sir Patrick said this was a ‘totally appropriate worry’, he disagreed.
In his witness statement to the Covid Inquiry, he said: ‘The most important lesson I learned and stated repeatedly from the first lockdown onwards, in respect to the timing of interventions, was that you had to go earlier than you would like, harder than you would like and broader than you would like.’
Explaining what he meant, he said: ‘As I mentioned, in the first wave I think we didn’t go early enough and there was a trickling of measures when I think we should have gone with more measures simultaneously.
‘So my rider that it’s “than you would like to” is very clear, and that is because the observation I made was that everyone’s instinct is to not to do any of these things.
‘It’s to delay just a bit too much, it’s to argue that the measures shouldn’t be quite as strict at the moment – and we saw this very clearly during October, where every MP argued that their areas shouldn’t be in a higher tier, they should be in a lower tier.
‘So, everyone’s arguing to do things just a little bit less than they should do.’
Addressing the probe, he also argued that similar mistakes were made later in the year when certain areas of England, including Leicester and Liverpool, were given further restrictions over the spread of the virus.
Sir Patrick, who was tasked with advising ministers throughout the pandemic, also later admitted to the inquiry there was no basis for the ‘rule of six’, the law banning gatherings of more than six people at certain points in the pandemic.
Sir Patrick, who headed up SAGE before standing down from his £185,000-a-year role, said: ‘We were pretty clear that we didn’t actually think that had an enormous basis in anything.
‘Why six? Why not eight? Why not ten? We couldn’t tell anyone which was better or worse.’
The rule was first introduced in September 2020 across England to prohibit social gatherings of more than six people.

In diary extracts, Sir Patrick said Sir Chris Whitty – who regularly appeared alongside him at Downing St press briefings – was ‘more cautious than me’ and ‘worried about pulling the trigger too soon’ and wanted to take a ‘slightly slower path’
In Scotland and Wales such gatherings were also outlawed – but children under 12 were exempt.
Sir Patrick argued restrictions were ‘not the easy option’, adding ‘we were aware at all times that these carried particular risks’.
In further revelations, the inquiry was also shown diary entries from Sir Patrick on October 25, 2020, when the country was heading towards a second national lockdown, claiming Dominic Cummings suggested Mr Sunak thought it was ‘okay’ to just let people die.
The extract read: ‘DC [Mr Cummings] says ‘Rishi thinks just let people die and that’s okay’. This all feels like a complete lack of leadership.’
In the same extract, it was said that Boris Johnson had argued to ‘let it rip’. The then-PM, according to Sir Patrick’s diary, said there would be more casualties but they ‘have had a good innings’.
Asked about the diary entry, Sir Patrick told the inquiry he was recording what must have been ‘quite a shambolic day’.
Earlier today, the inquiry also heard that former health secretary Matt Hancock had a ‘habit’ of saying things which were not true during Covid.
Asked to summarise his time working with Mr Hancock, Sir Patrick said: ‘I think he had a habit of saying things which he didn’t have a basis for and he would say them too enthusiastically too early, without the evidence to back them up, and then have to backtrack from them days later.’
He added: ‘He definitely said things which surprised me because I knew that the evidence base wasn’t there.’
When asked by inquiry counsel Andrew O’Connor if this meant he ‘said things that weren’t true’, Sir Patrick answered ‘yes’.
Mr Hancock was also earlier this year described as a ‘proven liar’ by Boris Johnson’s maverick former aide Dominic Cummings, who pushed for him to be sacked.
READ RELATED: Nicki Swift Unveils Which Celebrity Exes Fans Think Have The Best Relationship Today – Exclusive Survey
Concerns over Mr Hancock’s candour were also echoed by Lord Mark Sedwill, who was Cabinet Secretary in 2020.
And Helen MacNamara, who served as deputy cabinet secretary, also claimed in her evidence that Mr Hancock displayed ‘nuclear levels’ of overconfidence and a pattern of reassuring colleagues the pandemic was being dealt with in ways that were not true.