past two, when we will be five past two, when we will be hearing from doctor ben weiner. now, just to remind you who he is, he is a former downing street adviser and earlier we heard from a former adviser to the treasury. also, speaking earlier, was a former civil servant on it the prime minister's team. you will remember him because he featured in one of those pictures that many of us are familiar with now with the tinsel, the green tinsel hanging around his neck. so, thatis tinsel hanging around his neck. so, that is who we are going to be hearing from later. just to bring you a little bit more, the former chief economic adviser who is currently an economist, she was also the government's chief economist adviser for five years, she actually left the treasury earlier this year.

the former deputy principal to the prime minister and obviously, one of the reasons he is appearing, in fact, most of the people appearing, is that they were required to appear and, also, to share the unredacted, any unredacted whatsapp messages, that had been shared with the former prime minister, borisjohnson. prime minister, boris johnson. stuart, prime minister, borisjohnson. stuart, who spokejust prime minister, borisjohnson. stuart, who spoke just before the lunch break was known and described as the link person between the treasury and number ten, one of the highest ranking civil servants. so we will come back to that shortly when the court reconvenes. we are going to take you to the in a moment but, first, we have got a developing story here in the uk. that is planned by british steel to close

down its glass furnaces at its scunthorpe plant, putting up to 2000 jobs at risk. the business wants to replace them with two electric arc furnaces. 0ne replace them with two electric arc furnaces. one at scunthorpe itself and another at teesside. so, for context, a blast furnace, what is it? well, it is fuelled by coal and can use high temperatures capable of smelting iron directly to create steel but they do emit more greenhouse gases and require greater manpower. electric furnaces are mostly used to melt down and re—purpose scrap steel with the end product quite the same grade of original pure steel as produced in those blast furnaces. and it is not always suitable for all industrial uses. but they can be powered by renewable energy sources. and that is key. welcome earlier, i spoke to our business editor and he began by

explaining and telling us a little bit more about furnaces. the? explaining and telling us a little bit more about furnaces. they are carbon energy _ bit more about furnaces. they are carbon energy and _ bit more about furnaces. they are carbon energy and labour - bit more about furnaces. they are i carbon energy and labour intensive. the plans to shut those two in sunderland and open to electric arc furnaces. use electricity, work at lower temperatures, less intensive and less labour—intensive. the company and the uk government say there is up at the uk steel industry on a greener and more financially sustainable footing. these plants are actually losing money however, unions are worried about the labour—intensive bit of it and it seems they think that in the fullness of time, the headcount of british steel would go from something like 4000 are possibly around 2000. they want to scrutinise these plans in detail. in the unions warn that if they close these blast furnaces, along with plans by another steel—maker in south wales to close their blast furnaces, the uk will lose its ability to create virgin steel and rely on imports for

that critical in some functions such as india, china and elsewhere. they say that would be a strategic mistake. these plans will be scrutinised. the government is providing support to british steel, owned by a chinese firm, thought to be between three and £5 million. they are taking a big chunk of that one and a quarter billion pounds what everyone recognises that the steel industry needs to decarbonise, unions say they are doing it too fast with too much of a heavy toll on the workforce.— fast with too much of a heavy toll on the workforce. simon, “ust very cuickl , on the workforce. simon, “ust very quickly. what i on the workforce. simon, “ust very quickly, what nowh on the workforce. simon, just very quickly, what now happens - on the workforce. simon, just very quickly, what now happens next? | quickly, what now happens next? element well, what the company have agreed to do is submit these plans to an external panel of experts to look at the feasibility of it, the necessity of doing it. i think you will find that what the government and the industry would say is that if we don't do this, then we jeopardise the very future of the uk steel industry. the jeopardise the very future of the uk steel industry-— steel industry. the union say we do this to quickly _ steel industry. the union say we do this to quickly take _ steel industry. the union say we do this to quickly take an _ steel industry. the union say we do| this to quickly take an unreasonably harsh toll on a workforce in areas

where these are very significant employers. where these are very significant employers-— where these are very significant emlo ers. . ,, ., _, . ~ employers. that were simon jack s-ueakin employers. that were simon jack speaking to _ employers. that were simon jack speaking to me _ employers. that were simon jack speaking to me earlier. - employers. that were simon jack speaking to me earlier. let's - employers. that were simon jack i speaking to me earlier. let's return to the covid inquiry now. and a warning from the outset that this hearing could contain some offensive language. 0ur news correspondent is standing by outside the main building where the inquiry is being held. and that is in central london. first off, this is week five now of module to. remind as who we heard from earlier and who we will be hearing from once the inquiry starts. ~ ., ., starts. well, we heard from the chief economic _ starts. well, we heard from the chief economic adviser - starts. well, we heard from the chief economic adviser to - starts. well, we heard from the chief economic adviser to the i chief economic adviser to the treasury at the time. we also heard from the deputy principal private secretary to boris johnson. from the deputy principal private secretary to borisjohnson. i think what is really significant this morning is that what the several headlines that came out were talking

about, essentially, the relations between the treasury and some of the decisions made by the treasury shortly before lockdown and during lockdown. and i think why that is significant, of course, is who was in charge of the treasury at the time, the chancellor rushes in a candy is now the prime minister. i think what you have got this morning as a conversation about a politician who serving, not only still seven, he is still running the country. whereas what we had in previous weeks was plenty of criticism about borisjohnson and other officials of our subsequently left. now, the significance, of course, given the uk, to all of that, as tomorrow we get the kings speech where rishi sunak will be laying out a lot of his legislative plans for the next year. and very much trying to set himself up as the change candidate ahead of a general election here in the uk whereas today, we're talking about covid, we are talking about years ago and some of the decisions he made. some of those that he made a chancellor had been subsequently

seen as, you know, plenty of critics about the eat out to help out scheme. that was talked about this morning and it was talked about how that wasn't put past scientists. scientists were not consulted ahead of the eat out to help out scheme and it was an issue we heard from the chief scientific 0fficer, and it was an issue we heard from the chief scientific officer, the chief medical officer who didn't know about it before it was launched. so, as i say, the significance is exactly who was in charge, and it was rishi sunak. then we heard from _ charge, and it was rishi sunak. then we heard from stewart _ charge, and it was rishi sunak. then we heard from stewart who was the former deputy principal private secretary to the prime minister. why was he appearing?— was he appearing? well, as you say, because basically, _ was he appearing? well, as you say, because basically, his _ was he appearing? well, as you say, because basically, his role _ was he appearing? well, as you say, because basically, his role with - was he appearing? well, as you say, because basically, his role with the l because basically, his role with the prime minister and the fact that he worked so closely, it was as well, he said, to basically coordinate meetings between key advisers and different departments. he got, essentially, a first—hand view on what was going on and the decisions that were being made and all of us

speak you heard plenty about that, didn't we? read about dominic cummings, borisjohnson's chief, essentially, is chief of staff. we had from the director of communications. all painting this very difficult picture of boris johnson, a sort of dysfunctional, chaotic view of how decisions were made within number ten. as i say, todayis made within number ten. as i say, today is very much looking at some of those decisions made with the treasury. stewart was asked about how the decisions were made and how the relationship was with the treasury. the relationship was with the treasu . �* ., ., , ., treasury. i'm going to “ump in, i do apologise. — treasury. i'm going to “ump in, i do apologise. because _ treasury. i'm going tojump in, i do apologise. because the _ treasury. i'm going tojump in, i do apologise. because the inquiry - treasury. i'm going tojump in, i do apologise. because the inquiry is i apologise. because the inquiry is about to restart and the gentlemen, i think that is, being sworn in as doctor ben warner. let's listen into that. ., , ., , doctor ben warner. let's listen into that. ., , that. could you give us your full name, please? _

that. could you give us your full name, please? ben— that. could you give us your full name, please? ben warner. - that. could you give us your full| name, please? ben warner. you that. could you give us your full- name, please? ben warner. you have kindl a name, please? ben warner. you have kindly a statement _ name, please? ben warner. you have kindly a statement at _ name, please? ben warner. you have kindly a statement at our _ name, please? ben warner. you have kindly a statement at our request - kindly a statement at our request which is up on screen and it runs to some 80 or so pages. i know that you've read it through before you came here today and there are a couple of very small amendments that you want to make to it which i'm not going to about them as they really are very minor indeed. but with those amendments having been made, are you confident that the contents of this statement are true to the best of your knowledge and belief? yes. ., ~ best of your knowledge and belief? yes. . ,, , ., best of your knowledge and belief? yes. . ,, ,, ., best of your knowledge and belief? yes. . ,, ., _, best of your knowledge and belief? yes. ., ., _, yes. thank you. doctor warner, you are, b yes. thank you. doctor warner, you are. by training. _ yes. thank you. doctor warner, you are. by training. a — yes. thank you. doctor warner, you are, by training, a scientist, - yes. thank you. doctor warner, you are, by training, a scientist, you - are, by training, a scientist, you not? , in are, by training, a scientist, you not?- in fact. _ are, by training, a scientist, you not?- in fact, you _ are, by training, a scientist, you not? yes. in fact, you describe your witness statement, that you took a phd in molecular physics. {lose phd in molecular physics. close enou~h, phd in molecular physics. close enough. yes- — phd in molecular physics. close enough, yes. thank _ phd in molecular physics. close enough, yes. thank you. - phd in molecular physics. close enough, yes. thank you. and . phd in molecular physics. close . enough, yes. thank you. and that, havin: enough, yes. thank you. and that, having obtained _ enough, yes. thank you. and that, having obtained that _ enough, yes. thank you. and that, having obtained that qualification, | having obtained that qualification, you undertook postdoctoral research

at engineering and physical, the physical and engineering sciences research council. i'd make that as the title of the research fellow, the title of the research fellow, the fellowship was at university couege the fellowship was at university college london. thank you. and thereafter, and we are on about 2015 now, you worked for a data science company run by your brother, mark warner, is that right?— company run by your brother, mark warner, is that right? marco founded it with a number _ warner, is that right? marco founded it with a number of _ warner, is that right? marco founded it with a number of people _ warner, is that right? marco founded it with a number of people and - warner, is that right? marco founded it with a number of people and he - warner, is that right? marco founded it with a number of people and he is. it with a number of people and he is the ceo, yes. find it with a number of people and he is the ceo. yes-— the ceo, yes. and you work there? yes. you refine _ the ceo, yes. and you work there? yes. you refine your— the ceo, yes. and you work there? yes. you refine your witness - yes. you refine your witness statement to machine learning been one of the matters that you focused one of the matters that you focused on at that stage?— one of the matters that you focused on at that stage? yes. and you also sa that, on at that stage? yes. and you also say that. in — on at that stage? yes. and you also say that, in parallel, so, at the time, after 2015, that you are working with your brother, you are also advising both government and also advising both government and also the commercial sector on data

science, artificial intelligence, matters like that? is science, artificial intelligence, matters like that?— science, artificial intelligence, matters like that? is part of my work as an _ matters like that? is part of my work as an employee _ matters like that? is part of my work as an employee of - matters like that? is part of my| work as an employee of faculty, matters like that? is part of my i work as an employee of faculty, i advised the government, ftse 100 advised the government, ftse100 companies and start—ups, as it says a witness statement. you make was at that time, i was perhaps wrong to say, it was in parallel with your job? moving forward a little bit in the chronology. you say that you were recruited to work at number ten, immediately following the december 2019 election. yes. is it riaht december 2019 election. yes. is it ri . ht that december 2019 election. yes. is it right that you _ december2019 election. yes. is it right that you were recruited by dominic cummings? the right that you were recruited by dominic cumminus? .., ., , dominic cummings? the conversations i had were dominic _ dominic cummings? the conversations i had were dominic cummings, - dominic cummings? the conversations i had were dominic cummings, yes. i i had were dominic cummings, yes. and the purpose of your employment, the whole idea was that he would try and push forward the use of analysis and push forward the use of analysis and technology in government jogging. and technology in government jogging, no doubt, and the experience we havejust jogging, no doubt, and the experience we have just mentioned? yes. it experience we have “ust mentioned? yes. . experience we have “ust mentioned? yes. , , �* experience we have “ust mentioned? yes. . . �* .. experience we have “ust mentioned? yes. , , �* ., yes. it is right, isn't it? that you had worked _ yes. it is right, isn't it? that you had worked on _ yes. it is right, isn't it? that you

had worked on the _ yes. it is right, isn't it? that you had worked on the vote - yes. it is right, isn't it? that you had worked on the vote of- yes. it is right, isn't it? that you had worked on the vote of the i had worked on the vote of the campaign, orso had worked on the vote of the campaign, or so before the election. yes. is campaign, or so before the election. yes. . ., , ., campaign, or so before the election. yes. . .. , ., ., yes. is it right that you therefore knew dominic _ yes. is it right that you therefore knew dominic cummings - yes. is it right that you therefore knew dominic cummings from i yes. is it right that you therefore i knew dominic cummings from those days? knew dominic cummings from those da s? . knew dominic cummings from those days? yes. presumably also new boris johnson as well. _ days? yes. presumably also new boris johnson as well. no. _ days? yes. presumably also new boris johnson as well. no. you _ days? yes. presumably also new boris johnson as well. no. you could - days? yes. presumably also new boris johnson as well. no. you could you i johnson as well. no. you could you not come across _ johnson as well. no. you could you not come across him _ johnson as well. no. you could you not come across him during - johnson as well. no. you could you not come across him during the i johnson as well. no. you could you. not come across him during the vote leave campaign? i believe i've never spoken to dominic, sorry, to boris johnson, during the vote leave campaign. johnson, during the vote leave campaign-— johnson, during the vote leave camaiun. . ., . ., campaign. just to finish off on the start off, campaign. just to finish off on the start off. as _ campaign. just to finish off on the start off. as it _ campaign. just to finish off on the start off, as it were, _ campaign. just to finish off on the start off, as it were, on _ campaign. just to finish off on the start off, as it were, on your i start off, as it were, on your experience in downing street, you describing your statement that you were, as a matter of formality, a special adviser. were, as a matter of formality, a specialadviser. but were, as a matter of formality, a special adviser. but you emphasise that it wasn't your role to advise on political matters in the way that we might normally expect of a special adviser. indeed, you say you had no expertise in the wider westminster political ecosystem. is that right. i

westminster political ecosystem. is that riuht. .. westminster political ecosystem. is that riuht. ., ., ., that right. i mean, howl have described _ that right. i mean, howl have described it _ that right. i mean, howl have described it in _ that right. i mean, howl have described it in my _ that right. i mean, howl have described it in my witness i that right. i mean, howl have - described it in my witness statement is probably the most precise i can be. is is probably the most precise i can be. . .. is probably the most precise i can be. , ., ., , ., , ., be. is that fair summary i have uiven? be. is that fair summary i have given? yes- — be. is that fair summary i have given? yes. tell— be. is that fair summary i have given? yes. tell us _ be. is that fair summary i have given? yes. tell us this. i be. is that fair summary i have given? yes. tell us this. whenj be. is that fair summary i have i given? yes. tell us this. when you started your _ given? yes. tell us this. when you started youriob. — given? yes. tell us this. when you started yourjob, then, in december 2019, how are you expecting it to develop? what were you expecting to be engaged on during your time at downing street? i it be engaged on during your time at downing street?— downing street? i it like any other engagement _ downing street? i it like any other engagement that _ downing street? i it like any other engagement that i've _ downing street? i it like any other engagement that i've done - engagement that i've done previously. 0ften companies that lack expertise in these areas, understandably don't know the best way to move forward. so the first part was just to learn the sort of state of the landscape at that point in time. di state of the landscape at that point in time. . ., . state of the landscape at that point in time. _, , ., in time. of course, we were all conscious _ in time. of course, we were all conscious of — in time. of course, we were all conscious of the _ in time. of course, we were all conscious of the date _ in time. of course, we were all conscious of the date and, i in time. of course, we were all i conscious of the date and, within, really, a month or two of you arriving in downing street, the pandemic began and a large amount of your time,

pandemic began and a large amount of yourtime, not pandemic began and a large amount of your time, not all of it, you explained in your statement, but a large amount of time was taken up with matters relating to the pandemic. in summary. i with matters relating to the pandemic. in summary. i think that, over the early _ pandemic. in summary. i think that, over the early period, _ pandemic. in summary. i think that, over the early period, that _ pandemic. in summary. i think that, over the early period, that is - pandemic. in summary. i think that, over the early period, that is true. l over the early period, that is true. but towards the later period, that would not be true. bud but towards the later period, that would not be true.— would not be true. and “ust to be clear, would not be true. and “ust to be ceanl you — would not be true. and “ust to be ceanl you h would not be true. and “ust to be clear, you are in i would not be true. and “ust to be clear, you are in fact i would not be true. and just to be clear, you are in fact left - would not be true. and just to be | clear, you are in fact left downing street in may of 2021.— clear, you are in fact left downing street in may of 2021. sorry, i was referrin: street in may of 2021. sorry, i was referring to _ street in may of 2021. sorry, i was referring to the _ street in may of 2021. sorry, i was referring to the later _ street in may of 2021. sorry, i was referring to the later period - street in may of 2021. sorry, i was referring to the later period of- street in may of 2021. sorry, i was referring to the later period of my | referring to the later period of my time at number ten, not the later period of the pandemic.— time at number ten, not the later period of the pandemic. decide that ou left period of the pandemic. decide that you left downing — period of the pandemic. decide that you left downing street _ period of the pandemic. decide that you left downing street in _ period of the pandemic. decide that you left downing street in may i period of the pandemic. decide thatl you left downing street in may 2021. “p you left downing street in may 2021. up to you left downing street in may 2021. u = ., ,., y ., you left downing street in may 2021. up to the point you made, the early eriod but up to the point you made, the early period but you _ up to the point you made, the early period but you mean, _ up to the point you made, the early period but you mean, shall- up to the point you made, the early period but you mean, shall we i up to the point you made, the early period but you mean, shall we say, | period but you mean, shall we say, the first—half of 2020? yes. and the first-half of 2020? yes. and then your _ the first—half of 2020? yes. and then your involvement from later on in 2020 and early 2021 was reduced? yes. .. ~' , ., in 2020 and early 2021 was reduced? yes. ., ,, , ., ., in 2020 and early 2021 was reduced? yes. ., ~' ., �*, in 2020 and early 2021 was reduced? yes. ., ,, i. ., �*, ., ,, yes. thank you. now, let's talk, then come _ yes. thank you. now, let's talk, then come about _ yes. thank you. now, let's talk, then come about that _ yes. thank you. now, let's talk, then come about that period i yes. thank you. now, let's talk, then come about that period the first—half of 2020. and, just by way

of context, you describing your witness statement, very early weeks of the year, being engaged in other projects. you probably... welcome i think you say you'd heard of the pandemic starting in china from the scientific press but it wasn't a matter of everyday concern for you in early january. you matter of everyday concern for you in earlyjanuary. you refer, for example, to working on the hst project during that time. yes. but ou did, project during that time. yes. but you did. quite _ project during that time. yes. but you did, quite shortly thereafter, become involved in the day—to—day response to covid 19 and it may have been that exercise nimbus, which took place on the 12th of february, was the first occasion when you, as it were, had a formal involvement in the sense of an appointment in your diary requiring you to undertake something to do with the pandemic. yes, my calendar, especially come

over that early period, probably is not a great reflection of my activities but, like you say, the first calendar that we can show is definitely covid, is that nimbus exercise. �* .. . .. exercise. and as we were here, and we will come _ exercise. and as we were here, and we will come to _ exercise. and as we were here, and we will come to this _ exercise. and as we were here, and we will come to this and _ exercise. and as we were here, and we will come to this and a - exercise. and as we were here, and we will come to this and a bit i exercise. and as we were here, and we will come to this and a bit more | we will come to this and a bit more detail, after that, so, after the 12th of february, you started to attend scientific committee meetings, for example, sage. and i think most people here, there may been other committees as well. and so, the rhythm of your involvement increased over that period. yes. and our increased over that period. yes. and your statement describes, and this is really one of the themes that i want to explore, how you became convinced that the mitigation strategy, which we have all heard about, and which was being pursued at the time, was flawed in the sense that, as the understanding of the

pandemic develops, you became convinced that it would lead to an nhs, to the nhs being overwhelmed. which would itself cause a greatly increased fatalities. is that right? i became convinced the strategy was the incorrect one, yes. and was that of his party to do with the fact it would cause nhs overwhelm? yes. thank you- — would cause nhs overwhelm? yes. thank you- so. _ would cause nhs overwhelm? yes. thank you. so, as _ would cause nhs overwhelm? yes. thank you. so, as i _ would cause nhs overwhelm? yes. thank you. so, as i say, _ would cause nhs overwhelm? yes. thank you. so, as i say, i— would cause nhs overwhelm? yes. thank you. so, as i say, i would a moment, to review what you were doing, what took place, the note she made during that period. with that being at least one of the issues we focus on. before i do that, i wanted just to raise a couple of short introductory points. the first, can we go to paragraph 95 of your statement, please, on page 27? and it is the sentence or two at the beginning of that paragraph, doctor warner. you say it is not necessary to perform large—scale simulations

to perform large—scale simulations to understand the main thoughts of a mitigation versus suppression strategy. simple calculations allow for reasonable approximations of the outcome and i would have been carrying out calculations of this type. carrying out calculations of this e, ., ., carrying out calculations of this type. have had a lot of evidence, doctor warner, _ type. have had a lot of evidence, doctor warner, about _ type. have had a lot of evidence, doctor warner, about modelling l type. have had a lot of evidence, i doctor warner, about modelling and about how complicated and if you like, inaccessible, otherthan to experts, those model processes can be. are you trying to make the point here that one can understand in broad terms things like the difference between the mitigation and the suppression policies, strategies, without actually needing to undertake complicated modelling? yes. i think, to undertake complicated modelling? yes. ithink, you know, the, as discussed in my statement, i'm really talking about reasonably simple epidemiology. pond really talking about reasonably simple epidemiology.- really talking about reasonably simple epidemiology. and is to give a sort of example _

simple epidemiology. and is to give a sort of example of— simple epidemiology. and is to give a sort of example of the _ simple epidemiology. and is to give a sort of example of the point i simple epidemiology. and is to givej a sort of example of the point which you may well be trying to make, can i ask you to look at an e—mail, please? just make this clear, this isn't an e—mail that you are party to at the time it was sent. the inquiry has already looked at it. it was an e—mail sent injanuary, january 25 by professor woolhouse, who the inquiry has heard from. two new ferguson who you knew at around this time and also someone else. and we see here that he is sharing with them some concerns that he had a bad early stage, but covid, and asking himself the question, how bad is it going to get? and referring to what he describes as two key numbers which he had seen the who statement. that is our, the reproduction number and the case fatality rate of 4%. he also refers to a generation time which he said he could make a guess

at and then he says perhaps if we drop down to paragraphs, he refers to some arithmetic which, as he puts it, his undergraduate class could work out with a pocket calculator in a few minutes. and then a paragraph above, what the arithmetic is, he says we take those numbers at face value, we quickly get double pack estimate of almost half the people in the uk getting this infection over a year or so. at least doubling the gross mortality rate, much more during the epidemic peak, and are completely overwhelmed health system. now, there is, of course, his ballpark calculations. but is that the type of rough calculation that the type of rough calculation that you had in mind in that paragraph of your statement? yes. that you had in mind in that paragraph of your statement? yes, i am almost certain _ paragraph of your statement? yes, i am almost certain he _ paragraph of your statement? yes, i am almost certain he is _ paragraph of your statement? yes, i am almost certain he is referring i paragraph of your statement? yes, i am almost certain he is referring to | am almost certain he is referring to the same equations that i am talking about. you're the man so we can see that those sorts of equations give you a ready reckoner on likely

mortality rates, the likely period and epidemic me last, and the impact on the nhs. is that fair? i'm not sure how you get the timescale of the epidemic at the other two are true. .. ~ the epidemic at the other two are true. ., ,, i. �*, ., ., true. thank you. let's move on, then come and look _ true. thank you. let's move on, then come and look back— true. thank you. let's move on, then come and look back at _ true. thank you. let's move on, then come and look back at your _ true. thank you. let's move on, then come and look back at your own i come and look back at your own personal involvement. and we can do that, if we may, by going to paragraphs 32 and 33 of your witness statement, to start with, page 11. and we've touched on this, but you describe that market as at 33 when you say that the first event was this nimbus exercise in the paragraph above you say that you very likely came across covid meetings or discussions before that

but you can't pin that down now. so nimbus on the 12th of february, you refer to being an observer there and it was, as we have heard, ministerial table top exercise. you remember where it took place? in cobra. remember where it took place? in cobra- right- _ remember where it took place? in cobra. right. and, _ remember where it took place? in cobra. right. and, as _ remember where it took place? in cobra. right. and, as you - remember where it took place? in cobra. right. and, as you say, i remember where it took place? in | cobra. right. and, as you say, the ob'ective cobra. right. and, as you say, the objective was _ cobra. right. and, as you say, the objective was to _ cobra. right. and, as you say, the objective was to expose _ cobra. right. and, as you say, the objective was to expose ministers| cobra. right. and, as you say, the l objective was to expose ministers to decisions they might be expected to take during a pandemic, in the reasonable worst case scenario. now, heard something about that concept of a reasonable worst—case scenario. what did that term mean to you or does it mean to you? at what did that term mean to you or does it mean to you?— what did that term mean to you or does it mean to you? at this time or now? at the — does it mean to you? at this time or now? at the time. _ does it mean to you? at this time or now? at the time. at _ does it mean to you? at this time or now? at the time. at the _ does it mean to you? at this time or now? at the time. at the time, - does it mean to you? at this time or now? at the time. at the time, i... | now? at the time. at the time, i... in this meeting. — now? at the time. at the time, i... in this meeting, actually, _ now? at the time. at the time, i... in this meeting, actually, i - now? at the time. at the time, i... in this meeting, actually, i cannot. in this meeting, actually, i cannot tell you what i thought. you let me put it this way. i am sure you knew

that this was supposed to be a reasonable worst—case scenario and thatis reasonable worst—case scenario and that is in their slides and we will see, it was discussed at the meeting itself. , ., , ., ., itself. so, did you understand that the scenario _ itself. so, did you understand that the scenario being _ itself. so, did you understand that the scenario being discussed - itself. so, did you understand that the scenario being discussed was. the scenario being discussed was something that was predicted as likely to happen, or something that might happen, perhaps the worst end of the spectrum i do not know? i cannot speak to that. let - of the spectrum i do not know? i cannot speak to that. let us - of the spectrum i do not know? i cannot speak to that. let us go, | cannot speak to that. let us go, then, to cannot speak to that. let us go, then. to some _ cannot speak to that. let us go, then, to some of— cannot speak to that. let us go, then, to some of the _ cannot speak to that. let us go, | then, to some of the documents cannot speak to that. let us go, - then, to some of the documents that are associated with the nimbus. and to start with, perhaps we can look briefly, because we did look at this document at the end of last week, at the briefing pack which is five to zero to two. i'm sure you've looked at this document, dr warner, but do

you remember seeing it at the time? yes. , ., u, , ., yes. lets go, if we can, first of all 20 page _ yes. lets go, if we can, first of all 20 page seven, _ yes. lets go, if we can, first of all 20 page seven, where - yes. lets go, if we can, first of all 20 page seven, where we . yes. lets go, if we can, first of i all 20 page seven, where we see yes. lets go, if we can, first of - all 20 page seven, where we see what is described as the synopsis. and we will note, we did look at this is the end of last week. first of all, the end of last week. first of all, the first bullet point, the notional date was the 14th of april, so they were projecting it two months ahead because we know that the exercise was actually on the 12th of february. and then there are various details given about what is supposed to have happened by then and what is forecast and we can see the penultimate bullet point, eight and a half thousand deaths to date, however, there is a lag in data, case rate of approximately two and a half percent of clinical cases. one point 25% of the total population and in terms of actual numbers, we

see in the last bullet point it is expected 840,000 excess deaths over the 16 week wave of the infection, assuming is that term we discussed, the reasonable worst—case scenario. there is, of course, are very high numbers indeed, aren't they? yes. and must have _ numbers indeed, aren't they? yes. and must have made _ numbers indeed, aren't they? yes. and must have made an _ numbers indeed, aren't they? yes. and must have made an impression on you at the time. this and must have made an impression on you at the time. £51 and must have made an impression on you at the time-— you at the time. as i say in my statement. — you at the time. as i say in my statement, most _ you at the time. as i say in my statement, most of _ you at the time. as i say in my statement, most of my - you at the time. as i say in my. statement, most of my reaction you at the time. as i say in my - statement, most of my reaction is in hindsight. i it was a fictional exercise. you must have fictional exercise. you must have fictional exercise which was dealing with a very extreme set of factual events. i don't remember more than i have put in my witness statement. base 'ust look put in my witness statement. base just look over _ put in my witness statement. base just look over the _ put in my witness statement. base just look over the page. _ put in my witness statement. h—"e just look over the page. last page in this document. this summarises the position graph form rather in the position graph form rather in the bullet points on the page before. we see, don't be, a fairly familiar type peak. most of it is

projected because the able date when the exercise was supposed to be taking place was still in the foothills of the development of the pandemic on the scenario at nimbus, is that fair? . ~ pandemic on the scenario at nimbus, is that fair?— is that fair? yes. we see the line. and ou is that fair? yes. we see the line. and you say _ is that fair? yes. we see the line. and you say in — is that fair? yes. we see the line. and you say in your— is that fair? yes. we see the line. and you say in your witness - and you say in your witness statement that, you knew this anyway, looking at this pic, it is clear what is contemplated some form of mitigation strategy, because you don't see any sense in which the wave is being suppressed, if that is the alternative strategy? yes i wave is being suppressed, if that is the alternative strategy?— the alternative strategy? yes i do sa that. the alternative strategy? yes i do say that- it _ the alternative strategy? yes i do say that- it is _ the alternative strategy? yes i do say that. it is important - the alternative strategy? yes i do say that. it is important to - say that. it is important to recognise that i do say that in hindsight. i don't know what i was thinking at the time.— thinking at the time. let's go on, if we may. _ thinking at the time. let's go on, if we may. to _ thinking at the time. let's go on, if we may, to another _ thinking at the time. let's go on, if we may, to another document| if we may, to another document which, in effect, is a set of minutes from the exercise. i'm not sure if one actually sees that term used in this document. just to be

clear, this is actually a document which you contributed to along with many others. i did not visit at the end of last week and suggested that we are not seen a document of the sort. in fact, we are not seen a document of the sort. infact, it we are not seen a document of the sort. in fact, it had been disclosed and we did have it. so let's look at it now. first of all, could ijust pick up on the timing, dr warner. you may or may not remember much about this but it is quite noticeable that the exercise started at, can you see, that is right. 16:45pm. quarterto at, can you see, that is right. 16:45pm. quarter to five in the afternoon. you have any memory as to long it lasted if it started at that time. one might think it wouldn't have lasted more than an hour or two. ., have lasted more than an hour or two. let's — have lasted more than an hour or two. hie. let's look on, then, two. no. let's look on, then, please- _ two. no. let's look on, then, please- we — two. no. let's look on, then, please. we see _ two. no. let's look on, then, please. we see a _ two. no. let's look on, then, please. we see a list of attendees that matt hancock was in the chair. if we go over the page, please, we can see your name on the right hand side. and then i would just like to

take you to one or two references starting on page three, please. we see that the exercise was started with what is described as a current situation update. and a little more detail is given about the notional situation than we saw in the slides. 50, for example, we can see an so, for example, we can see an estimate that there could be as many as 1.6 million further cases in the week on which the exercise was taking place. and if we go over the page we see, just again to give us a sense of scale, of the type of emergency that was being exercised, paragraph three. dcm overemphasise at the week beginning the 13th of

may may be the peak week, 7.3 million new cases would arise in that week, not including those who had not yet been covered. the expectation was that, over the course of the pandemic, there would be 33.5 clinical cases —— make 33.5 million clinical cases. so putting some numbers to the broad outlines in the slides. clearly, a population level pandemic was being contemplated. yes?- level pandemic was being contemplated. yes? yes. and then if we look further _ contemplated. yes? yes. and then if we look further down that page and onto the next couple, we can see that the discussions seem largely to have focused on how such an enormous series of infections were to be dealt with by the various different parts of the state that were represented at the meeting, in particular, the nhs and so, for example, at paragraph seven and

eight, we see being picked up, the point that was raised towards the end of last week about the nhs needing to triage by resource, as it is put, so not having the capacity to triage or to treat everyone that came through the door needing to use their resource, only on some people. paragraph 11, reference to the fact that there would be competition for beds between new and old patients. to see that? can i ask you: do you have much of a memory of this discussion of the exercise? the first thing i _ discussion of the exercise? the first thing i would say is that i do not... these minutes, i am not sure i saw them at the time, i think if they were referenced in my witness statement, it was a reference to show that i was there rather than because i have these notes. my recollection is of the exercise as a whole are contained within my

statement. i rememberthinking whole are contained within my statement. i remember thinking it was a