where the workforce capacity was insufficient to care for the individuals, so if ijust paint a picture perhaps where you have care workers who may be a risk and the evidence suggests they were doing a fabulousjob but evidence suggests they were doing a fabulous job but they were bringing in, as the majority, into care homes, infection, that you can't just exclude everybody, and people who, because you lose the capacity to continue, and one of the biggest risks was care workers, so maybe a nurse, for example, working in the kids sector, who then goes and does a night in a nursing care home and then goes on and does a bit of domiciliary work, and you can see the infection tracking round, but just saying, stay in one place immediately means you've lost two capacity points in your health and care system. capacity points in your health and care system-— capacity points in your health and care system. that is a description ofthe care system. that is a description of the problem, _ care system. that is a description of the problem, but _ care system. that is a description of the problem, but my _ care system. that is a description of the problem, but my question | care system. that is a description i of the problem, but my question is, in this emergency situation, whereas you tell us these risks were understood, was enough done to try and mitigate that problem? 50. i and mitigate that problem? so, i think the problem _ and mitigate that problem? so, i think the problem was _ and mitigate that problem? sc, i think the problem was understood. the reason i explained the problem is because it's a very, very difficult one to solve. because if you just isolate care workers completely and clampdown on everything, a care home might fall over, if you like, if you've got somebody working in two care homes. 50 i think the care workers were so i think the care workers were given strong advice, they were encouraged to stay away from work, clearly, as the pandemic went on, very strong testing procedures were put in, and that was really helpful, and in addition, payment funds, quite apart from the infection prevention control, payment two care workers to support them to self—isolate was also put in. so, the problem was recognised and it was dealt with and the precarious state of the care workforce was a problem through the pandemic. i am problem through the pandemic. i am auoin to problem through the pandemic. i am going to leave _ problem through the pandemic. i am going to leave it _ problem through the pandemic. i am going to leave it there, move on and ask you about another issue, equally hotly debated, and that is on face coverings. can we start pleased by going to your witness statement, paragraph eight and you will note here, you note here, paragraph 8.125, and then we will look at the next paragraph as well, and the inquiry has heard a fair amount of evidence about this, that the advice provided by the office of the chief medical officer on the use of face coverings, which developed during the pandemic, did it not... yes. but ou sa the pandemic, did it not... yes. but you say here. _ the pandemic, did it not... yes. but you say here, that _ the pandemic, did it not... is; but you say here, that it reflected the developing scientific understanding at any given time. you say the initial position was that outside healthcare settings use of face coverings for people who didn't have covid in community settings was unlikely to have a significant impact and was not recommended, and you give references to nervtag and so on. and then also a reference to sage. and then later on, you say that later in the pandemic, as the virus become better understood and so on, there was a growing emphasis on the use of face coverings as a precautionary tool and in the next sentence you say the evidence—based for their use in community settings was and still is to some degree uncertain. so, is it fairto uncertain. so, is it fair to say that your own personal view in fact remained that there wasn't any convincing evidence that face coverings, that is not ppe used in healthcare settings but the home—made, if you like, fabric face coverings used in community settings, that there wasn't any convincing evidence that they were helpful? but convincing evidence that they were helful? ., ., ._ convincing evidence that they were helful? ., . ._ ., helpful? not all the way through, no, and depending _ helpful? not all the way through, no, and depending on _ helpful? not all the way through, no, and depending on what - helpful? not all the way through, no, and depending on what sort l helpful? not all the way through, | no, and depending on what sort of face covering you had. and this is the problem with the evidence. because much of the evidence, there was a lancet paper that was very heavily awaited during the pandemic, was predominantly papers not in community settings or very difficult to dissociate the effectiveness of the face covering from other infection prevention control measures so i think that is why we have a difficult evidence—based. there is a stronger evidence base about the actual material, if you like, so if you have a one or two layout thin cloth covering, the evidence is not particularly effective, if you have, my colleague jonathan van tam's words ringing in my yeah, he always refers to army ones, but a kind of 12 layer, i think he calls it duck material or something, but it is a different sort of barrier. 50, even within the face covering their is a difference. if somebody doesn't wear it appropriately, it won't work, but i think the who advice actually i think the who advice actually i think it was around the beginning of july changed and i think that was around the right time, where you're starting to see more recognition of the likelihood, still unquantified, of the asymptomatic transmission, and the opportunity therefore to... the evidence starts to move in a more positive way, but i think there is also a difference between which i think the cmo put in his report potentially around monday recommendation, guidance and allowing people to do what they wanted to do. and of course, everybody could always wear a face covering if they wanted to, nobody was stopped. and i think this issue is around which direction is the evidence travelling? let is around which direction is the evidence travelling?— is around which direction is the evidence travelling? let me show you a coule of evidence travelling? let me show you a couple of documents _ evidence travelling? let me show you a couple of documents and _ evidence travelling? let me show you a couple of documents and then - evidence travelling? let me show you a couple of documents and then ask l a couple of documents and then ask you a question about them and they do cover that period that you have just been describing. first first of all if we could just look at 69151. 50, this is a document, the data it so, this is a document, the data it is not on the document but it is from may of 2020 and it is some draft guidance as we can see how to wear and make draft guidance as we can see how to wearand make a draft guidance as we can see how to wear and make a cloth face covering and if we can go to the third page of it, please, i think what we see on the sidelining is that you've commented, made various comments, that it was not you who did the first draft. but what we see on the top comment here in relation to the draft talking about putting two squares of fabric on top of each other to make a mask, you say, just querying the logic behind needing to have two pieces of cotton fabric stacked on this version but only a single layer of cotton t—shirt in the previous model. i think they are both ineffective so i am not unduly worried that someone might want to think of announcerfor worried that someone might want to think of announcer for the 0&as. so there you are may expressing a view that frankly these cloth home—made facemasks, one layer or two layers, are ineffective.— are ineffective. because the evidence — are ineffective. because the evidence at _ are ineffective. because the evidence at the _ are ineffective. because the evidence at the time - are ineffective. because the evidence at the time said i are ineffective. because the evidence at the time said atj are ineffective. because the - evidence at the time said at least three layers. i did not draft this guidance, my point was there were two points about this, the first one was, i am querying the logic because if i was a member of the public and looked at that i would think why on earth do you want one layer here and two there? that was one point. the reason i said i thought it was ineffective was because the only evidence we had at the time was around three layers which started to give a bit of a positive impact sol don't think that is effective. if it was three i would have said ok, but make the guidance consistent. weill. make the guidance consistent. well, rofessor, make the guidance consistent. well, professor. if— make the guidance consistent. well, professor, if there _ make the guidance consistent. well, professor, if there was _ make the guidance consistent. well, professor, if there was evidence at the time that three layers was effective but one or two wasn't, why didn't you say we should be telling people to use three layers? erm. people to use three layers? erm, well, i'm people to use three layers? erm, well. l'm not— people to use three layers? erm, well, i'm not sure _ people to use three layers? erm, well, i'm not sure i _ people to use three layers? erm, well, i'm not sure i even - people to use three layers? erm, well, i'm not sure i even knew. people to use three layers? fwn, well, i'm not sure i even knew where this had come from. you will have to bearin this had come from. you will have to bear in mind this will come to me from somewhere else, often i would get given pieces of guidance that said this is what somebody has decided to do as policy, now make it the best you can. so i may have read that one as, this is what we are going to say, and i think this is an example, so i have said, i don't think this is effective, i think the public, it doesn't feel logical as a communication, to me. and if that is there for one what you want to do, work through it, i think people probably would have known at the time what the evidence was, phd were continuously providing reviewing the evidence on face coverings. in fact predominately at the time i think it was my colleaguejonathan van tam. let mejust show was my colleaguejonathan van tam. let me just show you... flan was my colleague jonathan van tam. let me just show you. . ._ let me 'ust show you... can i 'ust no let me just show you... can i 'ust no back let me just show you... can i 'ust go back on — let me just show you... can i 'ust go back on that i let me just show you... can i 'ust go back on that because i let me just show you... can ijust go back on that because actually. go back on that because actually this was may and i think it was probably the period, just after certainly in the uk where we had had the studies and various other things and it was still not at this point, i mean who was still not recommending face coverings, so, we had got a position here, maybe i was a little bit annoyed, i can see it in the town there, but where there wasn't a clear policy and get i was being sent a document to sign off something which i didn't think was very evidence—based. but that was not an infrequent occurrence. professor, i understand the need for having _ professor, i understand the need for having an _ professor, i understand the need for having an evidence—based, i would, given— having an evidence—based, i would, given my— having an evidence—based, i would, given my background, and i understand that you would have preferred — understand that you would have preferred three layers, because you had the _ preferred three layers, because you had the evidence for three layers... well, _ had the evidence for three layers... well, the _ had the evidence for three layers... well, the evidence was three layers was not very strong. {lilia well, the evidence was three layers was not very strong.— was not very strong. ok, let's foruet was not very strong. ok, let's forget about _ was not very strong. ok, let's forget about how _ was not very strong. ok, let's forget about how many - was not very strong. 0k, let's| forget about how many layers. was not very strong. ok, let's i forget about how many layers. is there _ forget about how many layers. is there any— forget about how many layers. is there any harm in, i appreciate buying — there any harm in, i appreciate buying masks may interfere with sugplv_ buying masks may interfere with sugplv to — buying masks may interfere with supply to care home workers and people _ supply to care home workers and people working in hospitals, is there — people working in hospitals, is there any— people working in hospitals, is there any harm in encouraging members— there any harm in encouraging members of the public to use home—made facemasks? so, members of the public to use home-made facemasks? so, this is where it gets. _ home-made facemasks? so, this is where it gets, because _ home-made facemasks? so, this is where it gets, because the - home-made facemasks? so, this is| where it gets, because the evidence at this point is quite tricky, i think once we got past... i think who changed their guidance injuly, we haven't got the date of this document, sol we haven't got the date of this document, so i think where you have got a very low evidence—based, it hadn't don't think shifted at that point, we didn't have the evidence and still don't about asymptomatic transmission, the evidence is definitely there, is strong now, but the quantification of it is quite poor and there for understanding the effect of this is quite tricky, and this will be a government document effectively, again, not for me to decide, but there is quite a difference between mandating recommending, if a government recommends something, that is quite a strong position, encouraging, and actually if you encourage or support and you are in a government position, that is almost taken as recommending, and it is quite difficult to do that when the evidence is not strong, because you then we'll end up with people challenging other ones. so, you tend to see where it moves to. but the other issue here is, if ijust point out, you said are there any other things? we've got all sorts of safety issues heroes well and one of the problems in may, and this might be related to this as well, was when, it might show why my irritation, was when there was a lot of discussions about coming out of lockdown, opening up the economy and various other things and the two—metre, one beta, i think this was landing just about the same time as the one metre—plus issue, and the problem we had there was that there appeared to be a view permeating through, and a real concern and risk, that it was being conceived that if you did one metre and you wore a face covering, that was fine, and so there was a risk that encouraging facemasks people would stop doing that thing which was really important, which was distancing and all the other things. so this may have been coming on the back of that, i suspect it was. 50. back of that, i suspect it was. so, the risk being _ back of that, i suspect it was. so, the risk being a _ back of that, i suspect it was. so, the risk being a false sense of security? _ the risk being a false sense of securi ? . . the risk being a false sense of securi ? , , ., , security? yes, but it was actually also overlapping _ security? yes, but it was actually also overlapping with _ security? yes, but it was actually also overlapping with what - security? yes, but it was actually also overlapping with what was . also overlapping with what was economically driven policy i think to try and remove some of the distancing rules. 50, you will have seen i think in the evidence, i think it is about this time, with jonathan van tam and myself, where we were trying to really highlight what we thought about the two—metre and one metre rule discussions and what was being conceived was, if you wear a face covering and reduce everything to one metre, the face covering will make up for the difference, and the answer was no, it won't, and it definitely won't if it won't, and it definitely won't if it is not evidence—based. in it won't, and it definitely won't if it is not evidence-based.- it is not evidence-based. in fact that was the _ it is not evidence-based. in fact that was the point _ it is not evidence-based. in fact that was the point i _ it is not evidence-based. in fact that was the point i was - it is not evidence-based. in fact | that was the point i was planning it is not evidence-based. in fact - that was the point i was planning to come to, professor, which is the point about false sense of security. yes. ~ .. .. point about false sense of security. yes. . ., ., , , yes. what we are seeing here is draft guidance _ yes. what we are seeing here is draft guidance on _ yes. what we are seeing here is draft guidance on making - yes. what we are seeing here is draft guidance on making a - yes. what we are seeing here is| draft guidance on making a mask which will of course make people feel more confident to go out, to go on public transport and whatever, which you are saying is ineffective. studio: we arejust which you are saying is ineffective. studio: we are just going to which you are saying is ineffective. studio: we arejust going to break away from the covid inquiry and the testimony by professor damejenny harries, the former deputy chief medical officer for england from 2019 to 2021, we will be bringing you updates on what is happening there throughout the day here on bbc news. we can now go live to brussels where the natojens stoltenberg is due to give a press conference, which comes as nato foreign ministers are meeting for a second day to discuss the ongoing war in ukraine as well as in sweden's session to the organisation. we can speak to our correspondent sofia vts who is in brussels following that story. what is against stockton but expected to talk about this morning, sofia? ~ . expected to talk about this morning, sofia? ~ , , . ., ., ,, sofia? well, is expected to talk about everything _ sofia? well, is expected to talk about everything which - sofia? well, is expected to talk about everything which has - sofia? well, is expected to talk| about everything which has been sofia? well, is expected to talk - about everything which has been on the agenda for the nato summit has just ended. we also had from the us data antony blinken who said that the nato alliance is more important than ever and that nato has stepped up than ever and that nato has stepped up to deal with the serious challenges that it is facing. one of those challenges is the middle east, it is a huge security concern for nato, they have discussed here yesterday what future will be possible to build for gaza after the war ends and they have welcomed israel's decision to extend the pause in the fighting and we expect yun stoltenberg to call for that pause to be extended even further. something else he is excited to talk about is ukraine, that was discussed this morning and ministers were joined by the ukrainian foreign minister who outlined a set of reforms that kyiv is hoping to in order to be able to join nato. reforms that kyiv is hoping to in order to be able tojoin nato. that is something that ukraine really wants, but there is agreement here that while ukraine is at war, it will not be possible for it to join the alliance, and that is because that would trigger almost certainly a direct confrontation with russia, which many people here want to avoid.