Leitch tells of swearing in talks with Sturgeon over parties

He said he planned to agree with the advice in a radio interview he was due to give later, urging people to “consider postponing parties”, but said he would stress they were not talking about “dinners or having family round”. Responding, Ms Forbes said: “Grrr at PHS.”

Prof Leitch then said: “FM [Sturgeon] and I spoke at 11. There was swearing. From both of us.” Ms Forbes replied: “I might have contributed if I’d been on the call.”

Speaking at one of the Covid briefings at the time, Ms Sturgeon said she agreed with the advice, describing Christmas parties as “super-spreaders” of the new variant.

Omicron would go on to increase “exponentially” in the days after the messages were sent, leading Ms Sturgeon to urge Scots to limit Christmas Eve, Christmas Day and Boxing Day gatherings to just three householdstoslowthespread.

A PHS spokeswoman said: “The UK Covid-19 public inquiry is a legal process and it is not appropriate for PHS to comment on any evidence or witness statements given as part of proceedings. PHS is

Professor Mark Woolhouse said he didn’t understand the Scottish Government’s strategy over the summer of 2020 actively assisting the inquiry and will continue to support.”

Ms Forbes and the Scottish Government have been contacted for comment.

The evidence was discussed as Professor Mark Woolhouse, an infectious disease epidemiology expert at the University of Edinburgh, told the inquiry the Scottish Government did not accept Covid-19 was “here to stay”.

Prof Woolhouse said politicians were “mistaken or misinformed” in their understanding of the virus, and said the public was “misled”.

Responding to questions from Jamie Dawson KC, counsel to the inquiry, Prof Woolhouse said: “I have to say, I didn’t understand the Scottish Government’s strategy over the summer of 2020. The emphasis was on a very, very cautious relaxation from the lockdown.

“It seemed to be important to the politicians that it was more cautious than the one in England, so they were emphasising that they didn’t articulate in any way that I understood, what they thought the public health benefit of this caution actually would be.”