However, it emerged during the following days that the modelling that was presented at the press conference was based on data that had been superseded by more up-to-date information. It also emerged that the forecasts did not include the impact of the regional restrictions that had been brought in on 9 October.205 In practice, the advice of the Government’s most senior scientific advisers that the NHS was likely to be overwhelmed if the advised second lockdown was not imposed made it almost inevitable that it would go ahead: Chair: We come to the importance of the inquiries into these forecasts. Accepting that Ministers decide and advisers advise, in practice, if the advice from advisers to the Prime Minister is that the capacity of the NHS is likely to be overrun within weeks, that is quite difficult advice to gainsay, is it not? That is why there is an interest in understanding the basis of the advice. It is not optional advice in that sense, is it? 201 HC Deb, 2 November 2020, col 24 [Commons Chamber] 202 GOV.UK, ‘Coronavirus (COVID-19) in the UK’, accessed 22 June 2021 203 GOV.UK, ‘Prime Minister’s statement: 19 December 2020’, accessed 17 September 2021 204 Oral evidence taken before the Science and Technology Committee on 3 November 2020, HC (2019–21) 136, Q1438 205 See, for example: Correspondence from Ed Humpherson to Sir Patrick Vallance regarding transparency of data related to COVID-19, 5 November 2020 52 Coronavirus: lessons learned to date Sir Patrick Vallance: That was the forecasting from the NHS. That is what they said. Chair: It is also what you said. Sir Patrick Vallance: Yes. It is what we say from the modelling. As I said, we cannot deal with NHS capacity. I do not have insight into NHS capacity. Chair: But your advice to the Prime Minister and the Government, based on NHS data and the modelling data, was that this is a serious prospect and a serious risk. Sir Patrick Vallance: Yes.206 The Kent or ‘Alpha’ variant