welcome to bbc news. i'm maryam moshiri. in a few minutes, we'll be taking a look at some of the front pages from around the world, and we're expecting to hear from donald trump at the white house to give his latest response to the coronavirus pandemic. first, a few of today's other developments. let's turn to europe, where italy has become the second country to register more than 20,000 coronavirus deaths, after the united states. another 566 deaths were recorded in the most recent 24—hour period. this figure is just over half as many as two weeks ago. italy is now gradually lifting its lockdown restrictions, and will allow a few companies to resume operations on tuesday. in spain, the spanish health ministry says 517 people have died in the past 2a hours, which is 100 less than the day before. the total number of people

to have died from covid—i9 in spain is 17,500. some restrictions have started to be relaxed there too. damien mcguinness has more on the situation across europe. numbers here are still incredibly high because in italy and spain, which are the two countries worst hit by the coronavirus pandemic here in europe, we have confirmed cases of more than 100,000 in each country. and in italy, 20,000 deaths more or less, and spain, we're talking about 17,000 deaths. these are really high numbers. what is causing the beginning of hope, though, is that the daily death toll is starting to go down. so what that means is that the total numbers are still increasing, but that increase is less than it was just a week or two ago. so when you look at the daily death toll, now we are talking about numbers at some point less than 500 per day. just a week ago, we were over 900 deaths a day. so although the situation

is still very severe in both italy and spain, it is starting to improve. that is the hope anyway and that is why governments in both countries are really trying to get the economy going again because on the one hand, you have this health emergency. 0n the other, you have an economic emergency brewing because both countries are in a state of economic lockdown. so what we're seeing in spain today, as you said earlier, manufacturing and construction workers are going back to work. this is really to get the economy going. at the same time, the lockdown itself for most people is still in place so for most ordinary people, they will not see much of a difference because you are still not allowed to go out unless it is strictly necessary, and most shops will still be closed. and i think any return to normal is going to take a long time. it is about getting that balance between getting the economy going while not sparking another outbreak of the pandemic.

hello, and welcome to our look ahead to what the the papers will be bringing us tomorrow. with me are christopher hope, chief political correspondent at the daily telegraph and dawn foster, the writer and broadcaster. tomorrow's front pages, starting with. .. the new york times looks at the plight of farmers in america who are being forced to throw away millions of pounds worth of fresh food they can no longer sell, as well as presidential hopeful joe biden‘s plan to "re—open" america. the financial times reports on how, in spain, some restrictions are being eased. the paper also leads on how a co—ordinated global effort to support the oil market fell apart amidst concerns from traders that it would not be enough to counter the effects of the coronavirus pandemic. the french newspaper le figaro leads

with the president emmanuel macron‘s announcement that the country will stay in lockdown until 11 may. the i leads says the uk's current lockdown will continue as the country has not yet reached the virus peak. the daily mirror's front page leads with a campaign for more protective equipment for front line nhs workers. the daily mail calls the situation in british care homes as a "catastrophe" with 92 new recorded outbreaks of the virus in 2a hours. the telegraph says the british government is planning a "gentle path" back to normal life once the decision is taken to lift the current restrictions. and the times reports that the uk will stay in lockdown until at least 7 may — with the announcement being officially made on thursday. so let's begin.

let's turn to our guest christopher with the front page of the times, the front page that's a story being carried by most from pages that the lockdown will carry on. we've not had the official announcement, have we? the official date is thursday, and the government's scientific advisers are meeting. it is all eyes on what happened on thursday. they're trying to get ahead of the game by saying that britain will stay in lockdown for another three weeks, they say here, with another cabinet debate on whether to encourage some people to return to work, meaning many will manage to stay at home. it says here that there will be a cobra meeting on thursday, so it looks forward into thursday, so it looks forward into thursday and what the decision will be by the government. but as other countries as we've seen from these

papers, other countries are starting to talk about lifting their lockdown, and all the pressure will come back on borisjohnson when he is fit enough and dominic raab in his place about when they left. the big question while we were at home today was, when can we get back to work? it says here in the paper, it talks about the split amongst senior members about how to go about this. the question is how do they lift that cosmic will they get people to stay at home and don't come to work, 01’ stay at home and don't come to work, or should they come to work? because it has been forced on a lot of people to work at home if you have a deskjob. even cynics like myself have found it ok to work from home, and it seems there will be a concern about whether they are required at work, and if they can keep working from home to limit the spread and limit may be the return of the virus later on. that is the concern. the easy thing would be to lift sooner rather than later, because that is

the easier thing to do in political terms. but the risk is massive in case this virus comes back. don, in the times, it says nearly three quarters of people in the uk prioritise limiting the spread of the disease, even if it means damaging the economy. that compares to 61% in the us and only 54% in germany. so that tells us according to this paul that more of us are thinking they will be willing to keep us lockdown going if it means we limit the spread of the disease and protect the nhs. absolutely, those stats are really interesting. so even though it has been very tough for a lot of people in the uk, even those people who are having to go back to work and come home are still observing lockdown outside of working hours, and most of us are finding it quite hard to stay home and really miss our family and friends, we are still in favour of staying at home and prioritising the

economy. this cabinet split that christopher mentioned, there are some in the cabinet who want to get going again to try and protect the economy, but matt hancock has said that the stay at home message is very clear and it needs to go ahead. we saw dominic raab today saying that we should expect the death figures to get slightly worse before we can consider lifting any of these restrictions at the moment. so a lot of figures in government want to keep this going even though it is hard, and the vast majority of the public are completely behind them. it's going to get harder as we see other countries slowly relaxing their measures, lifting their restrictions. it'll get harder for those in this country to look at other countries and wonder what's happening there, and maybe it should happening there, and maybe it should happen here. i think psychologically it will become a lot more difficult. the first few weeks are hard, but

now people are getting into the lockdown fatigue and i think the only thing that will actually keep the public adhering to these rules is seeing the daily death stats, and also causally being remembered by the government that the uk are several weeks behind italy and spain. italy still have not talked about lifting the lockdown compared to spain, but spain again had a higher numberof to spain, but spain again had a higher number of deaths a lot earlier than we higher number of deaths a lot earlierthan we did, higher number of deaths a lot earlier than we did, and they saw the spread very quickly. so it is to stop this from becoming as severe as other places, so we need follow these rules. speaking of other european countries, this evening emmanuel macron has announced that those restrictions in france, which i must say are stricter than those in this country, will carry on until 11 may. the headline there... very

nice french accent. i do my best, google translate tells me it means" hope is reborn but nothing is required." i think what that means is there's a chance but nothing is taken for granted. the extension, emmanuel macron announcing it until 11 may. 0nly nurseries and college schools can open, so it is a partial reopening. but as a father of three teenagers, two of whom are still in school, they are quite keen to get backin school, they are quite keen to get back in school. 0ne school, they are quite keen to get back in school. one of them is certainly worried about their gcses next year. any idea of going back to school will be a good idea for them. also on that same page, it talks about boris johnson. .. what also on that same page, it talks about borisjohnson... what it means is out of hospital, borisjohnson wa nts to is out of hospital, borisjohnson wants to believe in a state of grace. that's the thing i never thought boris johnson grace. that's the thing i never thought borisjohnson would ever be

accused of believing in, it talks about that love of the nhs that borisjohnson spoke about that love of the nhs that boris johnson spoke about about that love of the nhs that borisjohnson spoke about so movingly in that statement yesterday. let's talk about france, because the interesting thing here is that emmanuel macron actually did come out with a few ideas about what might happen after 11 may, it won't be about getting to that deadline and see what happens, he talks about getting to that date and seeing possibly nurseries and schools reopening. there seems to be a plan coming out of france? absolutely. it seems clear that france has thought very deeply about how they get back to normality very slowly. they want to normality very slowly. they want to do in very slow stages with some things, especially schools in nurseries where people, attendees and small children are less likely to be impacted severely. so france has a very clear idea to work through on the government on how

they can slowly get back to normality, whereas dominic raab and the conservative party so far have not answered questions about that. it is not clear whether that is because there isn't a plan, or whether they don't want to actually preempt it and tried to —— the public think they can do something in two weeks, then a couple of them doing it now does not make a difference. so it is a very different form of government and communication in france and in the uk. what do you think, is it because they worry about what brits will think? 0r they worry about what brits will think? or is there not a planned? this country with dominic raab— we are more critical of our government than others. they've dealt with it so strictly in a way, showing papers to these buildings and maybe even banning exercise during daylight hours. and it doesn't seem to be very british, if i can say that, about the two countries.

i think the way they're going about it, they show that there is some hope there because we currently have no date or idea, the times is giving us three weeks, the telegraph are saying a review next week, not this week. what he will want to look forward to isa what he will want to look forward to is a line in the sand after which we can lift the gloom off of this country and get the economy going again. the concern is we haven't got that from our government at all. how much is the fact that borisjohnson is still recuperating got to do with this? certainly a power vacuum. i've been writing when i was at work last week about this, about the concern — i felt, week about this, about the concern — ifelt, and week about this, about the concern — i felt, and i week about this, about the concern — ifelt, and i was week about this, about the concern — i felt, and i was told week about this, about the concern — ifelt, and i was told by week about this, about the concern — i felt, and i was told by other people in the government, boris johnson was at least able to get backin johnson was at least able to get back in and think about what's going on, and be consulted on this decision. we are told it will be a dominic raab decision with the cabinet deciding on thursday. the question is, do they give a date?

the problem is if it plateaus for a few weeks and there's no hope of leaving, there will be lots more people really upset, going a bit stir crazy. borisjohnson gets that in this communication, and his concern is that until he can get back to a full fighting figure, we will not have the same way. what do you think, is don having dashboards johnson having an impact?|j you think, is don having dashboards johnson having an impact? i think not having borisjohnson there will have an impact on the decision. i think it is having a bigger psyche on the actual lockdown. as far as i'm aware, we are the only country that has a leader seriously ill with it, and that obviously made news for well it, and that obviously made news for we ll over it, and that obviously made news for well over week. he moved it, and that obviously made news for well overweek. he moved into intensive care which shocked lots of people in britain, and probably meant the government could no longer deal in abstracts, but they had to deal in abstracts, but they had to deal with the fact that there is a public figure who was seriously ill,

close it at and that means that politically they will have had to ta ke politically they will have had to take it seriously. be a lot more cautious in the decisions they make, but i think it also meant that the british public themselves were shocked into adhering to lockdown, realising even they thought they we re realising even they thought they were under70 and realising even they thought they were under 70 and relatively fit and healthy, they could also be extremely ill from this virus. moving on to the financial times, because at the top of the ft, there's a picture of a woman buying a ticket for the spanish metro in madrid. the headline reads... in reality, i think what spain are doing are more like going back to the original lockdown that we saw implement it back on 13 march rather than easing measures so to speak, if that makes sense. what do you think was max payne obviously looked a bit ahead of us. yes, somewhat, deaths are falling there. with the detail

on that story in the ft tomorrow talks about construction returning tojobs to work. talks about construction returning to jobs to work. we've not really stopped our construction work in this country, it is still ongoing as long as the workers can isolate two metres apart. so i did see on the bbc news tonight they are handing out ppe masks for commuters and helping people get onto the metro and the tube in madrid. we will watch other countries closely. in the final analysis, there'll be lots of country by country analysis of who got this right, who got wrong, whether we were right not to lockdown for a bit longer than the continent, looking at the death rates of this dreadful disease. but green shoots are appearing across the continent, we're just waiting for them to come here. you think it is right to be looking at what has happened in the past and criticising

it? is now the time? i think now absolutely is the time. first of all, a lot of us are stuck at home with more time to do so, but i think that we are in a crisis that is moving. and i think lots of the critical decisions that have happened in the uk and across the world have come about often because of public opinion and public pressure. sol of public opinion and public pressure. so i think that the public have a right to ask questions about what is happening. and i think that just pulling back and waiting until everything is over, and then answering massive questions is completely the wrong way to do it. i think there will need to be a public inquiry into how decisions were made, but i think the public have every right to ask questions of government and policy decisions right now. lots of questions being asked in the daily mail tomorrow. the front page carrying the headline

"ca re the front page carrying the headline "care homes catastrophe, 92 operates in 2a hours, 2200 homes now stricken, 30 deaths over easter." this makes for very sobering reading, doesn't it? it really does. this is a dreadful incident over the weekend in luton, and before that scotland, 90 new outbreaks in 2a hours, 2200 homes stricken, 30 deaths over easter. the x minister saying the elderly are abandoned like a saying the elderly are abandoned likea lambs saying the elderly are abandoned like a lambs to the slaughter. care homes are one where it is hard to get them visuals on. we've seen people in the nhs in hospitals being cared for, but it is hard to get into a care home because you can't get across the door. if you are a reporter there, you wouldn't be able to film there because the risk you present to the people in their — once the virus gets into one of these care homes, it can run straight through it. then you have

theissue straight through it. then you have the issue of the staff being at risk and their access to ppe, to masks and their access to ppe, to masks and gowns and protection is another concern. these people are the elderly who are really vulnerable to it, 1.5 million people who should be shielded from this disease. 0nce this dreadful virus gets into care homes, it can be awful and kill many people inside, which is what is so appalling about this. lambs to the slaughter, very strong language there. the point here being made is that staff in these care homes also seem that staff in these care homes also seem to have very little access to ppe? very little at all. my mum is a ca re ppe? very little at all. my mum is a care worker right now, and compared to the nhs, those care workers are given aprons. i think the really tragic thing here is that we have all these care homes that people in ca re all these care homes that people in care homes who are towards the end of their lives anyway, and they are

very vulnerable. even if these people are in palliative care, they know that they will die soon, they aren't being given the option of a dignified death. i have to leave it there. thank you very much to both of you for an interesting look at the front pages in tomorrow's paper. straight to the white house where donald trump is giving his latest response to the coronavirus pandemic. as soon as we heard the word, i told fema to get out. you know the great job that fema does, it is really something very special. so we just wa nt to something very special. so we just want to say warmest condolences and we are with you all the way. it's a tough deal, it was a bad, bad level 5- that tough deal, it was a bad, bad level 5— that was a bad group, as high as it gets. a bad grouping

of tornadoes, something... something incredible. the horrible, destructive power. america is continuing to make critical progress in ourwaragainst the continuing to make critical progress in our war against the virus over the weekend, a number of daily new infections remain flat. nationwide flat. hospitalizations are slowing in hotspots like new york, new jersey, michigan and louisiana. this is clear evidence that our aggressive strategy to combat the virus is working, and that americans are following the guidelines. it has been incredible, what they've done. you looked at the charts and the charts and the models from early on predictions, where100—120,000 people looked like if they did well, they were going to unfortunately parish also and we are going to be hopefully way below that number, so that will be a sign of people doing things right. but it is stilljust a

horrible thing, all over the world. 184 countries. this is all a tribute to our wonderful health care advisers and experts who have been with us right from the beginning. we appreciate it so much. in fact, maybe i could ask tony to see a few words before we go any further? tony, please. thank you, just one thing and then we will make a comment about something that happened yesterday. you will hear from doctor berg soon about the numbers we've been talking about, how things are starting to balance out. and i think the more as we go by each day, again, i never like to get ahead of myself or doctor burks, but it looks like even though we've had a really bad week last week, rememberwhenl had a really bad week last week, rememberwhen i was had a really bad week last week, remember when i was speaking to you before, i was saying this was a really bad week, there will still be a lot of deaths but we are starting to see in some areas now the

kind of flattening, particularly in a place that was a hotspot like new york, that's the first thing. the second thing is that i had a really very productive conversation with the convection dashed congressional black caucus this morning for about an hour, and they want to know exactly what we are going to be doing in the immediate, as well as the long range about the health disparities and the discrepancies both in the infection and poor outcome in the minorities in general, specifically african—americans. and i made it clear to them that what we have to do is focus on getting the resources where the vulnerable are to be able to get testing done to be able to get the appropriate identification where up —— where proper and where appropriate to identify traces, but also help mitigate eunuch —— community that is suffering much more disproportionately. the other point i wanted to make

is that i had an interview yesterday where i was asked a hypothetical question, and hypothetical questions can sometimes get you into some difficulty because it is about what could have or would have. the nature of the hypothetical question was if in fact we had mitigated earlier, could lives have been saved? and the answer to my question was that, as i always do and i'm doing right now, i perfectly honestly say yes. obviously medication helps. i've been up here many times telling you that mitigation works. so if mitigation works and you instigate it and you initiated earlier, you will probably have saved more lives. if you initiated it later, it probably would have lost more lives. you initiated at that time. that was taken asa initiated at that time. that was taken as a way that maybe something was at fault here. so let me tell you from experience, and i can only speak for my own experience, is that we have been talking before any

meetings that we had about the pros and the columns, the effectiveness or not of strong mitigations. so discussions were going on mostly among the medical people about what that would mean. the first and only time that doctor burks and i went in and formally made a recommendation to the president to actually have a "shutdown" in the way of a strong mitigation, we discussed obviously there would be concerned by some that in fact, that might have some negative consequences. nevertheless the president listened to the recommendation and went to the mitigation. the next second time that i went with doctor burks into the president and said, "fifteen days are not enough, we need to go 30 days. " obviously there were

people who had a problem with that because of the potential secondary effects. nonetheless at that time, the president went with the health recommendations, and we extended it another 30 days. so i can only tell you when i know and what my recommendations were. it clearly as happens all the time, there were interpretations of that response to a hypothetical question that ijust thought it would be very nice for me to clarify, because i didn't have a chance to clarify. thank you. to be honest with you, i don't even remember what the date was. i can just tell you the first and only time that i went in and said it we should do mitigation strongly, the response was yes submarine was at the travel restrictions? know, the travel restriction was separate. that was whether we wanted to go into a mitigation stage of 15 days to stop the travel was another recommendation. we went in and said we should be doing that, that in the answer was yes. the other

recommendation was we should do with europe, the next answer was yes. the next time was with the uk, and it was yes. in this interview, you said there was pushback. where was that pushback? that was the wrong choice of words. when people discuss, they say this will have maybe have a harmful effect on this or that. it was up choice of words. are you doing this voluntarily? everything i doing this voluntarily? everything i do is voluntary, please. don't even imply that. by the way, the travel thing? that was earlier. if you look at statistics, i happen to write a couple of them down. if you look at statistics... 0n couple of them down. if you look at statistics... on january six, couple of them down. if you look at statistics... 0njanuary six, long before the dates you were talking about, there were cdc issue issued a travel notice for wuhan, china. before there was

even a confirmed case of coronavirus, onjanuary six, this was all documented because we have so much fake news, i like to document things. january six. long before the dates we're talking about, cdc issued a travel notice to wuhan. 0njanuary 11, about, cdc issued a travel notice to wuhan. 0njanuary11, we have zero cases in the united states, zero. so there are no cases reported that we know of. this is january 11, the cdc issued a level one travel notice for health, while there were still no confirmed cases. so we had zero cases, people want me to act. i'm supposed to close down the economy, the greatest economy in the history of the world, and we don't have one case confirmed in the united states? that's january 11. on january 17, the cdc began implement in public health entry screenings at three major us airports that received the

greatest volume of passengers from wuhan at my instructions. there is not a single case of the coronavirus in the united states. so onjanuary 17, there wasn't the case, and the fa ke 17, there wasn't the case, and the fake news is saying i didn't act fast enough. you remember what happened, because when i did act, i was criticised by nancy pelosi, sleepyjoe biden, i was called xenophobic. i was asking joe biden to find that for me. i was called other things by democrats. and some others, not too many others, by the media definitely. now onjanuary 21, long before the time we are talking, because tony is talking about the end of february. 0njanuary 21, still early, there was one case of the virus at that time, we called it the virus at that time, we called it the wuhan virus, right?

wuhan. there was a whole case in the whole united states, this was one case. a lot of this comes from you people. on january 21, the cdc activated an emergency operation centre that was just one case, one person, that's why the add was so funny. there was one person in the united states. that statement was made at that time, one case in the whole united states, one case. i'm supposed to shut down the government? the biggest economy in the history of the world? shut it down, we have one case. seven cases were onjanuary 31. on case. seven cases were onjanuary 31. 0njanuary 21, there was a case — not one person had died. you heard that, right? not one person. we had this massive country, the united states of america. we have the greatest economy in the world, bigger than china's by a lot, right, because of what we've

done the last three and a half years. prior to the virus but including the virus. so we have the biggest economy, the greatest economy we've ever had, the highest employment numbers, the best employment numbers, the best unemployment numbers, the best of everything. not one person had died onjanuary 31. reported by the cdc and confirmed by the news which is not mean anything to me because they don't tell the truth but cdc reported january 31 not one person has died and i issued a travel restriction for china. think of it. so nobody died, and i issued. you cannot get earlier than that. so we have... nobody died and i said china you cannot come in and i'm sorry because so what was going on. was not what i was told but was i saw what was going on. and i did not

like it.