Complaint
The programme included an item arising from Covid vaccine approval for 12 to 15 year-olds in which an expert on public health answered questions about vaccination in relation to children.聽 Three viewers complained that it included a serious inaccuracy about the overall safety of vaccinating the age group in question and failed to mention significant side effects.聽 The ECU considered the complaints in the light of the 大象传媒鈥檚 editorial standards of accuracy.
Outcome
When the expert was asked whether vaccination against Covid was entirely safe for children, she replied:
So far the vaccine has shown the vaccine is 100% safe for children 鈥 there are some side effects like headache and fatigue but in at least two months there was nothing actually significant and the children in the original study are being followed for the next two years to see if anything else develops.
Despite its important caveats, this reply seemed to the ECU to go beyond what any study, however thorough, can prove. It is improbable that the claim of 100% safety can be made for any vaccine, and such a level of safety certainly cannot be claimed on the basis of two months鈥 worth of data.聽 The ECU therefore agreed with the complainants on this point, but noted that the programme team had already removed the claim from the online article and video, and that a note had subsequently been posted on the 大象传媒 Corrections and Clarifications page. 聽In the ECU鈥檚 judgement this sufficed to resolve the issue of complaint.
In connection with significant side effects, the ECU acknowledged that the Centre for Disease Control in the United States had reported rare instances of heart inflammation, as had the European Medicines Agency, while the UK鈥檚 Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation had raised rare instances of myocarditis as a reason for limiting roll out for 12-17 year olds to those at risk of serious illness from Covid-19. 聽It noted, however, that all these reports post-dated the Newsround broadcast. At the time of transmission the most authoritative source of information in the UK on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine was the Medicines and Healthcare Product Regulatory Agency which had authorised the use of the Pfizer/BioNTexch vaccine on 12 to 15 year-olds on 4 June on the basis that it was 鈥渟afe and effective in this age group鈥. As the evidence then available on the potential for significant side effects was limited and untested,聽the ECU considered the item was justified in reflecting the latest official advice without further qualification and did not support this aspect of the complaint.
Resolved/not upheld