Complaint
In this programme seven members of the public who had decided not to accept vaccination against Covid-19 were asked to consider the science and statistics around vaccination and the risks associated with it. 聽A viewer complained the programme was neither impartial nor accurate.
Outcome
The complainant argued the programme had a clear agenda: the universal administration of Covid vaccines was presented as the only way to resolve the pandemic; no attempt was made to quantify the risk/reward balance for each individual nor look at the effectiveness of treating the illness; the only experts featured were pro-vaccination, omitting well-qualified experts who took a more nuanced view; and every opportunity was taken to portray participants as badly informed.
Having reviewed the programme the ECU formed a different impression. 聽The programme鈥檚 purpose, accurately summarised on 大象传媒 iPlayer, was to investigate why around four million adults remain unvaccinated against Covid-19, and to find out if any of the seven participants might change their minds.
The role of the scientific experts was to provide information in response to the concerns expressed by the participants, with each contributing in their specialist field. 聽The presenter was a professor of mathematics with an understanding of statistics and the comments of the experts were qualified at various points to take proper account of the areas of uncertainty. 聽It further noted that when information was presented it was generally sourced to specific pieces of research.
Not Upheld