In the report Hugh Pym explained that “Figures from NHS England show that between July and September 118 people started the treatment, of which 20 were pregnant. 19 of these were reported as unvaccinated”.  The complainant argued this lacked context, as readers were not told the percentage of pregnant women who have been vaccinated.  The ECU assessed this in the light of the available evidence on vaccination rates among pregnant women at the time of the broadcast and found precise figures do not appear to have been available.  But estimates which were in the public domain appear to show a significantly smaller proportion of pregnant women were vaccinated compared to the general population (one placing it at 15% for the UK), which would tally with the wider concern reflected in the piece at the relatively low rate of vaccine take-up among pregnant women.  Statistically, the fewer the number of pregnant women vaccinated, the less the significance that can be attached to the preponderance of unvaccinated pregnant women falling seriously ill after catching Covid.  In the ECU’s view it did not undermine the essential validity of the story, as a disproportionate number of pregnant women had fallen ill from Covid and a higher take-up rate of the vaccine among pregnant women would likely have decreased the numbers requiring treatment in intensive care – and the report gave the actual figures from NHS England, in contrast to much of the coverage elsewhere.  But given the obligation in the guidelines to offer “important caveats” and explain the limitations of any statistics used, the ECU agreed a qualifier should have been added to explain the low take up rate among pregnant women and how it limited the conclusions that can be drawn from the statistics.
Upheld