Didn't we do this a couple of weeks ago?! Anyway, an interesting little nugget from the article is the following: The UK are the one country listed whose 'second jab' numbers are actually listed, which would put us behind almost all the rest of Western Europe if any of them do count it as the two required to be inoculated. It's a good job we don't have a government with a horrendous track record of inflating pandemic statistics to make themselves look good, isn't it? I'll point out that, like whoever wrote the article, I'm not at all sure who counts what and when, and wouldn't even know where to go for the details. But counting first jabs only when other countries don't would just be exactly the kind of textbook mendacity you'd expect from our current bunch.
government target to administer at lease one dose to 13M patients in the top 4 priority groups. Days left until deadline: 35 Days until 13M doses at current rate: 89 Inoculation rate needs to increase 2.6-fold to achieve target.
1 The source of the data is quoted in the article if you bothered to look and is a reputable source. 2 The data is from today (no country in Europe is at the stage of the boosters since they started days behind behind the UK). 3 Several other countries are adopting the use of current supplies to vaccinate as many as possible thus deferring the 2nd booster. 4 Are you seriously saying the counting methodology accounts for the figures showing UK has administered 2.8 million as opposed to 189,000 in France In fact the leading country in the EU is Italy at 800,000 today and even Germany is lagging behind at 688700. even if you take of the 400000 2nd jab (only unique because UK started ahead of the EU due to EMA dragging their feet, they still have 2.4 million first jabs 3 times more than any other country. Oh dear! You seem determined to pour cold water on any achievements made in the UK to fit your biased agenda. The following applies .....(rearrange) "Straws to appear at clutching you be" There is plenty of failing to complain about regarding the UK Govt but this is not in any way, shape, or form the one to choose.
1. They say that the data may not be completely trustworthy for very specific reasons - I quoted one of those reasons. 2. As above. They say, very clearly, that our 'second jab' might be the same as other countries' 'first jab'. 3. That's irrelevant to the point I was making. 4. I'm saying that, as they say in the article, it's possible that the UK's column 4 figure might be best compared to other countries' column 2 figure. I'm particularly suspicious about this as the UK is the only country which has reported any second jabs at all in the data they have, so is obviously the reason that they put that warning in. I'm also suggesting that the government has form for manipulating figures in exactly this manner - remember them counting tests posted out as having been done? You can pull the same boring old "biased agenda" lines out of your hat as much as you want, but don't refer me back to an article from which I literally quoted a line then suggest I haven't bothered to look.
I hope you keep monitoring and reporting on this. I suspect it'll get transfered to the "liar watch" thread.
Positive stats are manipulated. Negative stats are gospel. I’m with you on this one. The replies to your OP do not surprise me one bit.
No im not. I’m hoping for them to do a world class iob of it but just not confident with their track record so far.
I think the UK Government has managed a complete shi.t show so far. Utterly, utterly appalling. Any statistics now don't bring back all the people they've killed through incompetence. However if the vaccine programme is ramped up and it ends up being efficient and reasonably quick I will say so - they will deserve some credit.
