> If they had less than 100 cases where the system initially failed and the issues got resolved within a few hours I'd bet they would brag about it.

That's a bit of a straw man though isn't it — could there ever have been as few as a hundred problems in a system of this complexity with four million users?

(It also moves away from your "hundred million people" somewhat does it not?)

I am sure it has not been a flawless rollout but I don't really understand the outrage here.

It's worth understanding that much of the news media coverage of this is tinged with anger, regret and disappointment: this is a system we would not have needed in this formulation if we had not done Brexit.

Small problems with existing immigration and border systems would not have made any news but they could also have been happening at a higher rate, yes?

We shouldn't have done Brexit, but we do need a system, and therefore we have a system that is less joined-up than it could be.

▲

pessimizer 3 hours ago | parent [-]

This is a question about numeracy, not "flawless rollouts." It certainly isn't a question about Brexit.

	▲	dofm 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Bias in media reporting is a factor here. That bias is driven in part by feelings about Brexit and about a system that exists in this form because of it. Either way, the fact that it has been used ten million times successfully strongly suggests it is basically doing OK, since it's hard to imagine many more than ten million uses since the alternatives became unavailable. Glad to have your obviously authoritative review of the subject, though. I am suitably chastened for trying to show the broader picture.