[W:53] Twitter, Facebook remove Trump post

[Phys251]

How does this prove that kids are susceptible to the virus? My data are from the CDC, and they show how the virus affects different age groups. It's directly relevant to the topic. I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make with the charts you've provided.

But I do applaud the fact that, unlike others in this thread, you're actually using data to try to make your point. Thanks for that.

Not one word of your post refutes anything I said.

Try again, this time responding to what I actually said. Pay particular attention to my criticism of your use of provisional data.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

It's like you don't even realize that your words are right there on the page. You don't get to move the goalposts every single time you get busted telling a stupid lie.

This was you complaining that they were wrong to take it down because Trump was right to say children are almost immune to COVID:







And this is why your complaint was stupid and dishonest:



Repeat after me: children not dying from COVID does not mean children are almost immune to COVID.

This is because words have meanings, which apparently evade you.




:lamo

The problem is that your data (a chart of children not dying from COVID) does not support your claim (Trump is right that children are almost immune to COVID).

If you don't like deaths a metric of relative impact, please post the case curves by age. If it differs significantly, then I'll concede that you have a reasonable point.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Not one word of your post refutes anything I said.

Try again, this time responding to what I actually said. Pay particular attention to my criticism of your use of provisional data.

Provisional doesn't mean "wrong." Here's what it means when the CDC uses it:

The provisional counts for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) deaths are based on a current flow of mortality data in the National Vital Statistics System. National provisional counts include deaths occurring within the 50 states and the District of Columbia that have been received and coded as of the date specified. It is important to note that it can take several weeks for death records to be submitted to National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), processed, coded, and tabulated. Therefore, the data shown on this page may be incomplete, and will likely not include all deaths that occurred during a given time period, especially for the more recent time periods. Death counts for earlier weeks are continually revised and may increase or decrease as new and updated death certificate data are received from the states by NCHS. COVID-19 death counts shown here may differ from other published sources, as data currently are lagged by an average of 1–2 weeks.

 

[Rogue Valley]

“If you look at children, children are almost — and I would almost say definitely — but almost immune from this disease.”

Trumps opinion, but one not supported by empirical data and/or peer reviewed studies.

In addition, lethality of COVID in school-age children is not the sole problem. The early data indicates that children are as subject to COVID infection as adults and also shed virion droplets when asymptomatic.

In short, children are also spreaders. So unless their education takes place in a bubble, they can act as transmission agents that can affect others, including the vulnerable.

 

[Mr Person]

If you don't like deaths a metric of relative impact, please post the case curves by age. If it differs significantly, then I'll concede that you have a reasonable point.

:lamo

Your claim is that Trump was right that children are "almost immune" to COVID. You pointed to death rates in children from COVID. Pointing to deaths is hopelessly stupid. Lack of deaths does not establish immunity.

It's on YOU to find data that you actually understand and that actually backs up the claim that children are "almost immune" to COVID, since YOU made the claim.




That's how debate works.

 

[Phys251]

Provisional doesn't mean "wrong." Here's what it means when the CDC uses it:

HAHAHAHAHAHA did you even read that quote?! Here, let me paste it for you so you can clearly see how it makes my point for me:

The provisional counts for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) deaths are based on a current flow of mortality data in the National Vital Statistics System. National provisional counts include deaths occurring within the 50 states and the District of Columbia that have been received and coded as of the date specified. It is important to note that it can take several weeks for death records to be submitted to National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), processed, coded, and tabulated. Therefore, the data shown on this page may be incomplete, and will likely not include all deaths that occurred during a given time period, especially for the more recent time periods. Death counts for earlier weeks are continually revised and may increase or decrease as new and updated death certificate data are received from the states by NCHS. COVID-19 death counts shown here may differ from other published sources, as data currently are lagged by an average of 1–2 weeks.

Thanks for the self-own; it was well-timed comic relief. :lol:

 

[trixare4kids]

You are describing the liberals of long gone.

Today's liberals stand toe to toe with the gop, we're dishing out now, like it?

They're not liberals... I couldn't care less about the GOP.
It's clear you haven't a clue as to what true liberalism is about.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Pretty clear from this thread. These are some angry folks! They sure don't like data.

Pretty clear from this thread there are some folks who don't understand how to evaluate data

 

[bongsaway]

They're not liberals... I couldn't care less about the GOP.
It's clear you haven't a clue as to what true liberalism is about.

And you as a conservative are going to enlighten me? If you notice I dont claim to be liberal, sorry.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

It's like you don't even realize that your words are right there on the page. You don't get to move the goalposts every single time you get busted telling a stupid lie.

This was you complaining that they were wrong to take it down because Trump was right to say children are almost immune to COVID:







And this is why your complaint was stupid and dishonest:



Repeat after me: children not dying from COVID does not mean children are almost immune to COVID.

This is because words have meanings, which apparently evade you.




:lamo

The problem is that your data (a chart of children not dying from COVID) does not support your claim (Trump is right that children are almost immune to COVID).

As I've said, the case charts are basically identical. If you can show otherwise, post them! I'll listen to facts. At least try to make your case. lol!

 

[trixare4kids]

And you as a conservative are going to enlighten me? If you notice I dont claim to be liberal, sorry.

I don't care what you call your lean. Today's left are not liberals. Liberals are tolerant of others' opinions and wouldn't think of censoring the potus.
If you don't get it, nothing I can do to help you.

 

[Mr Person]

As I've said, the case charts are basically identical. If you can show otherwise, post them! I'll listen to facts. At least try to make your case. lol!

Strange. You already previously said this:

If you don't like deaths a metric of relative impact, please post the case curves by age. If it differs significantly, then I'll concede that you have a reasonable point.

To which I patiently responded:

:lamo

Your claim is that Trump was right that children are "almost immune" to COVID. You pointed to death rates in children from COVID. Pointing to deaths is hopelessly stupid. Lack of deaths does not establish immunity.

It's on YOU to find data that you actually understand and that actually backs up the claim that children are "almost immune" to COVID, since YOU made the claim.




That's how debate works.

<>

You made a claim, you failed to prove it, thus the burden remains on you. Why do you keep running away from debate?



:sigh:

 

[Kreton]

:lamo

Your claim is that Trump was right that children are "almost immune" to COVID. You pointed to death rates in children from COVID. Pointing to deaths is hopelessly stupid. Lack of deaths does not establish immunity.

It's on YOU to find data that you actually understand and that actually backs up the claim that children are "almost immune" to COVID, since YOU made the claim.




That's how debate works.

These people seem to think that not dying at high rates means immune. They don't understand that a person can pick up a disease, get sick from it, or carry it with no symptoms and spread it. They still have it, they aren't immune. However since they don't die at a high enough rate Trump and his cult equate that to immunity.

 

[trixare4kids]

Not only were his comments not false, they were not really misleading either, as the chart I shared fully demonstrates. If you can't drop disproven narratives, then you can't arrive at the truth.

Regardless, removing those comments is pure political censorship.

 

[Mr Person]

These people seem to think that not dying at high rates means immune. They don't understand that a person can pick up a disease, get sick from it, or carry it with no symptoms and spread it. They still have it, they aren't immune. However since they don't die at a high enough rate Trump and his cult equate that to immunity.

Either he's trolling (note the repetition of stock phrases, baity swill, and general refusal to follow the thread he started) OR he truly does not understand that children not dying from COVID does not mean they are not immune, but rather only reflects relative severity of symptoms in children.

Can't get anywhere with someone like that.

:shrug:

 

[trixare4kids]

Look up "almost."

As in: "almost immune from this disease."

Your post is "almost" smart.

I honestly don't know the major objection because they used the qualifier, 'almost'.

As I keep saying, I think the motivation to remove that particular opinion is all political.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Pretty clear from this thread there are some folks who don't understand how to evaluate data

I provided meaningful data showing relative impact by age from a strong source. I can go dig up the case graphs, but it's basically pointless. We could do hospitalizations, but the curve is identical. If you want a measure of the relative risk of the virus for each age group, my chart is perfectly good.

I actually do this stuff for a living.

And my original point stands: The censorship is unjustified. I would go so far as to say the censorship is more misleading than Trump's original statement.

Again, if you have data to refute it, then post it.

 

[trixare4kids]

Youve just described yourself. Congrats. :lol:

Just like always... Absolutely no self-awareness. :lol:

 

[Rogue Valley]

These people seem to think that not dying at high rates means immune.

Yes. Children are as susceptible to COVID as adults. The early data indicates however that infected children are more likely to be asymptomatic.

Be that as it may, one cannot be asymptomatic and also be immune. That is a contradiction of terms.

 

[SCrider]

Look up "almost."

As in: "almost immune from this disease."

Your post is "almost" smart.

In a medical context what does almost mean? It's Trumps way of lying but giving just enough for the cult to claim it's not a lie.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

These people seem to think that not dying at high rates means immune. They don't understand that a person can pick up a disease, get sick from it, or carry it with no symptoms and spread it. They still have it, they aren't immune. However since they don't die at a high enough rate Trump and his cult equate that to immunity.

No one. Not a single soul, Trump included, has argued that kids are immune.



As the data clearly show, kids are not immune. Hence, the use of the qualifier.

Regardless, you have the president making a policy case on mainstream media, and it was censored. Ridiculous!

Trump was right -- I'm actually getting tired of winning this argument! :lol:

 

[GhostlyJoe]

In a medical context what does almost mean? It's Trumps way of lying but giving just enough for the cult to claim it's not a lie.

Lie or not, the censorship is wrong and there is very strong case for opening the schools.

 

[Mr Person]

No one. Not a single soul, Trump included, has argued that kids are immune.

View attachment 67290342

As the data clearly show, kids are not immune. Hence, the use of the qualifier.

Regardless, you have the president making a policy case on mainstream media, and it was censored. Ridiculous!

Trump was right -- I'm actually getting tired of winning this argument! :lol:

You really do not understand the difference between immunity and severity of symptoms, huh?

You really think that if children do not die from COVID-19, that means they are almost immune to COVID-19?

You really think that if children do not die from the common cold, that means they are almost immune to the common cold?

Nevermind that headache, runny nose, physical/mental exhaustion. You aren't dead so you must be immune to the cold and thus cannot have it?

:lamo

 

[Kreton]

No one. Not a single soul, Trump included, has argued that kids are immune.

Damn. I assume you are kidding. You have to be.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

You really do not understand the difference between immunity and severity of symptoms, huh?

You really think that if children do not die from COVID-19, that means they are almost immune to COVID-19?

You really think that if children do not die from the common cold, that means they are almost immune to the common cold?

Nevermind that headache, runny nose, physical/mental exhaustion. You aren't dead so you must be immune to the cold and thus cannot have it?
:lamo

I think if kids aren't really at risk of harm, then they need to be in school. I support public education. Maybe you don't, but that's another issue for another time.

I also think the president shouldn't be censored for making a policy argument. If politicians were silenced every time they exaggerated, there'd be no political speeches at all.

You keep beating the same strawman. No one has argued that kids are immune. The chart I've been posting doesn't show immunity -- it shows relative risk. So here's the CDC chart yet again. Post the data that refute it.