New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Twitter and Facebook Censor CDC Science Because Trump Quoted It

Mr. Friscus

Governor
Twitter and Facebook censored tweets and messages by Trump which spoke about how children are exponentially more immune to the disease than adults.

The CDC, and all available data, support this claim.

However, it flies in the face of leftist ideology, and Trump said it. so I guess according to big tech it’s automatically wrong and must be suppressed.

What open-minded times we live in.

 
Twitter and Facebook censored tweets and messages by Trump which spoke about how children are exponentially more immune to the disease than adults.

The CDC, and all available data, support this claim.

However, it flies in the face of leftist ideology, and Trump said it. so I guess according to big tech it’s automatically wrong and must be suppressed.

What open-minded times we live in.

No, the data don’t support it, the CDC doesn’t endorse the claim, and the misinformation could get people killed.
 
Twitter and Facebook censored tweets and messages by Trump which spoke about how children are exponentially more immune to the disease than adults.

The CDC, and all available data, support this claim.

However, it flies in the face of leftist ideology, and Trump said it. so I guess according to big tech it’s automatically wrong and must be suppressed.

What open-minded times we live in.

Gullible is now Open-minded? C'mon
 
No. I’m saying that children aren’t “almost immune.”

from February to April, 150,000 cases of COVID, only 2,500 (1.7%) were children.

1.7%... That’s almost immune

children don’t transmit the disease much if statistically at all, so says contact tracing.

death rate for age 10-19 = 0.2%.. statistically near non existent, and only 17 children under 5 have died
 
Last edited:
from February to April, 150,000 cases of COVID, only 2,500 (1.7%) were children.

1.7%... That’s almost immune

death rate for age 10-19 = 0.2%.. statistically near non existent
Children who are infected are less likely to be tested because they are less likely to have life-threatening symptoms.

“Almost immune” would mean a negligible number (not percentage ... I mean, was Tom Hanks “almost immune” since he accounted for less than 0.001% of total cases?) of cases. Not several thousand.
 
Children who are infected are less likely to be tested because they are less likely to have life-threatening symptoms.

“Almost immune” would mean a negligible number (not percentage ... I mean, was Tom Hanks “almost immune” since he accounted for less than 0.001% of total cases?) of cases. Not several thousand.

now we’re splitting hairs to justify censorship.. yikes
 
Children who are infected are less likely to be tested because they are less likely to have life-threatening symptoms.

“Almost immune” would mean a negligible number (not percentage ... I mean, was Tom Hanks “almost immune” since he accounted for less than 0.001% of total cases?) of cases. Not several thousand.

Actually, any child returning to school needs to be tested, at least in our state.
 
Twitter and Facebook censored tweets and messages by Trump which spoke about how children are exponentially more immune to the disease than adults.

The CDC, and all available data, support this claim.

However, it flies in the face of leftist ideology, and Trump said it. so I guess according to big tech it’s automatically wrong and must be suppressed.

What open-minded times we live in.



Trump was correct. But Dr Facebook & Dr Twitter can't let that happen.
 
if numbers like 1.7% are pushed as some significant number... that’s manipulative
Again, the percentage of total confirmed cases that involve children is not really relevant to a claim of immunity. Tom Hanks personally represented less than 0.001% of confirmed cases, but we can’t conclude from that that he was immune. Relevant evidence would be whether there were some non-negligible number of kids infected. And in fact there were.
 
Lots of dumb left winger statements but this has go to be the dumbest of the day. Now how susceptible you are to catching a disease has nothing to do with immunity? Good God.
Not if different rates of “susceptibility” are explained by differences in likelihood of exposure.
 
Back
Top