Twitter puts warning on Trump tweet claiming he's immune to Covid-19

[midian182]

What just happened? Once again, a Donald Trump tweet has been labeled with a fact-check warning by the social network. A post by the president in which he claimed to be "immune" to Covid-19 after being given the all-clear by the White House has been flagged as violating Twitter's rules.

Trump's tweet came soon after a three-night stay in hospital following his positive test for Covid-19. "A total and complete sign off from White House Doctors yesterday. That means I can't get it (immune), and can't give it. Very nice to know!!!," he wrote.

A total and complete sign off from White House Doctors yesterday. That means I can’t get it (immune), and can’t give it. Very nice to know!!!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 11, 2020

Twitter has an extensive policy when it comes to what information is posted regarding the Coronavirus. This includes requiring the removal of tweets intended to influence others to violate Covid-19 guidance, claims about ineffective/harmful treatments, and ads for unverified treatments and cures.

Trump's message is hidden behind the warning: "This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public's interest for the Tweet to remain accessible."

How Trump's tweet appears on his timeline

Back in 2017, Twitter responded to complaints that some of Trump's posts relating to North Korea incited violence by stating they were newsworthy and wouldn't be removed. The company started exploring the idea of labeling similar tweets two years later.

Despite being a prolific user of the platform, Trump has clashed with Twitter on several occasions this year. He said the site was "stifling free speech" in May after his claim about mail-in ballots was labeled with a fact-checking warning. It also flagged his 'racist baby' tweet with a manipulated media label, and last week saw both Facebook and Twitter take action against his post that suggested seasonal flu is deadlier than Covid-19.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/87070-twitter-puts-warning-trump-tweet-claiming-immune-covid.html

 

[QuantumPhysics]

To say that "this is insane" at this point is superfluous.

I am glad that social medias finally started fighting back against this madness with "fact checking" and even the blocking (temporarily) of Trump's Twitter when he started sharing personal info of journalists just last week... but it's disgusting that this psychosis must continue even if it is for just a few months till he's ousted.

I wonder how many people died because they actually listened to the misinformation about covid-19 coming from Trump's dysfunctional White House?

 

[havok585]

To say that "this is insane" at this point is superfluous.

I am glad that social medias finally started fighting back against this madness with "fact checking" and even the blocking (temporarily) of Trump's Twitter when he started sharing personal info of journalists just last week... but it's disgusting that this psychosis must continue even if it is for just a few months till he's ousted.

I wonder how many people died because they actually listened to the misinformation about covid-19 coming from Trump's dysfunctional White House?

Nobody died, nobody cried, just your flawed logic.
I dont care about Trump, but Twitter or Facebook trying to hide information of a president just shows how much censorship goes on regular people posting their experiences.

F*ck twitter/facebook.

 

[franticfrosty]

Nobody died, nobody cried, just your flawed logic.
I dont care about Trump, but Twitter or Facebook trying to hide information of a president just shows how much censorship goes on regular people posting their experiences.

F*ck twitter/facebook.

Starting to see who took donalds advice of injecting bleach.

On that note, They should just ban donald, he might be the president, But that doesn't mean he's actually relevant or useful. If only it was a requirement to have some braincells to use social media maybe life would be easier.

 

[BrianMontanye]

Nobody died, nobody cried, just your flawed logic.
I dont care about Trump, but Twitter or Facebook trying to hide information of a president just shows how much censorship goes on regular people posting their experiences.

F*ck twitter/facebook.

They aren't hiding it, they are telling you he is full of BS. Which is on par with pretty much anything he says.

 

[USAvenger]

Who's fact checking the fact checkers?

 

[wiyosaya]

Nobody died, nobody cried, just your flawed logic.
I dont care about Trump, but Twitter or Facebook trying to hide information of a president just shows how much censorship goes on regular people posting their experiences.

F*ck twitter/facebook.

IMO, it does not matter who it is. If they are spreading misinformation, they deserve to be censored. According to a recent study by Cornell University, Trump is the biggest single source of misinformation on COVID-19. https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommyb...information-cornell-study-finds/#6d4f6bd96d70

EDIT: So it is entirely possible that people dumb enough to trust anything he says, died because they followed his bogus "advice".

 

[Uncle Al]

A great piece on 60 minutes last night talking about this very thing followed by another great piece about "The Lincoln Project" and just how many Republicans are turning away from Trump. There is certainly now clear way or fool proof method to stop all the misinformation, our own military and state department uses it strategically on a near daily basis. The real key is to raise your kids with a healthy bit of skepticism against anything that comes from a politician, advertiser, or another person that has something to gain at your expense. The world certainly isn't about to change, but making sure your children are well armed to question what they doubt and not be intimidated by bullies is a very good start.

 

[Sean T]

Starting to see who took donalds advice of injecting bleach.

On that note, They should just ban donald, he might be the president, But that doesn't mean he's actually relevant or useful. If only it was a requirement to have some braincells to use social media maybe life would be easier.

If being relevant or useful is the criteria for posting on social media, social media wouldn't exist. This post (including mine) was not useful or even relevant. I guess we should be banned.

 

[Goat11]

I guess some people still believe this moronic ***** who calls himself "president"... Oh well, less than a month is left for this blondie wrecking ball to irritate most of us... let's us all pray for a peaceful transition coming January!

edit: Techspot moderators, the word "Id-iot" isn't profanity.

 

[Goat11]

Who's fact checking the fact checkers?

it's called reality buddy, something trump is missing out on daily basis

 

[Endymio]

According to a recent study by Cornell University

According to a recent political rant by some liberal Cornell professors, is what you mean. The lead author of this "study" is Sarah Evanega, a professor of plant breeding for Cornell's college of agriculture. It doesn't take much to understand why she's suddenly publishing information which has nothing to with her field of study. Nor are the results surprising, given she's starting with the assumption that everything with which she disagrees is false. A classic case of confirmation bias.

More to the point, Trump's statement was in no way false. When you recover from a virus, you do so because of an immune response. You are immune, if only temporarily so. As Trump himself pointed out, we do not know if that immunity is short term or long term, but it still exists:

The Immune Response

 

[Bullwinkle M]

Who's fact checking the fact checkers?

Ooooh, Pick ME, PICK ME!

Let's check the facts:

"A total and complete sign off from White House Doctors yesterday. That means I can’t get it (immune), and can’t give it. Very nice to know!!!"
--------------------------------------------------
He said he is immune to "getting" the virus (check)
He did not say he was immune to the virus itself (check)

His tweet appears to be accurate and factual

He cannot get the virus again until his immunity wears off (check)

For now, he is indeed immune to "getting" the virus (not the virus itself)

Everything checks out!

It's a FACT!

 

[wiyosaya]

If being relevant or useful is the criteria for posting on social media, social media wouldn't exist. This post (including mine) was not useful or even relevant. I guess we should be banned.

However, nothing in your post is going to inspire anyone to go out and do something dangerous. There is a difference as I see it.

 

[Bullwinkle M]

Techspot better change the Title

Trump never claimed that he's immune to Covid-19

Get your facts straight!

 

[wiyosaya]

According to a recent political rant by some liberal Cornell professors, is what you mean. The lead author of this "study" is Sarah Evanega, a professor of plant breeding for Cornell's college of agriculture. It doesn't take much to understand why she's suddenly publishing information which has nothing to with her field of study. Nor are the results surprising, given she's starting with the assumption that everything with which she disagrees is false. A classic case of confirmation bias.

More to the point, Trump's statement was in no way false. When you recover from a virus, you do so because of an immune response. You are immune, if only temporarily so. As Trump himself pointed out, we do not know if that immunity is short term or long term, but it still exists:

The Immune Response

I guess your memory escapes you in that Trump ridiculously suggested people inject bleach. The content of that same suggestion inspired people to do things which spiked calls to poison hotlines around the country.

Coming from someone, a supposed scientist like yourself, who arguably is in line with climate change deniers, this is rich. I see no reason someone cannot perform a study outside of their expertise, especially a study like this which was little more than a survey of media. Yeah, now give me those dangers of getting science from media again. Except, of course, media that _you_ have reviewed for accuracy.

EDIT: Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Endymio]

I guess your memory escapes you in that Trump ridiculously suggested people inject bleach.

No matter how many times you repeat that lie, it still remains untrue. I also notice that, rather than attempt the impossible task of refuting that Trump's tweet was indeed accurate, you quickly changed the subject. Wise move.

I see no reason someone cannot perform a study outside of their expertise, especially a study like this which was little more than a survey of media.

In general, there is no reason. However, when immediately before an election a professor of agriculture suddenly decides for the first time in her life to publish her political opinions on the media, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand why.

 

[Squid Surprise]

While I despise Trump and hope he loses the next election (but I think he'll win because Americans are pretty dumb), I have no problem with his latest tweet... Assuming that the doctors actually signed off on him, he IS immune to Covid and can't spread it - temporarily - which is what he claimed.

There are plenty of things to bash Trump about - but this particular case is not one of them.

 

[Nobina]

Both sides claim they have the facts and the other side is spreading misinformation. Most likely, you are all full of ****.

 

[axiomatic13]

Nobody died, nobody cried, just your flawed logic.
I dont care about Trump, but Twitter or Facebook trying to hide information of a president just shows how much censorship goes on regular people posting their experiences.

F*ck twitter/facebook.

Laughs in Herman Cain.

 

[Evernessince]

According to a recent political rant by some liberal Cornell professors, is what you mean. The lead author of this "study" is Sarah Evanega, a professor of plant breeding for Cornell's college of agriculture. It doesn't take much to understand why she's suddenly publishing information which has nothing to with her field of study. Nor are the results surprising, given she's starting with the assumption that everything with which she disagrees is false. A classic case of confirmation bias.

More to the point, Trump's statement was in no way false. When you recover from a virus, you do so because of an immune response. You are immune, if only temporarily so. As Trump himself pointed out, we do not know if that immunity is short term or long term, but it still exists:

The Immune Response

1) There is more than one stain of Corona virus
2) There is evidence that suggests people who have had coronavirus before can and have become infected again.

He can say he's "immune" but there is no data to support such a claim. Are you immune to the common cold if you have it one year?

Arugments attacking the person are not substitutes for evidence.

 

[Endymio]

There is evidence that suggests people who have had coronavirus before can and have become infected again.

A hot mess of errors in that statement. First of all, there is vast difference between something being verifiably incorrect and the evidence merely "suggesting" it may be wrong. But what the evidence actually suggests is that B cell produced antibodies fade in a period of weeks or months. However:

a) Until that happens you are indisputably immune.
b) Even after that happens, your T-cell response may keep you immune.

Trump's statement was accurate.

 

[Evernessince]

A hot mess of errors in that statement.

Oh please, you accuse everyone of having errors yet you never provide evidence and conduct ad hominem attacks. Let me show you how an argument is supposed to be done.

First of all, there is vast difference between something being verifiably incorrect and the evidence merely "suggesting" it may be wrong. But what the evidence actually suggests is that B cell produced antibodies fade in a period of weeks or months. However:

a) Until that happens you are indisputably immune.
b) Even after that happens, your T-cell response may keep you immune.

Trump's statement was accurate.

What we know about COVID-19 and immunity

Since his return from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, President Donald Trump has repeated that he may now

www.politifact.com

Trump's statement was the following

" That means I can't get it (immune), and can't give it."

1) You already confirmed that he in fact can contract it again. There are studies showing as such. https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200824/study-confirms-its-possible-to-catch-covid-twice#:~:text=Researchers in Hong Kong say,-19 in March.

Trump said "I can't get it", which is contrary to the data. He can't get it for 4 weeks to 4 months. "I can't get it" and immunity in terms of virology are two entirely different things. One infers that you can't get it with no time limit while immunity, in regards to virology, refers to the period after an infection or vaccine and that always carries a time limit on the immunity. The fact that he uses both here just signifies that he doesn't understand the limited nature of Coronavirus immunity. You arguing that he has immunity at this moment when a majority of the public hasn't even being made aware of the limited time-frame of that immunity thanks to Trump's squelching of health officials is not only misleading, it's dangerous for public health. If prior infected individuals take his statements as truth, that can put their lives and the lives of others in harms way.

2) You can be a carrier of COVID for WEEKS after clearing symptoms: https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-spread-after-recovery.html

No, his statement was far from accurate and misleading. It should have certainly been flagged as it had the potential to exacerbate the US's already world's worst Coronavirus response.

 

[Endymio]

1) You already confirmed that he in fact can contract it again. There are studies showing as such.

Again, you're posting links without reading them. Allow me to quote from your first link:

"[Four and a half months after first showing symptoms] he was screened for COVID-19...He tested positive, but this time, had no symptoms. He was taken to the hospital for monitoring. His viral load -- the amount of virus he had in his body -- went down over time, suggesting that his immune system was taking care of the intrusion on its own. "

In other words: the virus was detected in his body, but he did not have Covid-19, which is not the virus itself, but (to quote Merriam Webster online), "a potentially severe, primarily respiratory illness caused by a coronavirus and characterized by fever, coughing, and shortness of breath." The virus is not the disease. His immune response was still active, and he not only did not contract the disease, but there is no evidence to suggest his viral load was high enough to infect others.

Every single day of your life, your body is invaded by coronaviruses, rhinoviruses, and influenza viruses. A sensitive enough test will pick these up continually. Their presence in your body does not mean you have "caught" the diseases they cause.

The fact that Trump uses both here just signifies that he doesn't understand the limited nature of Coronavirus immunity...

Had you read his actual statement, rather than relying in biased media accounts, you would have realized that Trump himself stated that his immunity may last, "maybe a long time, maybe a short time. It could be a lifetime. Nobody really knows, but I’m immune.”

In other words, Trump himself specifically pointed out that immunity may be temporary. But the immunity still exists. His tweet was accurate, and in no way misleading to anyone who even approaches a normal intelligence level.

 

[Endymio]

it had the potential to exacerbate the US's already world's worst Coronavirus response.

Top six nations by per-capita Covid-19 deaths (Data current Oct 2, 2020):

1) Belgium
2) Bolivia
3) Brazil
4) Ecuador
5) Chile
6) Spain

The US weighs in at #8, which sounds bad to those whose only familiarity with the data is what they read in press reports. But the US, however, does not require a positive Covid test to tally a Covid death, but as per CDC guidelines allows for "assumed" deaths to be counted. The US and Belgium are the only two nations in the world that count deaths this way. As a result, both overreport deaths while other nations underreport them. The US also does not require Covid to be certified as the primary cause of death, which also inflates death counts.

To quote from BBC News:

Since the start of March... the CDC asked local governments to record "assumed" coronavirus infections on death certificates.... (link).