Why didn't twitter add a warning label to this MSNBC tweet?

Twitter is a business first and a platform for people's voices last.

You’re right, you’re not for stopping false information, just for pointing out the perceived hypocrisy of “the other.”

Also, Twitter is a private organization, they don’t answer to you or anyone else trying to regulate them. Sorry!

So if we accept your figure of .6 percent then we allegedly have 1,290,00 deaths. Any strategy that results in that would be OK as long as Donald gets re-elected. That likely would be the true feelings of most of Donald’s supporters.

rojo wrote:

I'm all for stopping false information in theory but the reason why it's a controversial is because it's hard to implement.

[proceeds to throw stones in an eggshell-thin glass house]

Can't have it both ways Rojo: I believe it was either you or your brother a few months ago who were arguing that the amount of true infections (e.g. not tested) was not as high as projected. Now you can't use that as a fact to state that the mortality rate is lower - please be consistent.

Classically herd immunity is obtained in a population at 70-80%; the 65% used in that article is conservative if anything. Coronavirus won't have a different herd immunity percentage just because you want it to.

Yes, any projection is going to be flawed, however this one is at least using the current data.

liar liar! wrote:

You are a liar rojo. Should be banned from your own site. You have allowed months of COVID disinformation on this site, and your moderators delete posts that point this out.

Agreed - this post should be only for "premium" members (they knew what they were signing up for).

Thanks for sharing. It should not come as a surprise, just look at the source. Journalism has been dead for years now, but this takes it to a new level. Not surprising that the usual resident triggered liberals swoop in with their various highly intelligent responses. It is surprising that they condone this fearmongering crap.

You need to learn the difference between IFR and CFR. IFR is the number of death divided by the number of infected individuals. CFR is the number of deaths divided by the number of confirmed cases via nasal swab. Currently in the US, there are 203,026 deaths and 6,915,590 cases per worldometer. That is 2.93%. MSNBC may be using CDC of COVID tracking to get an extra .04%. Worldometer is always a few days ahead of the other counts.

IFR is not limited by the number of counted infections. IFR can use estimates of infections based on antibody testing. IFR will always be a much lower number than CFR because a lot of people are never tested because they were asymptomatic. IFR is what has been in the .24 to 1 % range.

MSNBC is clearly using CFR.

The current consensus is that herd immunity requires somewhere in 60s to 70% range of the population to be infected to achieve herd immunity (for however long that may last). 50% is considered to be "optimistic" and without much support from the scientific community. The lower range estimates are just theories right now without any scientific support. They are based on theories that people who develop T-cell reactivity to the virus without developing anti-bodies might be protected and that there could be cross reactivity with T-cell immunity for people exposed to other coronaviruses that cause the common cold. These are just theories. They may turn out to be true, but we do not know one way or the other yet. In the case of the outbreaks at San Quentin and a French air craft carrier, the virus spread did not begin to slow until it reached 70% of the population.

Finally, the MSNBC tweet is a prediction. Modeling COVID is difficult business. The Trump administration's crappy response to the virus was in part driven by some very poor modeling that Dr. Birx thought was credible. That is some reason why Trump kept saying that the virus was going to go away and Jared said we would be "rockin and rollin" by June. The other reason is that they are stupid. But the point is that a prediction is not a statement of fact. Some modelers might predict an even high death toll by factoring in how fast an unobstructed outbreak would take place and the effect overwhelming hospitals would have on the health care system. Others would be more conservative and include assumptions that voluntary social distancing may slow and limit spread. But, there is a factual basis for the assumptions of MSNBC's model.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-00451-5

I'm not deleting anything of substance. I temporarily deleted a few posts that included all of my links in their reply as it was annoying and making the thread too long. I then edited those posts so only their replies showed up.

I did delete a post about Trump supporters being happy if 1 million died as long as he was re-elected and removed a line in my original post about how if Trump put out a tweet like MSNBC everyone would be ripping him for spreading obvious false information as I don't want this turning into Trump talk. I want it turning into media failure/bias talk.

As for our own site, I've never said we were going to put warning labels on stuff. If someone posts, " Covid is a hoax" and I see it I'll delete it as everyone with a brain believes that be false.

But if someone says, "Hey I think the Swedish model is the best here is why." I"m not going to delete that. Or if someone posts, "Might Covid is less dangerous to kids than the regular flu" I'm not going to delete that either. Or even posts a link talking about whether t-cell immunity might mean herd immunity comes much sooner than we think.

Precious Roy wrote:

You need to learn the difference between IFR and CFR. ...

MSNBC is clearly using CFR.

No I don't . MSNBC does.

They are clearly using CFR and they are using it incorrectly. The # of projected deaths coming in a herd immunity scenario must be based off of IFR.

Daniel Son wrote:

Also, you’re a joke. Why don’t you focus more on the false information being spread ON YOUR OWN WEBSITE

I'd be happy to.

Unlike twitter and unlike facebook if you believe there is something that needs to be taken down, you can pick up the phone and call us. Do this right now. 844-538-7786. Hit ext 3 and you'll be ringing my cell phone. Good luck getting the founder of twitter on the line.

Please call me and me what posts need to come down and I'll look into it.

zls;fjlsdczf wrote:

Wow, this is rich.

And you didn't even bother switching to your Allen53 account!

The leftists don’t react well when you point out their hypocrisy and lies.

Rojo you do not need to lie. You did not delete my post but furthermore your lie was in stating that I stated that Trump supporters would be “happy” if 1,290,000 died. That was NEVER stated by me. However if you do delete it it proves what a hypocrite you are for tolerating so much trash from your side.

LRC Update. Here is he post that was deleted. We deleted it as it wasn't a topical reply to the subect of this thread. This thread is about fale statements being allowed on twitter, not about Donad Trump's reelection chances.

Joggergal wrote:

So if we accept your figure of .6 percent then we allegedly have 1,290,00 deaths. Any strategy that results in that would be OK as long as Donald gets re-elected. That likely would be the true feelings of most of Donald’s supporters.

MD Epidemiologist wrote:

Can't have it both ways Rojo: I believe it was either you or your brother a few months ago who were arguing that the amount of true infections (e.g. not tested) was not as high as projected. Now you can't use that as a fact to state that the mortality rate is lower - please be consistent.

Classically herd immunity is obtained in a population at 70-80%; the 65% used in that article is conservative if anything. Coronavirus won't have a different herd immunity percentage just because you want it to.

Yes, any projection is going to be flawed, however this one is at least using the current data.

No. It's not using current data.

This one is off by a huge factor. Even if you say it's 80%, you still have to use the 0.6% death rate.

There are 330 million Americans. If 80% of them get Covid, that would be 264 million infections. If 0.6% of them die, you are looking at 1.584 million deaths.

My post would be OK if I simply state that .06 results in 1,290,000 deaths and then add whatever commentary might be palatable to the moderators.

I guess no one wants to answer the question, so I will. Because Twitter's "fact-checking" team is run by leftist, intellectually inconsistent Bernie Sanders fans.

Well the Brojos are biased but they do allow dissenting opinions often. All of us are biased of course, but some cannot ever appear objective.

If you compare to the tweets that have received labels it's obvious Twitter is highlighting egregious examples of media misinformation - such as the edited video of those children playing together which Trump tweeted. The MSNBC tweet isn't factually incorrect and the statistic isn't disputed in the sense of it being a lie, although there is data to suggest it's an exaggeration.

There are plenty of examples of misinformation from Trump which has been unlabelled, for instance when he suggested the elderly man who was assaulted by police could have been a provocateur. Although this was completely unfounded, Twitter ignored it. Honestly they wouldn't have the time to take a fair look if that's the standard they set.

Joggergal wrote:

So if we accept your figure of .6 percent then we allegedly have 1,290,00 deaths. Any strategy that results in that would be OK as long as Donald gets re-elected. That likely would be the true feelings of most of Donald’s supporters.

If it were Hillary, it'd be "different", right?

appleswan. wrote:

There are plenty of examples of misinformation from Trump which has been unlabelled, for instance when he suggested the elderly man who was assaulted by police could have been a provocateur. Although this was completely unfounded, Twitter ignored it. Honestly they wouldn't have the time to take a fair look if that's the standard they set.

Exactly. Untold Trump tweets are suspect. When they fully vet the guy who is {checks notes} President of the United States, then we can worry about media. And by the way, has Mr Rojo checked tweets from Fox, Daily Mail, OANN, Epoch Times, etc etc? He may be in for a shock.

Its true that the IFR is lower than the CFR. 0.6 is probably a good estimate but the 50+ population would be crushed by a "herd immunity" approach. Their IFR might be 3% (or higher) and then factor in hospitalization, long term effects (on younger people even), etc.