[hughrlomas]

An analogy would be this: it would be like flying in a plane designed by an engineer that calculated coincidentally correct values but arrived at them using completely incorrect methods and calculations.

The output happened to be right but the method to get there was fundamentally wrong and would be faulty if used in other scenarios.

Getting the right answer for the wrong reasons is still wrong in a way, the process to arrive at the conclusion is important.

[dannyw]

For the average American, Trump's description is probably more understandable and meaningful than a precise definition.

There's a reason why half of America (~1 in 2 voters) voted for Trump, twice, you know.

I for one don't give a crap about the precise definition of immunity when communicating in everyday conversations; the same way I don't argue with a family relative using a computer science term colloquially. Children are almost immune to covid.

[maxerickson]

For public policy, being at low risk for severe illness is substantively different than being almost immune.

It is over the top to expect leaders to communicate in a way that facilitates effective public policy?

[askafriend]

Ok but you’re a nobody.

The collateral damage you can do by being loose with words is basically zero.

For a President, it’s literally their entire job to be effective at communicating.