He didn't say they were "immune". He said they were "almost immune", which is certainly unscientific but is another way to say they are at very low risk. Trump was often reckless with his words, but you're being pedantic.
For example, he probably meant immune by the definition "protected from" with the implied thing being "serious medical harm" rather than "infection".
I agree it's disingenuous to call him a deliberate liar here when the truth is he just speaks with the vocabulary and scientific acumen of a candid 6th grader.
The real shame is triplicate here:
1. That we must settle for a president with those verbal skills
2. That his verbal skills are perhaps more reflective of the average American than we'd like to believe
3. That people with sometimes exceptional verbal skills and education can somehow not comprehend some of the simple truths that he can (children being at extremely low personal health risk should've been obvious to everyone after the first few months of the pandemic)
And in my opinion, the well educated being deluded into a false perception of reality is a lot more startling of a fact than that a person who has an obviously mediocre command of his native language and paltry understanding of scientific fundamentals said something that was incoherent and not technically correct when trying to verbalise his opinions.
Children can get COVID, they just don't get a high rate of complications. They do get sick, but not severely.
That is, in no way, "immune".
I'm not "almost immune" to the common cold because it doesn't make me very sick.
I'm guessing hindsight will tell us the cost-benefit of sending kids to school significantly outweighs the cost-benefit of the school shutdowns. And that's not even mentioning the actual effectiveness of school shutdowns in restricting the spread of Covid. We're already seeing very little difference in infection and death outcomes among children from areas that shut down their schools for a long period of time to those that did not.
In time I expect the narrative will turn to recognize that the policy consequences of "almost immune" would have been much preferred to the "sky is falling" rhetoric that resulted in schools that were closed for more than a year and the resulting educational and developmental damage that has caused.
On the contrary, I specifically said: "We're already seeing very little difference in infection and death outcomes among children from areas that shut down their schools for a long period of time to those that did not."
1) Lockdowns aren't as effective as thought
AND/OR
2) Children aren't as prolific at spreading Covids as adults.
My analysis here is far from scientific, but the data genuinely doesn't seem to indicate that the behavior of children influences the spread of Covid all that much.
If you could link to such a study, it would be worth a conversation itself I imagine, examining the methodology, age groups, zip codes, ect.
I live in Texas. I was assured by all the talking heads and enlightened types that when the governor reopened the state and eliminated all mask mandates, it was snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. It was premature, short-sighted, and unnecessary, they raved. I was assured we would be stacking bodies at the doorstep. None of that turned out to be the case.
In fact, when things opened up my kids got all the respiratory diseases normally shared over the winter. We had RSV, stomach bugs, colds - the works. Germs that had been at bay for a year were definitely spreading now that life was returning to normal!
Except Covid, that is. Thanks to vaccines and thanks to models that don’t seem to accurately simulate the effectiveness of masks and lockdowns, the apocalypse was averted.