Let me explain to you why "you are defending X" does not mean anything.
Take Bill Gates. What if I said "Bill Gates stole the Mona Lisa"? You could then rightly respond, "There is no evidence that Bill Gates stole the Mona Lisa." Would me asking you why you are defending him be a meaningful question?
The same applies here. You quoted something that had already been retracted as a mistake. It is completely appropriate to point this out so that others have more context and can make better conclusions. The subject matter or who was being quoted is irrelevant.
Incidentally, I don't think my reply came of as particularly "eager", as you put it.
He has since said he meant to say that 60% were unvaccinated.
Let me explain to you why "you are defending X" does not mean anything.
Take Bill Gates. What if I said "Bill Gates stole the Mona Lisa"? You could then rightly respond, "There is no evidence that Bill Gates stole the Mona Lisa." Would me asking you why you are defending him be a meaningful question?
The same applies here. You quoted something that had already been retracted as a mistake. It is completely appropriate to point this out so that others have more context and can make better conclusions. The subject matter or who was being quoted is irrelevant.
Incidentally, I don't think my reply came of as particularly "eager", as you put it.