I try to express my wrongness in a casual way in front of my child or children in general. I aim for them to take away that it’s not a big deal and there is no big stakes in always being right. And if I am right I try to argue facts and attempt to leave personal stakes out of it.
This reminds me of a story when I was a student. A girl/young woman I know was looking for her friend. Mobile phones was not really something we had but she arranged meeting him at some bar/pub but she didn’t know which one in town. So she then went through town checking one after the other. This was a small town with not that many but it took her much longer than it should. Later she explained she had ordered a drink in each one of the establishments as she felt uncomfortable entering and exiting looking for her friend without ordering something.
Your premises about qualifications and access is right but I disagree with your conclusion. We’re discussing a public figure, one whose heath state is affecting most people’s lives but said state is undisclosed or obfuscated from the public. It is our perogative to speculate political leaders’ state of mind affected by health issues because that is all that is available to us.
As a teenager I loved to read Lovecraft. It was a way to learn English as a nice side effect because it isn’t my native language but that also obscured the appalling racism from me which lead to disappointment when I found out later.
You could always claim you learned English from Irish English speakers: they commonly substitute dental frictives with the plosives, so /th/ with /t/ or /d/.