What's the point in blanket statements without any actual facts though?
You're saying 'a good proportion' but I've found it difficult to find stats on this for the UK - probably because it's devolved?
But if we extrapolate from Scotland's latest data:
(2017 - pop est 5.5mil / UK est 67.9mil)
91% (32,691 out of 35,989) of all care home residents (i.e. long stay, short stay and respite residents) were in Older people care homes.
Of the residents not in Older people care homes (so due to physical or learning disability, chronic or mental illness etc):
16-24: 6%
25-34: 10%
35-44: 11%
45-54: 26%
55-64: 29%
65+: 18%
So while it's worth being aware of (I think most people are - I've been on several threads and it is always mentioned but even if it weren't, it's rather obvious?), it's also worth remembering that since the vast majority of people in care homes are over 65, any discussion is going to be with that in mind?
I'm not sure I agree it warrants an automatic MN post. The only one I've seen widely is remember not to give anyone more than you can afford emotionally or financially etc which is hopefully stopping people getting potentially scammed.
The worst that is happening here is somebody walks away... uninformed? Which is highly subjective since they may not be, but also just an annoying fact of life really.
It's also (in my opinion) not really in the spirit of a discussion forum. And (while this is an infinitely less worrying example) is following the more worrying trend of suggesting algorithms ban words based on personal feelings instead of protected characteristics, or the wider trend of 'fact checking' personal opinions without offering any facts. It's not a crime to be 'uninformed' nor does it warrant mandatory 're-education' imo.