Covid is a accidental Lab leaked bioweapon

[Chi13]

No it came from a wet market selling bats that lived a few hundred miles from Wuhan.......Yeah that's the ticket.


​​​​​​China is now working on a biological weapon which is genetically targeted to kill all races OTHER than the Chinese.

The PCR tests which are taking place all over the world are generating racial DNA-data which is feeding into this new Chinese research.


It's pretty clear you have no clue about the CCP. Highly suggest a conversation with some Chinese folks living under CCP rule. Ever hear about the Uyghurs?

You are just making this shit up as you go. We are all part of the human race so good luck with that one something that targets other races?

I work closely with a Chinese guy who frequently returns home. Where do you get your inside info? You are clueless.

 

[gaiusmarius]

when you take a bat virus and make it more adapted to humans you are making a biological weapon. whether its a good weapon or not is not the point. it is a weapon and if it escaped the lab, this pest is what could and has happened....

Rand Paul on 'explosive' hearing with Dr. Fauci


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zX049inRUcY

 

[St. Phatty]

when you take a bat virus and make it more adapted to humans you are making a biological weapon. whether its a good weapon or not is not the point. it is a weapon and if it escaped the lab, this pest is what could and has happened....

Rand Paul on 'explosive' hearing with Dr. Fauci


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zX049inRUcY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7aALxH3MFk&t=1s

7 minutes of Rand asking Fauci questions.

 

[gaiusmarius]

You are just making this shit up as you go. We are all part of the human race so good luck with that one something that targets other races?

I work closely with a Chinese guy who frequently returns home. Where do you get your inside info? You are clueless.

China has a lot to worry about, they are not dumb, the US has been interested in bio weapons for ages, just google race specific bio weapons. it would only make sense for China to want to know about this stuff, even if only how to defend against it.

but this is not the hypothesis here, you really should read the article i posted at the start from start to finish. if only so that you know what is being suggested as the most likely scenario. you can't debunk a theory you didnt completely read and understand.

 

[GOT_BUD?]

when you take a bat virus and make it more adapted to humans you are making a biological weapon. whether its a good weapon or not is not the point. it is a weapon and if it escaped the lab, this pest is what could and has happened....

Rand Paul on 'explosive' hearing with Dr. Fauci


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zX049inRUcY

I can't stand Rand Paul. But he is dead on the money. And I really like how Fauci lawyered it up and tried to define "gain of function" research to fit his narrative.

 

[Chi13]

China has a lot to worry about, they are not dumb, the US has been interested in bio weapons for ages, just google race specific bio weapons. it would only make sense for China to want to know about this stuff, even if only how to defend against it.

but this is not the hypothesis here, you really should read the article i posted at the start from start to finish. if only so that you know what is being suggested as the most likely scenario. you can't debunk a theory you didnt completely read and understand.

I did read the article, and I have a background studying "race", although from a social science perspective, it did include science behind race. The idea that humans are different based on race has little validity, especially considering human movement and interbreeding over thousands of years. Rational wiki puts it better than me;
The suggestion is that a virus could be created by genetic engineering that would be able to distinguish genetically between different races and only affect some of them. The idea tends to be based on a simplistic and erroneous view of race: see Racialism. Race is not determined by a single gene, but involves a large number of genes many of which are found across different races. Hence it is unlikely that any weapon would be 100% accurate, because it is impossible to produce a 100% accurate correlation between race and genes. Population geneticist David Goldstein said in 2004: "Because all groups are quite similar you will never get something that is highly selective. The best you would probably do is something that kills 20% of one group and 28% of another.

 

[BudToaster]

wasn't this a Tom Clancy book? anyway what's a little collateral damage ... taking one for the society.

 

[Doctor M]

You are just making this shit up as you go. We are all part of the human race so good luck with that one something that targets other races?

I work closely with a Chinese guy who frequently returns home. Where do you get your inside info? You are clueless.

LMAO is that like I have a black friend at work so I'm not racist?

Does your "Chinese Friend" has an inside track on what the CCP is doing?


Man oh man you really debunked that. LOL

 

[Chi13]

LMAO is that like I have a black friend at work so I'm not racist?

Does your "Chinese Friend" has an inside track on what the CCP is doing?


Man oh man you really debunked that. LOL

Lol yourself.
I was replying to your statement which was "It's pretty clear you have no clue about the CCP. Highly suggest a conversation with some Chinese folks living under CCP rule. Ever hear about the Uyghurs?" As I do actually have a Chinese friend who does have a clue, I pointed that out.

 

[Doctor M]

‘Virus warfare’ in China military documents

​​​​​​https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sub...c2f-1620880360https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sub...c2f-1620880360

Chinese scientists allegedly investigated weaponising coronaviruses five years before the Covid-19 pandemic and may have predicted a World War III fought with biological weapons, according to media reports referring to documents obtained by the US State Department.

According to The Sun newspaper in the UK, quoting reports first released by The Australian, the bombshell documents obtained by the US State Department reportedly show the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) commanders making the sinister prediction.

US officials allegedly obtained the papers which were written by military scientists and senior Chinese public health officials in 2015 as part of their own investigation into the origins of Covid-19.

Chinese scientists described SARS coronaviruses of which Covid is one example as presenting a new era of genetic weapons.

 

[gaiusmarius]

Lol yourself.
I was replying to your statement which was "It's pretty clear you have no clue about the CCP. Highly suggest a conversation with some Chinese folks living under CCP rule. Ever hear about the Uyghurs?" As I do actually have a Chinese friend who does have a clue, I pointed that out.

inside information about the Uighurs? lets have it then, whats actually going on there?

the point about weapons is to kill people, if they kill a few of the wrong people no one really cares much as long as the weapons kill mostly those that are targeted.

 

[gaiusmarius]

Bioweapons designed to kill only people of particular race
https://guardian.ng/features/health/bioweapons-designed-to-kill-only-people-of-particular-race/

*Cambridge University warns world must prepare for biological weapon that target ethnic groups based on genetics
Scientists warn that humans should be worried about being wiped out by a killer pathogen that is specifically designed to kill people of only a particular race, based on their genetic material/ Deoxy ribonucleic Acid (DNA).

A new report from Cambridge University’s Centre for the Study of Existential Risk says that world governments have failed when it comes to preparing against threats like futuristic bioweapons powered by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and genetic manipulation. Such weapons would have to power to target specific DNA, and kill certain races of people leaving other swaths of the population unharmed.

Imagine it being sprayed in the form of the tinfoil hat conspiracy of chemtrails, and wiping out certain portions of the population. The authors warn: “The technology is becoming increasingly sophisticated at ever cheaper prices, democratising the ability to harm more quickly and lethally. In a particularly bad case, a bio-weapon could be built to target a specific ethnic group based on its genomic profile”.

A biological weapon is any infectious agent, such as bacteria, virus or toxin, which is used intentionally to inflict bodily harm to people, animals or nature. They can be used to cause massive casualties, social disruption, economic losses, and environmental problems as a means of warfare or terrorism. Biological weapons are difficult to handle after release because they are infectious agents that spread uncontrollably beyond the target area.

Rapid scientific developments and the possible misuses of scientific achievements to create biological weapons make this an area of growing concern for the disarmament community.

The only major confirmed use of bio-weapons was the Japanese attack on Manchuria in the 1930s. However the number of states with biological warfare programs has been estimated to be in the range of 16 to 20. The number of states with the capacity to make biological weapons is over 100. Due to the secrecy with which such programmes are conducted and the fact that facilities for producing biological weapons are easier to hide than the ones for nuclear and chemical weapons, it is hard to know exactly how many states possess biological weapons or to detect bio-weapons programmes. A further problem is the dual-use nature of many installations; it is difficult to distinguish defensive from offensive uses.

Biological weapons are considerably cheaper than nuclear and chemical weapons and have a large effect-to-quantity ratio. In other words, a relatively small amount of biological agent can cause a relatively large number of deaths – equivalent, in some assessments, to those resulting from nuclear use. They do not require complex delivery systems, and their ease of manufacture is increasing with advances in science.

Given their relative affordability, effectiveness and flexibility, biological weapons are increasingly being considered as an attractive option by non-state actors, making bioterrorism one of the major threats regarding this type of weapon.The use of biological agents to force the eradication of drug production crops is promoted by the USA, notably in Colombia.

The US is developing infectious agents that kill drug plants. This controversial strategy carries great dangers of undermining international prohibitions on biological weapons, presenting risks for human health and posing dangers to the environment.The 1925 Geneva Protocol outlawed the use of biological weapons as well as chemical ones. However, it contains serious limitations: it does not prohibit the development, production and stockpiling of biological weapons, and some countries assert the right to retaliate if attacked with biological weapons.

The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), which entered into force in 1975, supplemented the Geneva Protocol. It was the first multilateral disarmament treaty to ban the production and use of an entire category of weapons. The BTWC has currently 165 States Parties and 12 signatories. It aims at banning the development, production, stockpiling, acquisition, retention, transfer, and use of biological weapons by anyone.

However, unlike the Chemical Weapons Convention, the treaty lacks verification and compliance procedures, and there is no implementing body to monitor observance. An attempt was made in 1991 to establish a verification system, but the talks collapsed due essentially to a withdrawal of cooperation by the USA. Several developments in the 1990s revealed that the BTWC does not prevent states from conducting biological weapons programmes (example: Russia and Iraq, both signatories to the Convention had conducted clandestine bioweapons programmes) showing that the current regime is inadequate.

Effectively countering the threat from biological weapons requires a number of mutually-reinforcing actions, including a strengthened prohibition regime and enhanced political will. It will, over time, increase transparency and build confidence that all States Parties are in compliance with the Convention, as well as deterring would-be violators. But to achieve this there needs to be a greater awareness among the public and pressure on governments to toughen the regime.

 

[Chi13]

inside information about the Uighurs? lets have it then, whats actually going on there?

the point about weapons is to kill people, if they kill a few of the wrong people no one really cares much as long as the weapons kill mostly those that are targeted.

Gaius, I was quoting someone else. Sorry I have no inside information on the Urghurs but if I did I'd post it here!

 

[gaiusmarius]

thats a shame Chi13, im very interested in hearing from neutral Chinese citizens about what they think is going on exactly in Xinjiang with the Uighurs. as you mentioned them, i thought you might have some insights to share on the subject.

apparently not. so ill tell you i don't think the Chinese are running slave labor, death camps, or mass sterilization programs. i believe most of those places really are to re educate what they thought might be separatists and extremists. i think like all big government projects it probably swept up a lot of innocent people, but their intention was to deal with separatism and terrorism and they figured its better to re educate then to just bomb, torture and lock up like certain countries do to fight terrorism.

i also don't think China deployed covid 19 as a weapon. i think they created it and were studying it, in gain of function research and it escaped their control.

 

[gaiusmarius]

Covid Cover-Up: Did It Come From A Lab?

 

[Chi13]

‘Virus warfare’ in China military documents

​​​​​​https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sub...c2f-1620880360https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sub...c2f-1620880360

Since you are so fond of Australian media perhaps this might interest you. It is a response to the News Ltd article that you referenced. Rupert Murdoch owned.
News Corp exclusive on Chinese ‘bioweapons’ based on discredited 2015 book of conspiracy theories

Report in the Australian newspaper promoting Sharri Markson’s book on origins of Covid criticised as misleading and alarmist by China analysts
Sharri Markson’sreport last Saturday said Chinese military scientists ‘discussed the weaponisation of Sars coronaviruses five years before the Covid-19 pandemic’.
37The Australian’s exclusive about a “chilling” document produced by Chinese military scientists is based on a discredited 2015 book containing conspiracy theories about biological warfare which is freely available on the internet.

Written by the paper’s investigations writer, Sharri Markson, the report last Saturday said Chinese military scientists “discussed the weaponisation of Sars coronaviruses five years before the Covid-19 pandemic” and predicted a third world war would be fought with biological weapons.

The story was published to promote Markson’s debut book, What Really happened in Wuhan, which argues that there is “no scientific consensus that Covid-19 has a natural origin” and that China has conspired to cover up the truth.

“The document also talks about the psychological terror that bioweapons can cause, it’s chilling,” Markson said on Sky News, where she hosts her own show, Sharri.

Markson talked up her book on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast this week, telling the former adviser to Donald Trump she has some “incredible new documents” to reveal when the Harper Collins commission is published in September.

But Markson’s story has been criticised as misleading and alarmist by China analysts.

A deputy editor of Foreign Policy magazine and China expert, James Palmer, said the article has links to conspiracy theories about the origins of the coronavirus which are popular on the right.

“The story is clearly framed in a way to make the reader think that this is secret or confidential information, using language such as that the State Department ‘obtained’ the information,” Palmer told Guardian Australia.

“But this ‘paper’, or ‘document’ as it’s described, is actually a book with a strong conspiratorial bent published in 2015 – a fact buried toward the end of the article – and easily available to any buyer in China.

“Discovering this is exactly as hard as Googling its title in Chinese. Chinese military academics are very given to bluster and conspiracy, especially when trying to sell books; similar texts come out in Chinese about any matter of subjects.

The former ABC reporter turned China researcher Vicky Xu criticised the article on Twitter, saying “embellishment, exaggeration, drawing conclusions from thin evidence on a matter of life and death of so many, will have long-lasting negative impacts and undermine genuine, rigorous investigations by others to come”.

Markson reported that the “paper” described Sars ­coronaviruses as heralding a “new era of genetic weapons” and said they could be “artificially manipulated into an emerging human ­disease virus, then weaponised and unleashed in a way never seen before”.

Palmer said the discussion in the book about the effects of biological weapons was in terms of fears these weapons would be used against China, not by China.

“That’s a long-term worry in China, going back to the accusations – almost certainly false, but widely believed in China – that the US deployed biological weapons against China during the Korean War,” Palmer said.

“Many similar books, albeit largely framed in less conspiratorial terms, have been published in the west, from popular texts to military-academic studies.”

Palmer said Chinese military academics were given to “bluster and conspiracy” when trying to sell books.

“While their paranoias and nationalistic fantasies are worrying signs of how China sees the rest of the world, they tell us very little about what the Chinese military is actually doing itself.”

Markson’s earlier work on Covid-19 has also been criticised, including a 2020 report in the Daily Telegraph on a 15-page “bombshell dossier” that laid “the foundation for the case of negligence being mounted against China”.

But the so-called dossier was described by Nine newspapers as just a research report, based on publicly available information, including news reports.

Markson dismisses criticism of her work about the origins of the virus as the mainstream media being “incurious”, telling Bannon she was “slammed by the leftwing media in Australia”.

Markson told the Australian newspaper, in an interview about her book, that her reporting on Covid-19 had made her the target of “shallow criticism” from the leftwing press.

“The leftwing media, the ABC, the SMH, the Guardian, ridiculed me for investigating this a year ago, claiming it was a conspiracy theory,” Markson said.

The former foreign minister Bob Carr said Markson’s story was an example of “China panic” washing through the Australian media.

Carr told Guardian Australia the story was a case study in the type of reporting that had contributed to the “collapse” in the relationship between the two countries.

Carr, who was foreign minister from 2012 to 2013 in the Gillard and Rudd Labor governments, has been highly critical of the Coalition’s handling of the relationship with China.

“This is a case study in a species of journalism we can baptise as ‘China panic’,” Carr said. “Such material has washed through the Australian media since 2017 …

“It’s fed a view that Australia is threatened and war is imminent.”

Markson told Guardian Australia she “wouldn’t lose a minute sleep over anything Bob Carr says”.

She said the state-run Global Times had falsely accused her report of describing the document as a “leaked” paper.

“In fact our story states that it was published in 2015 by the Chinese Military Medical Science Press, a Chinese government-owned publishing house managed by the General Logistics Department of the PLA. We also said it had circulated among Chinese dissident communities online,” she said.

“One author of the paper was the deputy director of China’s Bureau of Epidemic Prevention. Another, Professor Xu Dezhong, is a prominent military scientist who held a leadership role during the Sars pandemic, reporting to the Ministry for Health and receiving a Gold Medal award from the Military Academy Education.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...iracy-theories

 

[Sunshineinabag]

 

[gaiusmarius]

Since you are so fond of Australian media perhaps this might interest you. It is a response to the News Ltd article that you referenced. Rupert Murdoch owned.
News Corp exclusive on Chinese ‘bioweapons’ based on discredited 2015 book of conspiracy theories

Report in the Australian newspaper promoting Sharri Markson’s book on origins of Covid criticised as misleading and alarmist by China analysts
Sharri Markson’sreport last Saturday said Chinese military scientists ‘discussed the weaponisation of Sars coronaviruses five years before the Covid-19 pandemic’.
37The Australian’s exclusive about a “chilling” document produced by Chinese military scientists is based on a discredited 2015 book containing conspiracy theories about biological warfare which is freely available on the internet.

Written by the paper’s investigations writer, Sharri Markson, the report last Saturday said Chinese military scientists “discussed the weaponisation of Sars coronaviruses five years before the Covid-19 pandemic” and predicted a third world war would be fought with biological weapons.

The story was published to promote Markson’s debut book, What Really happened in Wuhan, which argues that there is “no scientific consensus that Covid-19 has a natural origin” and that China has conspired to cover up the truth.

“The document also talks about the psychological terror that bioweapons can cause, it’s chilling,” Markson said on Sky News, where she hosts her own show, Sharri.

Markson talked up her book on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast this week, telling the former adviser to Donald Trump she has some “incredible new documents” to reveal when the Harper Collins commission is published in September.

But Markson’s story has been criticised as misleading and alarmist by China analysts.

A deputy editor of Foreign Policy magazine and China expert, James Palmer, said the article has links to conspiracy theories about the origins of the coronavirus which are popular on the right.

“The story is clearly framed in a way to make the reader think that this is secret or confidential information, using language such as that the State Department ‘obtained’ the information,” Palmer told Guardian Australia.

“But this ‘paper’, or ‘document’ as it’s described, is actually a book with a strong conspiratorial bent published in 2015 – a fact buried toward the end of the article – and easily available to any buyer in China.

“Discovering this is exactly as hard as Googling its title in Chinese. Chinese military academics are very given to bluster and conspiracy, especially when trying to sell books; similar texts come out in Chinese about any matter of subjects.

The former ABC reporter turned China researcher Vicky Xu criticised the article on Twitter, saying “embellishment, exaggeration, drawing conclusions from thin evidence on a matter of life and death of so many, will have long-lasting negative impacts and undermine genuine, rigorous investigations by others to come”.

Markson reported that the “paper” described Sars ­coronaviruses as heralding a “new era of genetic weapons” and said they could be “artificially manipulated into an emerging human ­disease virus, then weaponised and unleashed in a way never seen before”.

Palmer said the discussion in the book about the effects of biological weapons was in terms of fears these weapons would be used against China, not by China.

“That’s a long-term worry in China, going back to the accusations – almost certainly false, but widely believed in China – that the US deployed biological weapons against China during the Korean War,” Palmer said.

“Many similar books, albeit largely framed in less conspiratorial terms, have been published in the west, from popular texts to military-academic studies.”

Palmer said Chinese military academics were given to “bluster and conspiracy” when trying to sell books.

“While their paranoias and nationalistic fantasies are worrying signs of how China sees the rest of the world, they tell us very little about what the Chinese military is actually doing itself.”

Markson’s earlier work on Covid-19 has also been criticised, including a 2020 report in the Daily Telegraph on a 15-page “bombshell dossier” that laid “the foundation for the case of negligence being mounted against China”.

But the so-called dossier was described by Nine newspapers as just a research report, based on publicly available information, including news reports.

Markson dismisses criticism of her work about the origins of the virus as the mainstream media being “incurious”, telling Bannon she was “slammed by the leftwing media in Australia”.

Markson told the Australian newspaper, in an interview about her book, that her reporting on Covid-19 had made her the target of “shallow criticism” from the leftwing press.

“The leftwing media, the ABC, the SMH, the Guardian, ridiculed me for investigating this a year ago, claiming it was a conspiracy theory,” Markson said.

The former foreign minister Bob Carr said Markson’s story was an example of “China panic” washing through the Australian media.

Carr told Guardian Australia the story was a case study in the type of reporting that had contributed to the “collapse” in the relationship between the two countries.

Carr, who was foreign minister from 2012 to 2013 in the Gillard and Rudd Labor governments, has been highly critical of the Coalition’s handling of the relationship with China.

“This is a case study in a species of journalism we can baptise as ‘China panic’,” Carr said. “Such material has washed through the Australian media since 2017 …

“It’s fed a view that Australia is threatened and war is imminent.”

Markson told Guardian Australia she “wouldn’t lose a minute sleep over anything Bob Carr says”.

She said the state-run Global Times had falsely accused her report of describing the document as a “leaked” paper.

“In fact our story states that it was published in 2015 by the Chinese Military Medical Science Press, a Chinese government-owned publishing house managed by the General Logistics Department of the PLA. We also said it had circulated among Chinese dissident communities online,” she said.

“One author of the paper was the deputy director of China’s Bureau of Epidemic Prevention. Another, Professor Xu Dezhong, is a prominent military scientist who held a leadership role during the Sars pandemic, reporting to the Ministry for Health and receiving a Gold Medal award from the Military Academy Education.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...iracy-theories

its good to have context. good on ya posting some. how ever, the fact remains there is evidence they were studying how to make bat corona viruses more adaptable to humans and boom we have an out break on the labs front door.

as for the discussions about using bio weapons in war, if you seriously believe the US, UK, Israel and Russia are not plotting how to do it you are naive, so why would China be different? generals and strategists plan for all scenarios.

 

[gaiusmarius]

lol, even his holiness, covid pope Fauci has starting playing a different tune...

Krystal and Saagar: NEW Evidence Emerges For Lab Leak Hypothesis As Fauci Does TOTAL 180

 

[trichrider]

When more Covid-19 data doesn’t equal more understanding

Social media users share charts and graphs — often with the same underlying data — to advocate opposing approaches to the pandemic.

Daniel Ackerman | MIT News Office
Publication Date:
March 4, 2021
Press Inquiries

Caption:
MIT researchers found that Covid-19 skeptics on Twitter and Facebook — far from being “data illiterate” — often use sophisticated data visualization techniques to argue against public health precautions like mask mandates.
Credits:
Image: Jose-Luis Olivares, MIT

Caption:
This figure shows a network visualization of Twitter users appearing in the research. Color encodes community and nodes are sized by their degree of connectedness.
Credits:
Courtesy of the researchers

Since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, charts and graphs have helped communicate information about infection rates, deaths, and vaccinations. In some cases, such visualizations can encourage behaviors that reduce virus transmission, like wearing a mask. Indeed, the pandemic has been hailed as the breakthrough moment for data visualization.
But new findings suggest a more complex picture. A study from MIT shows how coronavirus skeptics have marshalled data visualizations online to argue against public health orthodoxy about the benefits of mask mandates. Such “counter-visualizations” are often quite sophisticated, using datasets from official sources and state-of-the-art visualization methods.
The researchers combed through hundreds of thousands of social media posts and found that coronavirus skeptics often deploy counter-visualizations alongside the same “follow-the-data” rhetoric as public health experts, yet the skeptics argue for radically different policies. The researchers conclude that data visualizations aren’t sufficient to convey the urgency of the Covid-19 pandemic, because even the clearest graphs can be interpreted through a variety of belief systems.
“A lot of people think of metrics like infection rates as objective,” says Crystal Lee. “But they’re clearly not, based on how much debate there is on how to think about the pandemic. That’s why we say data visualizations have become a battleground.”
The research will be presented at the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems in May. Lee is the study’s lead author and a PhD student in MIT’s History, Anthropology, Science, Technology, and Society (HASTS) program and MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL), as well as a fellow at Harvard University’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society. Co-authors include Graham Jones, a Margaret MacVicar Faculty Fellow in Anthropology; Arvind Satyanarayan, the NBX Career Development Assistant Professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and CSAIL; Tanya Yang, an MIT undergraduate; and Gabrielle Inchoco, a Wellesley College undergraduate.
As data visualizations rose to prominence early in the pandemic, Lee and her colleagues set out to understand how they were being deployed throughout the social media universe. “An initial hypothesis was that if we had more data visualizations, from data collected in a systematic way, then people would be better informed,” says Lee. To test that hypothesis, her team blended computational techniques with innovative ethnographic methods.
They used their computational approach on Twitter, scraping nearly half a million tweets that referred to both “Covid-19” and “data.” With those tweets, the researchers generated a network graph to find out “who’s retweeting whom and who likes whom,” says Lee. “We basically created a network of communities who are interacting with each other.” Clusters included groups like the “American media community” or “antimaskers.” The researchers found that antimask groups were creating and sharing data visualizations as much as, if not more than, other groups.
And those visualizations weren’t sloppy. “They are virtually indistinguishable from those shared by mainstream sources,” says Satyanarayan. “They are often just as polished as graphs you would expect to encounter in data journalism or public health dashboards.”
“It’s a very striking finding,” says Lee. “It shows that characterizing antimask groups as data-illiterate or not engaging with the data, is empirically false.”
Lee says this computational approach gave them a broad view of Covid-19 data visualizations. “What is really exciting about this quantitative work is that we’re doing this analysis at a huge scale. There's no way I could have read half a million tweets.”
But the Twitter analysis had a shortcoming. “I think it misses a lot of the granularity of the conversations that people are having,” says Lee. “You can’t necessarily follow a single thread of conversation as it unfolds.” For that, the researchers turned to a more traditional anthropology research method — with an internet-age twist.
Lee’s team followed and analyzed conversations about data visualizations in antimask Facebook groups — a practice they dubbed “deep lurking,” an online version of the ethnographic technique called “deep hanging out.” Lee says “understanding a culture requires you to observe the day-to-day informal goings-on — not just the big formal events. Deep lurking is a way to transpose these traditional ethnography approaches to digital age.”
The qualitative findings from deep lurking appeared consistent with the quantitative Twitter findings. Antimaskers on Facebook weren’t eschewing data. Rather, they discussed how different kinds of data were collected and why. “Their arguments are really quite nuanced,” says Lee. “It’s often a question of metrics.” For example, antimask groups might argue that visualizations of infection numbers could be misleading, in part because of the wide range of uncertainty in infection rates, compared to measurements like the number of deaths. In response, members of the group would often create their own counter-visualizations, even instructing each other in data visualization techniques.
“I've been to livestreams where people screen share and look at the data portal from the state of Georgia,” says Lee. “Then they’ll talk about how to download the data and import it into Excel.”
Jones says the antimask groups’ “idea of science is not listening passively as experts at a place like MIT tell everyone else what to believe.” He adds that this kind of behavior marks a new turn for an old cultural current. “Antimaskers’ use of data literacy reflects deep-seated American values of self-reliance and anti-expertise that date back to the founding of the country, but their online activities push those values into new arenas of public life.”
He adds that “making sense of these complex dynamics would have been impossible” without Lee’s “visionary leadership in masterminding an interdisciplinary collaboration that spanned SHASS and CSAIL.”
The mixed methods research “advances our understanding of data visualizations in shaping public perception of science and politics,” says Jevin West, a data scientist at the University of Washington, who was not involved with the research. Data visualizations “carry a veneer of objectivity and scientific precision. But as this paper shows, data visualizations can be used effectively on opposite sides of an issue,” he says. “It underscores the complexity of the problem — that it is not enough to ‘just teach media literacy.’ It requires a more nuanced sociopolitical understanding of those creating and interpreting data graphics.”
Combining computational and anthropological insights led the researchers to a more nuanced understanding of data literacy. Lee says their study reveals that, compared to public health orthodoxy, “antimaskers see the pandemic differently, using data that is quite similar. I still think data analysis is important. But it’s certainly not the salve that I thought it was in terms of convincing people who believe that the scientific establishment is not trustworthy.” Lee says their findings point to “a larger rift in how we think about science and expertise in the U.S.” That same rift runs through issues like climate change and vaccination, where similar dynamics often play out in social media discussions.
To make these results accessible to the public, Lee and her collaborator, CSAIL PhD student Jonathan Zong, led a team of seven MIT undergraduate researchers to develop an interactive narrative where readers can explore the visualizations and conversations for themselves.
Lee describes the team’s research as a first step in making sense of the role of data and visualizations in these broader debates. “Data visualization is not objective. It’s not absolute. It is in fact an incredibly social and political endeavor. We have to be attentive to how people interpret them outside of the scientific establishment.”
This research was funded, in part, by the National Science Foundation and the Social Science Research Council.


https://news.mit.edu/2021/when-more-...rstanding-0304

Amazing Polly breaks it down in detail for you here: https://amazingpolly.net/index.php