So glad some journalists are actually following these things up! As far as I can tell, these are only some of the unexplained contradictions/puzzles in the early China cases—to the degree we were told anything. Note these "unintended errors" happened despite minimal data shared.https://twitter.com/evadou/status/1415599354488885248 …
-
Show this thread
-
We know the early cases, as reported to us, were missing, incomplete and withheld. We know there are contradictions between earlier papers from Chinese scientists and what later got told to WHO. We know there are missing sequences and papers, even among what little got released.
2 replies 41 retweets 146 likesShow this thread -
If people want to say we're not going to get an investigation—at least with China's cooperation—because of this cover-up, fine. One can still learn lessons. But the idea we're evaluating some actual substantial body of "evidence" from an actual investigation just doesn't hold up.
3 replies 29 retweets 156 likesShow this thread -
zeynep tufekci Retweeted Emily Rauhala
For clarity, even after these corrections, there are still contradictions around early cases compared with other papers by Chinese scientists. The WHO report had some data on *just* thirteen early cases, and even that had multiple "unintended errors".https://twitter.com/emilyrauhala/status/1415662357502627842 …
zeynep tufekci added,
Emily RauhalaVerified account @emilyrauhalaThe WHO did not explain why a map in the WHO-China joint report appears to show the first case on one side of the Yangtze River, while the Wuhan government had announced last year that the first patient, who fell ill Dec. 8, 2019, lived on the other side of the river. 3/Show this thread2 replies 16 retweets 68 likesShow this thread -
(Also many of these contradictions were evident the moment the WHO report was published: March 2020. We *only* got *some* information on a few dozen early cases! Sit down with a spreadsheet for an hour and it's a lot of "huh"? July 2021, and finally getting some reporting on it.)
2 replies 8 retweets 47 likesShow this thread -
As I said, I don't like probability calculations when there's so little *real* evidence to "calculate" anything with, and so many unresolved questions. But people have leanings and priors. Fine. But it doesn't touch this question: how could the reporting be so minimal? Baffling.
2 replies 7 retweets 52 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @zeynep
I wonder if there's a sense that obfuscation by the CCP doesn't necessarily cut one way or the other w.r.t. the origins question, so why cover it?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Maybe? But the kind of errors and contradictions I'm talking about are basic and glaring. I left out pages of such basic stuff from my own NYT piece because it was already sooo long. At least just noting "so little information, and extensive ongoing cover-up" would be better.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.