| Literature DB >> 34103772 |
Amir Masoud Forati1, Rina Ghose1.
Abstract
COVID-19 has emerged as a global pandemic caused by its highly transmissible nature during the incubation period. In the absence of vaccination, containment is seen as the best strategy to stop virus diffusion. However, public awareness has been adversely affected by discourses in social media that have downplayed the severity of the virus and disseminated false information. This article investigates COVID-19 related Twitter activity in May and June 2020 to examine the origin and nature of misinformation and its relationship with the COVID-19 incidence rate at the state and county level. A geodatabase of all geotagged COVID-19 related tweets was compiled. Multiscale Geographically Weighted Regression was employed to examine the association between social media activity and the spatial variability of disease incidence. Findings suggest that MGWR could explain 80% of the COVID-19 incidence rate variations indicating a strong spatial relationship between social media activity and spread of the Covid-19 virus. Discourse analysis was conducted on tweets to index tweets downplaying the pandemic or disseminating misinformation. Findings indicate that sites of Twitter misinformation showed more resistance to pandemic management measures in May and June 2020 later experienced a rise in the number of cases in July.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Coronavirus; Discourse analysis; Downplay; GIS; MGWR; Misinformation; Social media activity; Spatial analysis
Year: 2021 PMID: 34103772 PMCID: PMC8176902 DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2021.102473
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Appl Geogr ISSN: 0143-6228
Fig. 1Distribution of Covid-19 related tweets in May and June 2020, throughout conterminous United States.
Top ten counties with the highest number of COVID-19 related geotagged tweets in May and June.
| County | State | No. of geotagged tweets in May and June | No. of confirmed cases as of July 1st | No. of confirmed deaths as of July 1st |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| California | 3290 | 105507 | 3402 | |
| New York | 3075 | 28518 | 3088 | |
| New Jersey | 1541 | 18842 | 1457 | |
| Georgia | 724 | 7444 | 314 | |
| New York | 719 | 65455 | 7059 | |
| Illinois | 664 | 90911 | 4581 | |
| Texas | 658 | 31422 | 378 | |
| Texas | 623 | 9527 | 124 | |
| New York | 615 | 59507 | 7104 | |
| California | 590 | 18041 | 463 |
Most popular hashtags among tweets sharing misinformation.
| Plandemic | CovidPropaganda | NoMask |
|---|---|---|
| DefundTheFDA | MaskFree | |
| HealthFreedom | Scamdemic | |
| GovernmentControl | CoronaBS |
Fig. 2Distribution of Misinformation Tweets in May and June 2020, throughout conterminous United States.
Top 10 states leading in misinformation tweets.
| Rank | State | Flagged tweets per 1000 residents |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | District of Columbia | 0.0632 |
| 2 | New Jersey | 0.0075 |
| 3 | Kansas | 0.0049 |
| 4 | New York | 0.0047 |
| 5 | California | 0.0045 |
| 6 | Oregon | 0.0044 |
| 7 | Washington | 0.0038 |
| 8 | Hawaii | 0.0036 |
| 9 | New Mexico | 0.0034 |
| 10 | Nevada | 0.0033 |
Top 10 Counties with the highest number of tweets sharing misinformation per capita.
| Rank | County | State | Population per SQMI | White (%) | Median age | Obtained Bachelor's degree or higher | Below poverty level (%) | Unemployment rate | Median income (dollars) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Norton | Kansas | 6.50 | 92.97% | 43.30 | 11.04% | 12.70 | 1.20 | 49891 |
| 2 | Montgomery | Kansas | 53.70 | 84.45% | 39.90 | 11.57% | 18.30 | 5.50 | 45173 |
| 3 | Grant | New Mexico | 7.6 | 83.20% | 45.8 | 28.81% | 21.8 | 7.6 | 56094 |
| 4 | Box Butte | Nebraska | 10.60 | 88.75% | 41.30 | 11.92% | 11.90 | 5.20 | 56412 |
| 5 | Poquoson | Virginia | 788.90 | 94.09% | 43.30 | 29.37% | 4.50 | 5.30 | 96831 |
| 6 | Martin | Kentucky | 55.80 | 92.28% | 37.20 | 5.54% | 26.30 | 13.70 | 35125 |
| 7 | Hudson | New Jersey | 13808.8 | 52.70% | 34.3 | 42.27% | 16.3 | 6.1 | 97596 |
| 8 | Okmulgee | Oklahoma | 56.80 | 66.14% | 38.80 | 9.13% | 20.00 | 9.50 | 42175 |
| 9 | Bremer | Iowa | 56.90 | 94.41% | 39.30 | 19.81% | 8.20 | 3.20 | 68023 |
| 10 | Tillamook | Oregon | 22.9 | 91.65% | 47.4 | 21.81% | 15 | 4.8 | 63543 |
Partial distance correlation coefficients.
| 0.267322 | |
| 0.8156 | |
| 0.7378 | |
| 0.7878 |
Global regression results.
| Variable | Estimate | SE | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 0.000 | 0.014 | 1.000 |
| Tweet rate | 0.350 | 0.018 | 0.000 |
| SE Score | −0.183 | 0.023 | 0.000 |
| INFA Score | −0.043 | 0.019 | 0.000 |
MGWR results.
| Variable | Bandwidth | Effective # Params | Critical t-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 842 | 209.837 | 3.679 |
| Tweet rate | 242 | 18.146 | 2.996 |
| SE Score | 2171 | 7.667 | 2.007 |
| INFA Score | 44 | 194.236 | 3.659 |
Fig. 3Composite map of MGWR parameter estimate surfaces for Tweet rate.
Fig. 4Composite map of MGWR parameter estimate surfaces for INFA score.
Fig. 5Mgwr R.2.