Public sentiment toward the COVID-19 vaccine as expressed on social media can interfere with communication by public health agencies on the importance of getting vaccinated. We investigated Twitter data to understand differences in sentiment, moral values, and language use between political ideologies on the COVID-19 vaccine. We estimated political ideology, conducted a sentiment analysis, and guided by the tenets of moral foundations theory (MFT), we analyzed 262,267 English language tweets from the United States containing COVID-19 vaccine-related keywords between May 2020 and October 2021. We applied the Moral Foundations Dictionary and used topic modeling and Word2Vec to understand moral values and the context of words central to the discussion of the vaccine debate. A quadratic trend showed that extreme ideologies of both Liberals and Conservatives expressed a higher negative sentiment than Moderates, with Conservatives expressing more negative sentiment than Liberals. Compared to Conservative tweets, we found the expression of Liberal tweets to be rooted in a wider set of moral values, associated with moral foundations of care (getting the vaccine for protection), fairness (having access to the vaccine), liberty (related to the vaccine mandate), and authority (trusting the vaccine mandate imposed by the government). Conservative tweets were found to be associated with harm (around safety of the vaccine) and oppression (around the government mandate). Furthermore, political ideology was associated with the expression of different meanings for the same words, e.g. “science” and “death.” Our results inform public health outreach communication strategies to best tailor vaccine information to different groups.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on May 1, 2024
Media use and vaccine resistance
Public health requires collective action—the public best addresses health crises when individuals engage in prosocial behaviors. Failure to do so can have dire societal and economic consequences. This was made clear by the disjointed, politicized response to COVID-19 in the United States. Perhaps no aspect of the pandemic exemplified this challenge more than the sizeable percentage of individuals who delayed or refused vaccination. While scholars, practitioners, and the government devised a range of communication strategies to persuade people to get vaccinated, much less attention has been paid to where the unvaccinated could be reached. We address this question using multiple waves of a large national survey as well as various secondary data sets. We find that the vaccine resistant seems to predictably obtain information from conservative media outlets (e.g. Fox News) while the vaccinated congregate around more liberal outlets (e.g. MSNBC). We also find consistent evidence that vaccine-resistant individuals often obtain COVID-19 information from various social media, most notably Facebook, rather than traditional media sources. Importantly, such individuals tend to exhibit low institutional trust. While our results do not suggest a failure of sites such as Facebook's institutional COVID-19 efforts, as the counterfactual of no efforts is unknown, they do highlight an opportunity to reach those who are less likely to take vital actions in the service of public health.
more » « less- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10497660
- Editor(s):
- Mutz, Diana
- Publisher / Repository:
- PNAS Nexus
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- PNAS Nexus
- Volume:
- 2
- Issue:
- 5
- ISSN:
- 2752-6542
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
A novel coronavirus emerged in December of 2019 (COVID-19), causing a pandemic that inflicted unprecedented public health and economic burden in all nooks and corners of the world. Although the control of COVID-19 largely focused on the use of basic public health measures (primarily based on using non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as quarantine, isolation, social-distancing, face mask usage, and community lockdowns) initially, three safe and highly-effective vaccines (by AstraZeneca Inc., Moderna Inc., and Pfizer Inc.), were approved for use in humans in December 2020. We present a new mathematical model for assessing the population-level impact of these vaccines on curtailing the burden of COVID-19. The model stratifies the total population into two subgroups, based on whether or not they habitually wear face mask in public. The resulting multigroup model, which takes the form of a deterministic system of nonlinear differential equations, is fitted and parameterized using COVID-19 cumulative mortality data for the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Conditions for the asymptotic stability of the associated disease-free equilibrium, as well as an expression for the vaccine-derived herd immunity threshold, are rigorously derived. Numerical simulations of the model show that the size of the initial proportion of individuals in the mask-wearing group, together with positive change in behavior from the non-mask wearing group (as well as those in the mask-wearing group, who do not abandon their mask-wearing habit) play a crucial role in effectively curtailing the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. This study further shows that the prospect of achieving vaccine-derived herd immunity (required for COVID-19 elimination) in the U.S., using the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, is quite promising. In particular, our study shows that herd immunity can be achieved in the U.S. if at least 60% of the population are fully vaccinated. Furthermore, the prospect of eliminating the pandemic in the U.S. in the year 2021 is significantly enhanced if the vaccination program is complemented with non-pharmaceutical interventions at moderate increased levels of compliance (in relation to their baseline compliance). The study further suggests that, while the waning of natural and vaccine-derived immunity against COVID-19 induces only a marginal increase in the burden and projected time-to-elimination of the pandemic, adding the impacts of therapeutic benefits of the vaccines into the model resulted in a dramatic reduction in the burden and time-to-elimination of the pandemic.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created substantial challenges for public health officials who must communicate pandemic-related risks and recommendations to the public. Their efforts have been further hampered by the politicization of the pandemic, including media outlets that question the seriousness and necessity of protective actions. The availability of highly politicized news from online platforms has led to concerns about the notion of ‘‘echo chambers,’’ whereby users are exposed only to information that conforms to and reinforces their existing beliefs. Using a sample of 5,000 US residents, we explored their information-seeking tendencies, reliance on conservative and liberal online media, risk perceptions, and mitigation behaviors. The results of our study suggest that risk perceptions may vary across preferences for conservative or liberal bias; however, our results do not support differences in the mitigation behavior across patterns of media use. Further, our findings do not support the notion of echo chambers, but rather suggest that people with lower information-seeking behavior may be more strongly influenced by politicized COVID-19 news. Risk estimates converge at higher levels of information seeking, suggesting that high information seekers consume news from sources across the political spectrum. These results are discussed in terms of their theoretical implications for the study of online echo chambers and their practical implications for public health officials and emergency managers.more » « less
-
Wardman, Jamie (Ed.)Currently, one of the most pressing public health challenges is encouraging people to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Due to limited supplies, some people have had to wait for the COVID-19 vaccine. Consumer research has suggested that people who are overlooked in initial distribution of desired goods may no longer be interested. Here, we therefore examined people’s preferences for proposed vaccine allocation strategies, as well as their anticipated responses to being overlooked. After health-care workers, most participants preferred prioritizing vaccines for high-risk individuals living in group-settings (49%) or with families (29%). We also found evidence of reluctance if passed over. After random assignment to vaccine allocation strategies that would initially overlook them, 37% of participants indicated that they would refuse the vaccine. The refusal rate rose to 42% when the vaccine allocation strategy prioritized people in areas with more COVID-19 – policies that were implemented in many areas. Even among participants who did not self-identify as vaccine hesitant, 22% said they would not want the vaccine in that case. Logistic regressions confirmed that vaccine refusal would be largest if vaccine allocation strategies targeted people who live in areas with more COVID-19 infections. In sum, once people are overlooked by vaccine allocation, they may no longer want to get vaccinated, even if they were not originally vaccine hesitant. Vaccine allocation strategies that prioritize high-infection areas and high-risk individuals in group-settings may enhance these concerns.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract Background COVID-19 disproportionately affects those with preexisting conditions, but little research has determined whether those with chronic diseases view the pandemic itself differently - and whether there are differences between chronic diseases. We theorized that while individuals with respiratory disease or autoimmune disorders would perceive greater threat from COVID-19 and be more supportive of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), those with autoimmune disorders would be less likely to support vaccination-based interventions.
Methods We conducted a two-wave online survey conducted in February and November 2021 asking respondents their beliefs about COVID-19 risk perception, adoption and support of interventions, willingness to be vaccinated against COVID-19, and reasons for vaccination. Regression analysis was conducted to assess the relationship of respondents reporting a chronic disease and COVID-19 behaviors and attitudes, compared to healthy respondents adjusting for demographic and political factors.
Results In the initial survey, individuals reporting a chronic disease had both stronger feelings of risk from COVID-19 as well as preferences for NPIs than healthy controls. The only NPI that was still practiced significantly more compared to healthy controls in the resample was limiting trips outside of the home. Support for community-level NPIs was higher among individuals reporting a chronic disease than healthy controls and remained high among those with respiratory diseases in sample 2. Vaccine acceptance produced more divergent results: those reporting chronic respiratory diseases were 6% more willing to be vaccinated than healthy controls, while we found no significant difference between individuals with autoimmune diseases and healthy controls. Respondents with chronic respiratory disease and those with autoimmune diseases were more likely to want to be vaccinated to protect themselves from COVID-19, and those with an autoimmune disease were more likely to report fear of a bad vaccine reaction as the reason for vaccine hesitancy. In the resample, neither those with respiratory diseases nor autoimmune diseases reported being more willing to receive a booster vaccine than healthy controls.
Conclusions It is not enough to recognize the importance of health in determining attitudes: nuanced differences between conditions must also be recognized.
