RESUMO
The COVID-19 pandemic continues to threaten public health globally. To develop effective interventions and campaigns to raise vaccination rates, policy makers need to understand people's attitudes towards vaccination. We examine the perspectives of people in India, the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom on the administration of different COVID-19 vaccines. We analyse how public opinion and emotional tendencies regarding the COVID-19 vaccines relate to popular issues on social media. We employ machine learning algorithms to forecast thoughts based on the social media posts. The prevailing emotional tendency indicates that individuals have faith in immunisation. However, there is a likelihood that significant statements or events on a national, international, or political scale influence public perception of vaccinations. We show how public health officials can track public attitudes and opinions towards vaccine-related information in a geo-aware manner, respond to the sceptics, and increase the level of vaccine trust in a particular region or community.
RESUMO
A united front from all the stakeholders including public, administration and academia alike is required to counter the growing threat of climate change. The recent rise of social media as the new public address system, makes it an ideal source of information to assess public discussions and responses in real time. We mine c.1.7 m posts from 55 climate related subreddits on social media platform Reddit since its inception. Using USE, a state-of-the-art sentence encoder, and K-means clustering algorithm, we develop a machine learning based approach to identify, store, process and classify the posts automatically, and at a scale. In the broad and multifaceted theme of climate change, our approach narrows down the focus to 10 critical underlying themes comprising the public discussions on social media over time. Furthermore, we employ a full order partial correlation analysis to assess the relationship between the different identified themes. We show that in line with Paris Agreement, while the climate science community has been successful in influencing the discussions on both the causes and effects of climate change, the public administration has failed to appropriately communicate the causes of climate change and has been able to influence only the discussions on the effects of it. Hence, our study shows a clear gap in the public communication by the administration, wherein counter-intuitively less emphasis has been given on the drivers of climate change. This information can be particularly beneficial to policymakers and climate activists in decision making as they try to close the gap between public and academia.
