There is still a lack of understanding who are those who object vaccination, be it in the case of the coronavirus or other infectious disease.
So this recent study is interesting, examining how anti- and not-anti-vaccination individuals speak on twitter:
Boosted b/c papers are interesting, though their attitude is not empathetic.
> A Python Package to Detect Anti-Vaccine Users on Twitter
Is dangerously close in tone to "We're now able to make a list of people who, if mass-arrested, would probably end the pandemic", which...
1. That kind of talk is not going to build social cohesion
2. Making lists of people has a bad historical reputation
I agree on that point. I also was a bit shocked of providing such analytical tool, which would not have been necessary for a science publication (granted that the dataset access requires the academic API). The title in particular does not seem neutral at all.
I found the aplroach interesting, but... yet inconclusive from what is presented...
I confess, I hit the boost button because your interpretation was quite interesting, then I clicked and had a "woah" moment.
I think at this point this one is going to have to get filed under "science is broken".
And this introduces an even bigger problem, because it starts becoming reasonable to ask: "who among these scientists would blow the whistle if the pharma companies DID try to push through an unsafe vaccine"...
And again you have my agreement 🙂 Me as a biochemist, I welcomed the development of a vaccine - and hated how some promoted it as a "miracle cure" as much as others making false claims about it to arhue for rejection.
In the end, it is a pharmaceutical intervention, which we should use to respond to diseases - but always with care and diligence.
Fediscience is the social network for scientists.