Using Twitter to Understand COVID-19 Vaccine-Related Ageism During the Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: During the rollout of coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, older adults in high-income countries were often prioritized for inoculation in efforts to reduce COVID-19-related mortality. However, this prioritization may have contributed to intergenerational tensions and ageism, particularly with the limited supply of COVID-19 vaccines. This study examines Twitter discourse to understand vaccine-related ageism during the COVID-19 pandemic to inform future vaccination policies and practices to reduce ageism. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We collected 1,369 relevant tweets on Twitter using the Twint application in Python from December 8, 2020, to December 31, 2021. Tweets were analyzed using thematic analysis, and steps were taken to ensure rigor. RESULTS: Our research identified four main themes including (a) blame and hostility: "It's all their fault"; (b) incompetence and misinformation: "clueless boomer"; (c) ageist political slander; and (d) combatting ageism: advocacy and accessibility. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Our findings exposed issues of victim-blaming, hate speech, pejorative content, and ageist political slander that is deepening the divide of intergenerational conflict. Although a subset of tweets countered negative outcomes and demonstrated intergenerational solidarity, our findings suggest that ageism may have contributed to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among older adults. Consequently, urgent action is needed to counter vaccine misinformation, prohibit aggressive messaging, and promote intergenerational unity during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".