# Deep Learning-Based Sentiment Analysis of COVID-19 Vaccination Responses from Twitter Data

Authors: Kazi Nabiul Alam; Md Shakib Khan; Abdur Rab Dhruba; Mohammad Monirujjaman Khan; Jehad F. Al-Amri; Mehedi Masud; Majdi Rawashdeh
Journal: Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine
 (2021)

---

## Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a devastating effect on many people, creating severe anxiety, fear, and complicated feelings or emotions. After the initiation of vaccinations against coronavirus, people’s feelings have become more diverse and complex. Our aim is to understand and unravel their sentiments in this research using deep learning techniques. Social media is currently the best way to express feelings and emotions, and with the help of Twitter, one can have a better idea of what is trending and going on in people’s minds. Our motivation for this research was to understand the diverse sentiments of people regarding the vaccination process. In this research, the timeline of the collected tweets was from December 21 to July21. The tweets contained information about the most common vaccines available recently from across the world. The sentiments of people regarding vaccines of all sorts were assessed using the natural language processing (NLP) tool, Valence Aware Dictionary for sEntiment Reasoner (VADER). Initializing the polarities of the obtained sentiments into three groups (positive, negative, and neutral) helped us visualize the overall scenario; our findings included 33.96% positive, 17.55% negative, and 48.49% neutral responses. In addition, we included our analysis of the timeline of the tweets in this research, as sentiments fluctuated over time. A recurrent neural network- (RNN-) oriented architecture, including long short-term memory (LSTM) and bidirectional LSTM (Bi-LSTM), was used to assess the performance of the predictive models, with LSTM achieving an accuracy of 90.59% and Bi-LSTM achieving 90.83%. Other performance metrics such as precision,, F1-score, and a confusion matrix were also used to validate our models and findings more effectively. This study improves understanding of the public’s opinion on COVID-19 vaccines and supports the aim of eradicating coronavirus from the world.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

The COVID-19 outbreak has brought significant attention to the healthcare sector in recent times, and it has changed the concept of safety in every aspect of our lives. Social distancing is an effective method for reducing the spread of coronavirus. Safety measures such as wearing masks, washing hands regularly, and staying careful regarding intimacy are currently very important. However, these can only reduce the spread of coronavirus, not eradicate it completely. Here, vaccination came into light as the only solution that could fight most effectively against coronavirus and probably eradicate it. Rigorous tests were conducted with the first mRNAvaccines to be introduced; more than 40,000 people participated in a Pfizer vaccine trial and 30,000 in a Moderna vaccine trial. The average efficacy rate of the vaccines in both trials was approximately 94%, and there were no deaths in either of them. Early findings about another viral vector vaccine named Johnson & Johnson that proved to be able to fight against coronavirus and stimulate the recipient’s immune response showed a rate of effective action of >85% without serious adverse effects [1]. Vaccination procedures are in full swing worldwide, as shown in Figure 1. There might be some conflicts among regions owing to differences in urgency and economic barriers (which will be explained later in our paper), but mostly, we attempted to present the actual data about people’s vaccination status without bias.Figure 1
Vaccination statistics in (a) percentages and (b) numbers around the world [2].
(a)(b)From Figures1(a) and 1(b), it can be clearly observed that most populations on different continents have not been vaccinated yet. The production of multiple doses of vaccines is a major concern, but people’s surprising lack of willingness and interest to get vaccinated is even more alarming and of great concern to health scientists who want to learn the reason behind it. People have had mixed feelings about the whole vaccination process from the very beginning; we have even faced such conflicts or questions from our own family members. In different studies, researchers tried to understand the reasons behind such hesitancy. This has recently been discussed widely in scientific articles, including why people are thinking more than twice about getting vaccinated. Some of the reasons are that vaccines were invented so fast that there might be insufficient research on them, they may cause cancer [3] or infertility, concerns about the efficacy of getting the 2nd dose, allergic reactions [4], blood clotting, legitimacy of the production industry, political and religious beliefs, social media, online trends [5], and conspiracy theories [6–8].Several studies have assessed the feelings of people both before and after the advent of vaccinations. Snscrape [9] was used to collect historical tweets about COVID-19 vaccinations from January 7, 2020, to January 3, 2021.In total, 4,552,652 Twitter posts were extracted. These tweets were produced by 1,566,590 users, with 1,012,419 hash tags and 2,258,307 reference terms. We used the Valence Aware Dictionary for sEntiment Reasoner (VADER), a Python lexicon- and rule-based sentiment analysis tool that was developed to assess social media feelings on the basis of individual words and phrases, assigning a rating of positive, negative, or neutral to each tweet. After extraction, we identified tweets about vaccines and people’s opinions about them and correlated their growth in numbers with time, geographic locations, emerging topics, key phrases, postal engagement rate, and reports. The difference between the obtained positive and negative feelings was slightly different, with positive being more dominant and gaining stronger responses.Another study [10] found that throughout the pandemic, tweets from the citizens of the United Kingdom and the United States were collected through Twitter’s Application Programming Interface (API), and experiments were conducted to answer whether sentiments were positive, negative, neutral. Researchers performed relative sentiment analysis by using the VADER to obtain the dominant feelings of citizens, and they introduced a modified approach, which could count the influence of the individual. This way, they were able to take the sentiment analysis a step further and explain some of the changes in the data. The three leading companies who were involved in research on vaccines were identified as Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Johnson and Johnson [11]; researchers extracted their Instagram posts from the start of vaccination and received data from users using their own hashtags. The companies’ qualitative variations in manuscripts and visual characteristics (i.e., image categorization by transfer learning) are initially presented in this research. The Instaloader was used to extract the images, and the images were classified using VGG-16, Inception V3, and ResNet50. Designing and conducting a controlled experiment confirmed the accuracy ranking of the algorithms used and identified the two best performing ones. Finally, the analysis of the polarity of users’ posts using a convolutional neural network (CNN) clearly showed an overall neutral to negative feeling among users with highly divisive posts. This study [12] is aimed at performing a sentiment analysis on Twitter on both the vaccines, namely, Sinovac and Pfizer, in Indonesia. Data were crawled and processed between October and November 2020 to understand users’ emotions. There were two types of datasets: Sinovac and Pfizer. Both datasets were marked manually as either positive, negative, or neutral. After labeling and preparing the data using Twitter crawling and validating them with 10-fold crossvalidation, a support vector machine (SVM), the naive Bayes algorithm, and random forest were used to evaluate the performances and obtain results with the proper labeled predictions. The authors of this study [13] collected information on the Filipino citizens’ feelings about the efforts of the Philippine government using the Twitter web. For the government to analyze these responses, NLP techniques were applied to understand the overall sentiment. The data science tool “RapidMiner” trained these feelings, and the naïve Bayes model classified the English and Filipino tweets as positive, negative, or neutral accurately. In another relevant study [14], analysis was performed on people’s sentiments collected from Twitter. This analysis aimed to extract important issues and sentiments on Twitter and topics related to COVID-19 vaccination using machine learning methods. They focused on three factors: COVID-19 and attitudes surrounding vaccination, the advocacy of COVID-19 infection control measures, and COVID-19 control misconceptions and complaints. Between January and October 2020, they collected 31,100 English tweets containing COVID-19 related keywords from Twitter users in Australia. In particular, tweets were analyzed by illustrating high-frequency textual data clouds and the interplay of word tokens. To identify the most commonly mentioned subjects in a large tweet sample, they created a latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) model. Sentiment analysis was also performed to gain an idea of the overall feelings and emotions in Australia related to COVID-19.This research [15] proposed a machine learning framework based on Bayesian optimization to detect COVID-19 and solve related issues from a clinical perspective. An optimization approach [16] considering individuals’ isolation and social distancing characteristics was developed. According to numerical data, individual motivation increases by more than 85% as the proportion of home isolation increases. A suggested game theoretic incentive model was used to interpret the sustainability of the lockdown policy.The above research indicated highly satisfactory outcomes regarding COVID-19 vaccine reactions and their evaluation. Some of the research included sentiments related to pandemic-induced stress, and some of it discussed vaccination issues. However, most of the research was founded, prioritized region-wise or area-wise, and mostly conducted with only sentiment analysis tools. Most of it focused on particular countries and was specific to the vaccines produced by particular vaccine producing companies.Our research analyzed the data of all the vaccines available, including Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, Oxford/AstraZeneca, Covaxin, Sputnik V, Sinopharm, and Sinovac to understand the positive, negative, and neutral sentiment percentages regarding vaccination against COVID-19. Our research also focused on the timeline of such tweets—which is an important and novel contribution—because sentiments change with the flow of time. In addition, our research showed that with text inputs, that our system could detect the sentiment of a sentence properly. The objective and contribution of this research are to provide a clear idea about the emotions and thoughts of the general public regarding the vaccination process against COVID-19. This will help health researchers and policymakers take proper initiatives to increase the credulity of the vaccines and keep people safer and more aware.In the following sections, the technical components of the research and their outcomes using analytical tools are presented. Section2 describes the methods and technical terminologies used to analyze sentiments. In Section 3, the working of proper visualization tools, the description of how these visualized sentiments, and the outcomes that were found are discussed. Later, the achievements of our research, how it can be impactful and beneficial to mankind, and how it can be further improved to bring about the betterment of the world are discussed. Our work is presented in section 4.


## 2. Methods and Materials

### 2.1. Full Outline of the Proposed System

In this research, the dataset was collected from Kaggle [17], which contains different types of tweets related to the COVID-19 vaccines. After checking the unique values and null values and finishing preprocessing, data characters were detokenized to break the sentences into words and label them. Next, a sentiment column, containing positive, negative, and neutral values, was added and calculated using the VADER. Then, architectures of deep learning, long short-term memory (LSTM), and bidirectional LSTM (Bi-LSTM) were utilized to check the performance of the forecasting model. According to the methodologies proposed above, a detailed outline of the system is shown in Figure 2.Figure 2
Outline of sentiment analysis procedures.


### 2.2. Dataset

The dataset named “All COVID-19 Vaccines Tweets” from Kaggle [17] was chosen in this research where the data of almost all the renowned vaccines, such as Pfizer/BioNTech, Oxford/AstraZeneca, Moderna, Covaxin, Sputnik V, Sinopharm, and Sinovac, are available. Here, the dataset shape is 125906 by 16, including username, date, location, number of friends, retweets, hashtags, and sources.


### 2.3. Data Preprocessing, Handling, and Tokenization

First, after dropping some unnecessary columns, all the URLs and emails from the tweets were removed. Then, all the new line characters, double and single quotes, and punctuation signs were deleted. For this type of processing, all the tweets were tokenized before applying all the methods to remove those texts. These were then detokenized and converted into NumPy arrays.


### 2.4. Sentiment Analyzer Tool (VADER)

VADER, proposed by C.J. Hutto [18] in 2014, is an NLP-based sentiment analyzer and a pretrained model that uses rule-based values tailored to the perceptions of social media expressions and works well on texts from other fields. It has impeccable performance in the area of social media text. Based on its comprehensive rules, VADER can perform a sentiment analysis of assorted lexical characteristics, as shown in Figure 3.Figure 3
VADER diagram.Looking at the valence values for each word in the lexicon, VADER provides a percentage of text ratios that crumble into a positive, negative, or neutral category and sums up a probability value of 1. The compound score for sentiment analysis is the most frequently used measure; a float value in the interval [-1,+1] is a compound score, whose index is determined by adding the values of each word in the lexicon, adapted according to rules, and then standardized to its range.


### 2.5. Data Visualization Tools

In this study, various types of analyses were performed to visually observe how data correlated with one another. Different types of diagrams, such as bar plots, line graphs, and Word Cloud, were implemented to understand patterns between our datasets. For visualization, we used many prebuilt libraries available in Python.


### 2.6. Performance Evaluation Process

A recurrent neural network- (RNN-) based architecture called LSTM was used to evaluate models. LSTM and Bi-LSTM were implemented in our evaluation procedure. LSTM is a type of RNN that addresses other RNNs with additional cells, inputs, and outputs. A Bi-LSTM is a sequence processing model composed of two LSTMs. One takes the input forward, and the other moves it backward. Bi-LSTMs efficiently improve the volume of network information to improve computational accuracy.


#### 2.6.1. LSTM

An LSTM’s control flow is similar to an RNN’s, as shown in Figure4. As it moves forward, it processes the data and passes it forward. The five gates that constitute the LSTM architecture are the sequential gate, input gate, forget gate, control gate, and output gate.Figure 4
Schematic diagram of LSTM [19].A series of equations describe the gates of LSTM [19]. Before describing the equation, it is necessary to first comprehend some of the variables used in these calculations. The sigmoid activation function σis used, the weight matrix is Wi, the previous LSTM block’s output is represented by ht−1, and the preference for the corresponding gates is represented bybi. Finally, the existing time stamp input is xt, and the input gate is it:
(1)it=σWi∗ht−1,xt+bi.The data that can be given to the cell were chosen using this equation. The forget gateft in Equation (2) decides which data from the input side of the previous memory should be ignored:
(2)ft=σWi∗ht−1,xt+bi.In Equation (3), tanh normalizes the values in the range between -1 and 1, where C is the candidate for the cell state at the timestamp, which controls the cellt updates:
(3)C¯=tanhWc∗ht−1,xt+bc,Ct=ft×Ct−1+it×C¯.The output layer (ot) upgrades both the hidden layer ht−1and the output layer according to Equation (4):
(4)ot=σWo∗ht−1,xt+bo,ht=ot×tanhCt.Here is our proposed LSTM configuration in Figure5.Figure 5
LSTM architecture for proposed tasks.


#### 2.6.2. Bi-LSTM

Bi-LSTMs are inspired by bidirectional RNNs [20] that use two hidden layers to parse sequence inputs in both forward and backward paths. Bi-LSTMs combine two hidden layers into one output layer. The configuration of an unfolded Bi-LSTM layer, which contains a forward and backward LSTM layer, is shown in Figure 6.Figure 6
Bidirectional LSTM with three consecutive steps [19].The output sequence of the forward layerh⟶ was created repeatedly with positive sequence inputs from times T−n to T−1, whereas the output sequence of the backward layer h⟵was measured by the reverse inputs from times T−n to T−1. The basic LSTM Equations (1)–(4) were used to calculate both the forward and backward layer outputs. The Bi-LSTM layer produces an output in vector form YT, in which each element is calculated by using Equation (5) below:
(5)yt=σh⟶,h⟵.A couple of output sequences are concatenated with theσ function, which can also be denoted as the final output. It could be a concatenating, summing, averaging, or multiplying function. A Bi-LSTM layer’s final output can be represented as a vector in the same way that an LSTM layer’s final output, YT−1 in YT=YT−n,⋯⋯,YT−1, is anticipated in the following iteration.The proposed Bi-LSTM architecture is designed below in Figure7.Figure 7
Bi-LSTM architecture for proposed tasks.


## 2.1. Full Outline of the Proposed System

In this research, the dataset was collected from Kaggle [17], which contains different types of tweets related to the COVID-19 vaccines. After checking the unique values and null values and finishing preprocessing, data characters were detokenized to break the sentences into words and label them. Next, a sentiment column, containing positive, negative, and neutral values, was added and calculated using the VADER. Then, architectures of deep learning, long short-term memory (LSTM), and bidirectional LSTM (Bi-LSTM) were utilized to check the performance of the forecasting model. According to the methodologies proposed above, a detailed outline of the system is shown in Figure 2.Figure 2
Outline of sentiment analysis procedures.


## 2.2. Dataset

The dataset named “All COVID-19 Vaccines Tweets” from Kaggle [17] was chosen in this research where the data of almost all the renowned vaccines, such as Pfizer/BioNTech, Oxford/AstraZeneca, Moderna, Covaxin, Sputnik V, Sinopharm, and Sinovac, are available. Here, the dataset shape is 125906 by 16, including username, date, location, number of friends, retweets, hashtags, and sources.


## 2.3. Data Preprocessing, Handling, and Tokenization

First, after dropping some unnecessary columns, all the URLs and emails from the tweets were removed. Then, all the new line characters, double and single quotes, and punctuation signs were deleted. For this type of processing, all the tweets were tokenized before applying all the methods to remove those texts. These were then detokenized and converted into NumPy arrays.


## 2.4. Sentiment Analyzer Tool (VADER)

VADER, proposed by C.J. Hutto [18] in 2014, is an NLP-based sentiment analyzer and a pretrained model that uses rule-based values tailored to the perceptions of social media expressions and works well on texts from other fields. It has impeccable performance in the area of social media text. Based on its comprehensive rules, VADER can perform a sentiment analysis of assorted lexical characteristics, as shown in Figure 3.Figure 3
VADER diagram.Looking at the valence values for each word in the lexicon, VADER provides a percentage of text ratios that crumble into a positive, negative, or neutral category and sums up a probability value of 1. The compound score for sentiment analysis is the most frequently used measure; a float value in the interval [-1,+1] is a compound score, whose index is determined by adding the values of each word in the lexicon, adapted according to rules, and then standardized to its range.


## 2.5. Data Visualization Tools

In this study, various types of analyses were performed to visually observe how data correlated with one another. Different types of diagrams, such as bar plots, line graphs, and Word Cloud, were implemented to understand patterns between our datasets. For visualization, we used many prebuilt libraries available in Python.


## 2.6. Performance Evaluation Process

A recurrent neural network- (RNN-) based architecture called LSTM was used to evaluate models. LSTM and Bi-LSTM were implemented in our evaluation procedure. LSTM is a type of RNN that addresses other RNNs with additional cells, inputs, and outputs. A Bi-LSTM is a sequence processing model composed of two LSTMs. One takes the input forward, and the other moves it backward. Bi-LSTMs efficiently improve the volume of network information to improve computational accuracy.


### 2.6.1. LSTM

An LSTM’s control flow is similar to an RNN’s, as shown in Figure4. As it moves forward, it processes the data and passes it forward. The five gates that constitute the LSTM architecture are the sequential gate, input gate, forget gate, control gate, and output gate.Figure 4
Schematic diagram of LSTM [19].A series of equations describe the gates of LSTM [19]. Before describing the equation, it is necessary to first comprehend some of the variables used in these calculations. The sigmoid activation function σis used, the weight matrix is Wi, the previous LSTM block’s output is represented by ht−1, and the preference for the corresponding gates is represented bybi. Finally, the existing time stamp input is xt, and the input gate is it:
(1)it=σWi∗ht−1,xt+bi.The data that can be given to the cell were chosen using this equation. The forget gateft in Equation (2) decides which data from the input side of the previous memory should be ignored:
(2)ft=σWi∗ht−1,xt+bi.In Equation (3), tanh normalizes the values in the range between -1 and 1, where C is the candidate for the cell state at the timestamp, which controls the cellt updates:
(3)C¯=tanhWc∗ht−1,xt+bc,Ct=ft×Ct−1+it×C¯.The output layer (ot) upgrades both the hidden layer ht−1and the output layer according to Equation (4):
(4)ot=σWo∗ht−1,xt+bo,ht=ot×tanhCt.Here is our proposed LSTM configuration in Figure5.Figure 5
LSTM architecture for proposed tasks.


### 2.6.2. Bi-LSTM

Bi-LSTMs are inspired by bidirectional RNNs [20] that use two hidden layers to parse sequence inputs in both forward and backward paths. Bi-LSTMs combine two hidden layers into one output layer. The configuration of an unfolded Bi-LSTM layer, which contains a forward and backward LSTM layer, is shown in Figure 6.Figure 6
Bidirectional LSTM with three consecutive steps [19].The output sequence of the forward layerh⟶ was created repeatedly with positive sequence inputs from times T−n to T−1, whereas the output sequence of the backward layer h⟵was measured by the reverse inputs from times T−n to T−1. The basic LSTM Equations (1)–(4) were used to calculate both the forward and backward layer outputs. The Bi-LSTM layer produces an output in vector form YT, in which each element is calculated by using Equation (5) below:
(5)yt=σh⟶,h⟵.A couple of output sequences are concatenated with theσ function, which can also be denoted as the final output. It could be a concatenating, summing, averaging, or multiplying function. A Bi-LSTM layer’s final output can be represented as a vector in the same way that an LSTM layer’s final output, YT−1 in YT=YT−n,⋯⋯,YT−1, is anticipated in the following iteration.The proposed Bi-LSTM architecture is designed below in Figure7.Figure 7
Bi-LSTM architecture for proposed tasks.


## 2.6.1. LSTM

An LSTM’s control flow is similar to an RNN’s, as shown in Figure4. As it moves forward, it processes the data and passes it forward. The five gates that constitute the LSTM architecture are the sequential gate, input gate, forget gate, control gate, and output gate.Figure 4
Schematic diagram of LSTM [19].A series of equations describe the gates of LSTM [19]. Before describing the equation, it is necessary to first comprehend some of the variables used in these calculations. The sigmoid activation function σis used, the weight matrix is Wi, the previous LSTM block’s output is represented by ht−1, and the preference for the corresponding gates is represented bybi. Finally, the existing time stamp input is xt, and the input gate is it:
(1)it=σWi∗ht−1,xt+bi.The data that can be given to the cell were chosen using this equation. The forget gateft in Equation (2) decides which data from the input side of the previous memory should be ignored:
(2)ft=σWi∗ht−1,xt+bi.In Equation (3), tanh normalizes the values in the range between -1 and 1, where C is the candidate for the cell state at the timestamp, which controls the cellt updates:
(3)C¯=tanhWc∗ht−1,xt+bc,Ct=ft×Ct−1+it×C¯.The output layer (ot) upgrades both the hidden layer ht−1and the output layer according to Equation (4):
(4)ot=σWo∗ht−1,xt+bo,ht=ot×tanhCt.Here is our proposed LSTM configuration in Figure5.Figure 5
LSTM architecture for proposed tasks.


## 2.6.2. Bi-LSTM

Bi-LSTMs are inspired by bidirectional RNNs [20] that use two hidden layers to parse sequence inputs in both forward and backward paths. Bi-LSTMs combine two hidden layers into one output layer. The configuration of an unfolded Bi-LSTM layer, which contains a forward and backward LSTM layer, is shown in Figure 6.Figure 6
Bidirectional LSTM with three consecutive steps [19].The output sequence of the forward layerh⟶ was created repeatedly with positive sequence inputs from times T−n to T−1, whereas the output sequence of the backward layer h⟵was measured by the reverse inputs from times T−n to T−1. The basic LSTM Equations (1)–(4) were used to calculate both the forward and backward layer outputs. The Bi-LSTM layer produces an output in vector form YT, in which each element is calculated by using Equation (5) below:
(5)yt=σh⟶,h⟵.A couple of output sequences are concatenated with theσ function, which can also be denoted as the final output. It could be a concatenating, summing, averaging, or multiplying function. A Bi-LSTM layer’s final output can be represented as a vector in the same way that an LSTM layer’s final output, YT−1 in YT=YT−n,⋯⋯,YT−1, is anticipated in the following iteration.The proposed Bi-LSTM architecture is designed below in Figure7.Figure 7
Bi-LSTM architecture for proposed tasks.


## 3. Results and Discussion

### 3.1. Overview of Outcomes

Pfizer/BioNTech, Oxford/AstraZeneca, Moderna, Covaxin, Sputnik V, Sinopharm, and Sinovac are the most commonly accepted vaccines. According to our research, people’s reactions to different vaccines vary from country to country. Hash tag analysis is an important feature of the sentiment analysis performed in our experiment. The most important step was to classify the tweets using ratio analysis to show the numbers and percentages of the reactions as either positive, negative, or neutral. Then, we validated our model using special types of RNNs such as LSTMs and Bi-LSTMs. We analyzed the relative metrics, accuracy loss, and other equivalent indicators of the performance evaluation methods and showed them graphically. Using the LSTM and Bi-LSTM architecture, we showed how well our model could predict particular characters’ inputs (tweets). We used Wordcloud, a frequently used visualization tool in sentiment analysis tasks, to show tweets that were categorized as three different types of sentiments to understand the psychological foundation behind these tweets.


### 3.2. Tweets according to User Locations and Sources

Tweets were collected from different sources in different parts of the globe; our analyses are represented in the facts and figures below. In Figure8, the biggest source of such vaccine reactions is shown to be Twitter, the platform most frequently used for delivering thoughts on the COVID-19 situation. The data contain tweets from all around the world; Figure 9 shows some major regions where tweets came from.Figure 8
Sources of vaccine reactions.Figure 9
User location of tweets.


### 3.3. Country-Wise “Prevalent Word” Usage

Figure10 shows the keywords most frequently used in the USA like “Moderna,” which is their own locally produced vaccine. “Pfizer” was almost as frequently used as “Moderna,” followed by “dose,” “shot,” “people,” “second dose,’” and other key terms that showed people’s mixed feelings regarding vaccinations against COVID-19. Figure 11 shows the most common terms used in the UK. The names of vaccines produced in the UK such as “OxfordAstraZeneca” and “PfizerBioNTech” came up frequently in their tweets along with alarming words like “blood clot,” “feel,” and “trial.” Figures 12 and 13 show the key terms used in the tweets of people in Canada and India. Here, the words “first dose,” “second dose,” “Moderna,” “Pfizer,” “Bharat BioNTech,” “death,” “emergency,” “Covishield,” and “clinical trial” were very commonly used.Figure 10
Terms used most in the US.Figure 11
Terms used most in the UK.Figure 12
Terms used most in Canada.Figure 13
Terms used most in India.


### 3.4. Hashtag Counts per Tweet

Hashtags are important and highly used by most users on Twitter, and they sometimes carry significant meanings related to particular events or trends. In Figure14, the total number of hashtags lies on the x-axis, and the number of those most frequently used in the tweets is on the y-axis, which represents the density of tweets.Figure 14
Hashtags per tweets for all data.


### 3.5. Timeline of Tweet Reactions

The number of tweets varies from time to time. Figure15 shows the changes in the number of tweets between the start of the vaccination process until the latest time frame.Figure 15
Daily number of tweets.From January 21 to the end of February 21, the number of tweets related to vaccines was less than 500; from March 21, it jumped to nearly 3000, indicating that people were very excited about the vaccines after the completion of the clinical trials and the vaccines were to be administered in large numbers. From March21 to the present, tweets regarding COVID-19 vaccines have fluctuated from 1000 to 2500 per month, indicating people’s changing emotions about them.


### 3.6. Sentiment Analysis and Evaluation

#### 3.6.1. Numbers and Percentages of Sentiment Criteria

In Figure16, the numbers of tweets classified as positive, negative, and neutral are shown by green bar charts, and the percentages of these three categories are presented with blue bar charts. For the green colored, the x-axis determines the number of tweets, and the y-axis determines the sentiment classes. In the blue charts, probability distributions are shown on the x-axis and the sentiment classes on the y-axis.Figure 16
Numbers and percentages of sentiment criteria.From the datasets, 125,906 tweets were analyzed using the lexicon-based VADER and segregated into three parameters: positive, negative, and neutral. Here, 42,765 positive tweets (33.96%), 22,094 negative tweets (17.55%), and 61,047 neutral tweets (48.49%) were found after the analysis. Neutral tweets formed the majority; the negative reactions were lower in frequency, indicating that confusion, conflicts, and uncertainties related to COVID-19 vaccination procedures were still present.


#### 3.6.2. Timeline of Sentiments

Figure17 demonstrates how sentiments changed or shuffled over time. The three sentiment classes are shown in three colors. For positive, negative, and neutral sentiments, the colors used are green, red, and blue, respectively.Figure 17
Sentiment variation with time.The fluctuation of emotions or sentiments over time during the pandemic is clearly visible in Figure17. It is clear that the sentiments peaked at the beginning of March 21 when the final trial of vaccines ended. Neutral sentiments had a high polarity every month until July21, and negative sentiments showed a lower polarity than neutral sentiments in recent times.


#### 3.6.3. Sentiment Words according to Polarities

Using WordCloud, specific words or terms were classified into polarity groups. In Figure18(a), the terms used as positive sentiments are shown. Figure 18(b) shows the negative sentiment words, and the neutral sentiment words are shown in Figure 18(c).Figure 18
Words according to (a) positive, (b) negative, and (c) neutral polarities.
(a)(b)(c)


### 3.7. Performance Evaluation

RNN-based architectures LSTM and Bi-LSTM were used to evaluate the model performances in our experiment. In the data sequencing and splitting part, we needed to convert the processed data into vectors by tokenizing and transforming the values into target labels. The training test split method from the scikit-learn library was used. The split data shapes were x_train:94429, x_test: 31477, y_train:94429, and y_test: 31477. In this section, the performance metrics of both models and their prediction capabilities are presented.


#### 3.7.1. Performance Analysis with LSTM and Bi-LSTM

The tools used to train our model with both LSTM and Bi-LSTM are listed in Table1 below.Table 1
Training parameters for LSTM and Bi-LSTM.
Training factorsComponentsPlatformGoogle ColabGPUColab GPU (NVIDIA tesla K80)OptimizerRMS propLossCategorical cross-entropyEpoch10ActivationSoftmaxIn this study, categorical crossentropy was used as a loss function. This loss function minimized errors for a particular class. The root mean square propagation (RMSprop) optimizer was used to train both models. In this study, softmax acted as an activation function. It squashed down the main score, giving a probability score for the final output. To train the LSTM and Bi-LSTM models on the training dataset, we used only 10 epochs.Figures19 and 20 show the model’s accuracy and loss for both the training and test data of the LSTM model. The accuracy of the validation set was 90.59% for the LSTM architecture.Figure 19
Accuracy of the LSTM model.Figure 20
Loss of the LSTM model.The model accuracy and model loss for both the training and test data of the Bi-LSTM model are shown in Figures21 and 22. For the Bi-LSTM model, an accuracy of 90.83% was found for both the validation and test sets.Figure 21
Accuracy of the Bi-LSTM model.Figure 22
Loss of the Bi-LSTM model.From Figures19 and 21, we can see that in the LSTM and Bi-LSTM, the training accuracy started at approximately 75%. When evaluating the fed data, LSTM gave 85% of accuracy at the beginning and 90.59% at the end, and Bi-LSTM showed an accuracy of 86% at the beginning and 90.83% at the end. After implementing Bi-LSTM, the accuracy of the model increased slightly from 90.59% to 90.83%.According to the architecture, LSTM only performs forward passes, whereas Bi-LSTM performs both forward and backward passes. Therefore, when we fit our dataset to both models, the LSTM takes the sequence only in the forward direction while the Bi-LSTM takes the sequence in the way where each +text has its own sequence. This is the reason why the network learns more deeply with Bi-LSTM, thus giving a slightly better performance in the sentiment analysis task.


#### 3.7.2. Other Performance Metrics

To evaluate the performance of the model based on different metrics, this study used precision, recall, F1-score, and a confusion matrix with different values such as true positive (TP), false positive (FP), true negative (TN), and false negative (FN).Precision: this describes the performance of the model on the test data. It shows the number of models predicted correctly from all the positive classes:(6)precision=TPTP+FP.Recall: the percentage of total relevant results accurately classified by the algorithm is referred to as the recall:(7)Recall=TPTP+FN.F1-score: The F1-score is simply the harmonic mean of precision and recall:(8)F1‐Score=2×Precision×RecallPrecision+Recall.Table2 shows the value of the performance metrics mentioned above.Table 2
Outcomes of performance metrics.
PrecisionRecallF1-scoreLSTMClass–00.940.940.94Class–10.850.790.82Class–20.880.920.90Bi-LSTMClass–00.940.950.94Class–10.850.790.82Class–20.890.910.90Neutral: class-0, negative: class-1, positive: class-2.Figure23 shows the confusion matrix for our prediction models with the three different polarities.Figure 23
Confusion matrix for sentiments.Finally, the model correctly classified 91% of positive sentiments. From the confusion matrix, 94% was classified as neutral, which is the true positive rate, while 73% was accurately classified as the negative class. In addition, 2.6% and 3.2% were misclassified as neutral, where the highest percentages were in the negative sentiment category, which were approximately 11% and 15%. Finally, the positive sentiment was predicted well, but 5.4% and 3.9% were incorrectly classified as neutral and negative, respectively.


#### 3.7.3. Sentiment Prediction Table

Table3 shows the outcomes of some refined tweets.Table 3
Assessment of sentiment prediction.
TextSentiment0Same folks said daikon paste could treat a cytokine storm #PfizerBioNTechPositive1While the world has been on the wrong side of history this year, hopefully the biggest vaccination effort ever.Negative2#coronavirus #SputnikV #AstraZeneca #PfizerBioNTech #Moderna #COVID19 Russian vaccine is created to last 2 4 yearsPositive3Facts are immutable, senator, even when you are not ethically sturdy enough to acknowledge them 1 you were born iNeutral4Does anyone have any useful advice/guidance on whether the COVID vaccine is safe whilst breastfeedingNeutral5It is a bit sad to claim the fame for success of #vaccination on patriotic competition between USA Canada UK andPositive6There have not been many bright days in 2020, but here are some of the best.Positive7COVID vaccine you getting it #COVIDVaccine #covid19 #PfizerBioNTech #ModernaNeutral8#COVIDVaccine states will start getting #COVID19Vaccine Monday #US says #pakustv #NYC #healthcare #GlobalGoalsNeutral


## 3.1. Overview of Outcomes

Pfizer/BioNTech, Oxford/AstraZeneca, Moderna, Covaxin, Sputnik V, Sinopharm, and Sinovac are the most commonly accepted vaccines. According to our research, people’s reactions to different vaccines vary from country to country. Hash tag analysis is an important feature of the sentiment analysis performed in our experiment. The most important step was to classify the tweets using ratio analysis to show the numbers and percentages of the reactions as either positive, negative, or neutral. Then, we validated our model using special types of RNNs such as LSTMs and Bi-LSTMs. We analyzed the relative metrics, accuracy loss, and other equivalent indicators of the performance evaluation methods and showed them graphically. Using the LSTM and Bi-LSTM architecture, we showed how well our model could predict particular characters’ inputs (tweets). We used Wordcloud, a frequently used visualization tool in sentiment analysis tasks, to show tweets that were categorized as three different types of sentiments to understand the psychological foundation behind these tweets.


## 3.2. Tweets according to User Locations and Sources

Tweets were collected from different sources in different parts of the globe; our analyses are represented in the facts and figures below. In Figure8, the biggest source of such vaccine reactions is shown to be Twitter, the platform most frequently used for delivering thoughts on the COVID-19 situation. The data contain tweets from all around the world; Figure 9 shows some major regions where tweets came from.Figure 8
Sources of vaccine reactions.Figure 9
User location of tweets.


## 3.3. Country-Wise “Prevalent Word” Usage

Figure10 shows the keywords most frequently used in the USA like “Moderna,” which is their own locally produced vaccine. “Pfizer” was almost as frequently used as “Moderna,” followed by “dose,” “shot,” “people,” “second dose,’” and other key terms that showed people’s mixed feelings regarding vaccinations against COVID-19. Figure 11 shows the most common terms used in the UK. The names of vaccines produced in the UK such as “OxfordAstraZeneca” and “PfizerBioNTech” came up frequently in their tweets along with alarming words like “blood clot,” “feel,” and “trial.” Figures 12 and 13 show the key terms used in the tweets of people in Canada and India. Here, the words “first dose,” “second dose,” “Moderna,” “Pfizer,” “Bharat BioNTech,” “death,” “emergency,” “Covishield,” and “clinical trial” were very commonly used.Figure 10
Terms used most in the US.Figure 11
Terms used most in the UK.Figure 12
Terms used most in Canada.Figure 13
Terms used most in India.


## 3.4. Hashtag Counts per Tweet

Hashtags are important and highly used by most users on Twitter, and they sometimes carry significant meanings related to particular events or trends. In Figure14, the total number of hashtags lies on the x-axis, and the number of those most frequently used in the tweets is on the y-axis, which represents the density of tweets.Figure 14
Hashtags per tweets for all data.


## 3.5. Timeline of Tweet Reactions

The number of tweets varies from time to time. Figure15 shows the changes in the number of tweets between the start of the vaccination process until the latest time frame.Figure 15
Daily number of tweets.From January 21 to the end of February 21, the number of tweets related to vaccines was less than 500; from March 21, it jumped to nearly 3000, indicating that people were very excited about the vaccines after the completion of the clinical trials and the vaccines were to be administered in large numbers. From March21 to the present, tweets regarding COVID-19 vaccines have fluctuated from 1000 to 2500 per month, indicating people’s changing emotions about them.


## 3.6. Sentiment Analysis and Evaluation

### 3.6.1. Numbers and Percentages of Sentiment Criteria

In Figure16, the numbers of tweets classified as positive, negative, and neutral are shown by green bar charts, and the percentages of these three categories are presented with blue bar charts. For the green colored, the x-axis determines the number of tweets, and the y-axis determines the sentiment classes. In the blue charts, probability distributions are shown on the x-axis and the sentiment classes on the y-axis.Figure 16
Numbers and percentages of sentiment criteria.From the datasets, 125,906 tweets were analyzed using the lexicon-based VADER and segregated into three parameters: positive, negative, and neutral. Here, 42,765 positive tweets (33.96%), 22,094 negative tweets (17.55%), and 61,047 neutral tweets (48.49%) were found after the analysis. Neutral tweets formed the majority; the negative reactions were lower in frequency, indicating that confusion, conflicts, and uncertainties related to COVID-19 vaccination procedures were still present.


### 3.6.2. Timeline of Sentiments

Figure17 demonstrates how sentiments changed or shuffled over time. The three sentiment classes are shown in three colors. For positive, negative, and neutral sentiments, the colors used are green, red, and blue, respectively.Figure 17
Sentiment variation with time.The fluctuation of emotions or sentiments over time during the pandemic is clearly visible in Figure17. It is clear that the sentiments peaked at the beginning of March 21 when the final trial of vaccines ended. Neutral sentiments had a high polarity every month until July21, and negative sentiments showed a lower polarity than neutral sentiments in recent times.


### 3.6.3. Sentiment Words according to Polarities

Using WordCloud, specific words or terms were classified into polarity groups. In Figure18(a), the terms used as positive sentiments are shown. Figure 18(b) shows the negative sentiment words, and the neutral sentiment words are shown in Figure 18(c).Figure 18
Words according to (a) positive, (b) negative, and (c) neutral polarities.
(a)(b)(c)


## 3.6.1. Numbers and Percentages of Sentiment Criteria

In Figure16, the numbers of tweets classified as positive, negative, and neutral are shown by green bar charts, and the percentages of these three categories are presented with blue bar charts. For the green colored, the x-axis determines the number of tweets, and the y-axis determines the sentiment classes. In the blue charts, probability distributions are shown on the x-axis and the sentiment classes on the y-axis.Figure 16
Numbers and percentages of sentiment criteria.From the datasets, 125,906 tweets were analyzed using the lexicon-based VADER and segregated into three parameters: positive, negative, and neutral. Here, 42,765 positive tweets (33.96%), 22,094 negative tweets (17.55%), and 61,047 neutral tweets (48.49%) were found after the analysis. Neutral tweets formed the majority; the negative reactions were lower in frequency, indicating that confusion, conflicts, and uncertainties related to COVID-19 vaccination procedures were still present.


## 3.6.2. Timeline of Sentiments

Figure17 demonstrates how sentiments changed or shuffled over time. The three sentiment classes are shown in three colors. For positive, negative, and neutral sentiments, the colors used are green, red, and blue, respectively.Figure 17
Sentiment variation with time.The fluctuation of emotions or sentiments over time during the pandemic is clearly visible in Figure17. It is clear that the sentiments peaked at the beginning of March 21 when the final trial of vaccines ended. Neutral sentiments had a high polarity every month until July21, and negative sentiments showed a lower polarity than neutral sentiments in recent times.


## 3.6.3. Sentiment Words according to Polarities

Using WordCloud, specific words or terms were classified into polarity groups. In Figure18(a), the terms used as positive sentiments are shown. Figure 18(b) shows the negative sentiment words, and the neutral sentiment words are shown in Figure 18(c).Figure 18
Words according to (a) positive, (b) negative, and (c) neutral polarities.
(a)(b)(c)


## 3.7. Performance Evaluation

RNN-based architectures LSTM and Bi-LSTM were used to evaluate the model performances in our experiment. In the data sequencing and splitting part, we needed to convert the processed data into vectors by tokenizing and transforming the values into target labels. The training test split method from the scikit-learn library was used. The split data shapes were x_train:94429, x_test: 31477, y_train:94429, and y_test: 31477. In this section, the performance metrics of both models and their prediction capabilities are presented.


### 3.7.1. Performance Analysis with LSTM and Bi-LSTM

The tools used to train our model with both LSTM and Bi-LSTM are listed in Table1 below.Table 1
Training parameters for LSTM and Bi-LSTM.
Training factorsComponentsPlatformGoogle ColabGPUColab GPU (NVIDIA tesla K80)OptimizerRMS propLossCategorical cross-entropyEpoch10ActivationSoftmaxIn this study, categorical crossentropy was used as a loss function. This loss function minimized errors for a particular class. The root mean square propagation (RMSprop) optimizer was used to train both models. In this study, softmax acted as an activation function. It squashed down the main score, giving a probability score for the final output. To train the LSTM and Bi-LSTM models on the training dataset, we used only 10 epochs.Figures19 and 20 show the model’s accuracy and loss for both the training and test data of the LSTM model. The accuracy of the validation set was 90.59% for the LSTM architecture.Figure 19
Accuracy of the LSTM model.Figure 20
Loss of the LSTM model.The model accuracy and model loss for both the training and test data of the Bi-LSTM model are shown in Figures21 and 22. For the Bi-LSTM model, an accuracy of 90.83% was found for both the validation and test sets.Figure 21
Accuracy of the Bi-LSTM model.Figure 22
Loss of the Bi-LSTM model.From Figures19 and 21, we can see that in the LSTM and Bi-LSTM, the training accuracy started at approximately 75%. When evaluating the fed data, LSTM gave 85% of accuracy at the beginning and 90.59% at the end, and Bi-LSTM showed an accuracy of 86% at the beginning and 90.83% at the end. After implementing Bi-LSTM, the accuracy of the model increased slightly from 90.59% to 90.83%.According to the architecture, LSTM only performs forward passes, whereas Bi-LSTM performs both forward and backward passes. Therefore, when we fit our dataset to both models, the LSTM takes the sequence only in the forward direction while the Bi-LSTM takes the sequence in the way where each +text has its own sequence. This is the reason why the network learns more deeply with Bi-LSTM, thus giving a slightly better performance in the sentiment analysis task.


### 3.7.2. Other Performance Metrics

To evaluate the performance of the model based on different metrics, this study used precision, recall, F1-score, and a confusion matrix with different values such as true positive (TP), false positive (FP), true negative (TN), and false negative (FN).Precision: this describes the performance of the model on the test data. It shows the number of models predicted correctly from all the positive classes:(6)precision=TPTP+FP.Recall: the percentage of total relevant results accurately classified by the algorithm is referred to as the recall:(7)Recall=TPTP+FN.F1-score: The F1-score is simply the harmonic mean of precision and recall:(8)F1‐Score=2×Precision×RecallPrecision+Recall.Table2 shows the value of the performance metrics mentioned above.Table 2
Outcomes of performance metrics.
PrecisionRecallF1-scoreLSTMClass–00.940.940.94Class–10.850.790.82Class–20.880.920.90Bi-LSTMClass–00.940.950.94Class–10.850.790.82Class–20.890.910.90Neutral: class-0, negative: class-1, positive: class-2.Figure23 shows the confusion matrix for our prediction models with the three different polarities.Figure 23
Confusion matrix for sentiments.Finally, the model correctly classified 91% of positive sentiments. From the confusion matrix, 94% was classified as neutral, which is the true positive rate, while 73% was accurately classified as the negative class. In addition, 2.6% and 3.2% were misclassified as neutral, where the highest percentages were in the negative sentiment category, which were approximately 11% and 15%. Finally, the positive sentiment was predicted well, but 5.4% and 3.9% were incorrectly classified as neutral and negative, respectively.


### 3.7.3. Sentiment Prediction Table

Table3 shows the outcomes of some refined tweets.Table 3
Assessment of sentiment prediction.
TextSentiment0Same folks said daikon paste could treat a cytokine storm #PfizerBioNTechPositive1While the world has been on the wrong side of history this year, hopefully the biggest vaccination effort ever.Negative2#coronavirus #SputnikV #AstraZeneca #PfizerBioNTech #Moderna #COVID19 Russian vaccine is created to last 2 4 yearsPositive3Facts are immutable, senator, even when you are not ethically sturdy enough to acknowledge them 1 you were born iNeutral4Does anyone have any useful advice/guidance on whether the COVID vaccine is safe whilst breastfeedingNeutral5It is a bit sad to claim the fame for success of #vaccination on patriotic competition between USA Canada UK andPositive6There have not been many bright days in 2020, but here are some of the best.Positive7COVID vaccine you getting it #COVIDVaccine #covid19 #PfizerBioNTech #ModernaNeutral8#COVIDVaccine states will start getting #COVID19Vaccine Monday #US says #pakustv #NYC #healthcare #GlobalGoalsNeutral


## 3.7.1. Performance Analysis with LSTM and Bi-LSTM

The tools used to train our model with both LSTM and Bi-LSTM are listed in Table1 below.Table 1
Training parameters for LSTM and Bi-LSTM.
Training factorsComponentsPlatformGoogle ColabGPUColab GPU (NVIDIA tesla K80)OptimizerRMS propLossCategorical cross-entropyEpoch10ActivationSoftmaxIn this study, categorical crossentropy was used as a loss function. This loss function minimized errors for a particular class. The root mean square propagation (RMSprop) optimizer was used to train both models. In this study, softmax acted as an activation function. It squashed down the main score, giving a probability score for the final output. To train the LSTM and Bi-LSTM models on the training dataset, we used only 10 epochs.Figures19 and 20 show the model’s accuracy and loss for both the training and test data of the LSTM model. The accuracy of the validation set was 90.59% for the LSTM architecture.Figure 19
Accuracy of the LSTM model.Figure 20
Loss of the LSTM model.The model accuracy and model loss for both the training and test data of the Bi-LSTM model are shown in Figures21 and 22. For the Bi-LSTM model, an accuracy of 90.83% was found for both the validation and test sets.Figure 21
Accuracy of the Bi-LSTM model.Figure 22
Loss of the Bi-LSTM model.From Figures19 and 21, we can see that in the LSTM and Bi-LSTM, the training accuracy started at approximately 75%. When evaluating the fed data, LSTM gave 85% of accuracy at the beginning and 90.59% at the end, and Bi-LSTM showed an accuracy of 86% at the beginning and 90.83% at the end. After implementing Bi-LSTM, the accuracy of the model increased slightly from 90.59% to 90.83%.According to the architecture, LSTM only performs forward passes, whereas Bi-LSTM performs both forward and backward passes. Therefore, when we fit our dataset to both models, the LSTM takes the sequence only in the forward direction while the Bi-LSTM takes the sequence in the way where each +text has its own sequence. This is the reason why the network learns more deeply with Bi-LSTM, thus giving a slightly better performance in the sentiment analysis task.


## 3.7.2. Other Performance Metrics

To evaluate the performance of the model based on different metrics, this study used precision, recall, F1-score, and a confusion matrix with different values such as true positive (TP), false positive (FP), true negative (TN), and false negative (FN).Precision: this describes the performance of the model on the test data. It shows the number of models predicted correctly from all the positive classes:(6)precision=TPTP+FP.Recall: the percentage of total relevant results accurately classified by the algorithm is referred to as the recall:(7)Recall=TPTP+FN.F1-score: The F1-score is simply the harmonic mean of precision and recall:(8)F1‐Score=2×Precision×RecallPrecision+Recall.Table2 shows the value of the performance metrics mentioned above.Table 2
Outcomes of performance metrics.
PrecisionRecallF1-scoreLSTMClass–00.940.940.94Class–10.850.790.82Class–20.880.920.90Bi-LSTMClass–00.940.950.94Class–10.850.790.82Class–20.890.910.90Neutral: class-0, negative: class-1, positive: class-2.Figure23 shows the confusion matrix for our prediction models with the three different polarities.Figure 23
Confusion matrix for sentiments.Finally, the model correctly classified 91% of positive sentiments. From the confusion matrix, 94% was classified as neutral, which is the true positive rate, while 73% was accurately classified as the negative class. In addition, 2.6% and 3.2% were misclassified as neutral, where the highest percentages were in the negative sentiment category, which were approximately 11% and 15%. Finally, the positive sentiment was predicted well, but 5.4% and 3.9% were incorrectly classified as neutral and negative, respectively.


## 3.7.3. Sentiment Prediction Table

Table3 shows the outcomes of some refined tweets.Table 3
Assessment of sentiment prediction.
TextSentiment0Same folks said daikon paste could treat a cytokine storm #PfizerBioNTechPositive1While the world has been on the wrong side of history this year, hopefully the biggest vaccination effort ever.Negative2#coronavirus #SputnikV #AstraZeneca #PfizerBioNTech #Moderna #COVID19 Russian vaccine is created to last 2 4 yearsPositive3Facts are immutable, senator, even when you are not ethically sturdy enough to acknowledge them 1 you were born iNeutral4Does anyone have any useful advice/guidance on whether the COVID vaccine is safe whilst breastfeedingNeutral5It is a bit sad to claim the fame for success of #vaccination on patriotic competition between USA Canada UK andPositive6There have not been many bright days in 2020, but here are some of the best.Positive7COVID vaccine you getting it #COVIDVaccine #covid19 #PfizerBioNTech #ModernaNeutral8#COVIDVaccine states will start getting #COVID19Vaccine Monday #US says #pakustv #NYC #healthcare #GlobalGoalsNeutral


## 4. Conclusions

Our research shows how deep learning techniques are used in sentiment analysis tasks. Basic NLP-based tools were implemented to understand the sentiments of people in 3 polarities, namely, positive, negative, and neutral; our findings showed that 33.96% of people were positive, 17.55% were negative, and 48.49% were neutral till July 2021, in response to the vaccination procedures going all across the globe. Our research also incorporated RNN-based LSTM and Bi-LSTM that determined how accurately and precisely the models we built could predict and analyze sentiments. The LSTM architecture showed 90.59% accuracy, and the Bi-LSTM model showed 90.83% accuracy, and both models showed good prediction scores in precision, recall, F-1 scores, and confusion matrix calculation. Many people have decided to vaccinate themselves, and a large number are still confused; many are frightened and many refuse to be vaccinated.This research will help health researchers obtain proper knowledge of the issues regarding the vaccination process. Companies who produce vaccines, governments, health ministries of different countries, or policymakers in the health sector, such as WHO [21], can have a proper idea about whether their vaccines are effective or not and the percentage of their effectiveness. They can understand which sectors they have to improve so that people can have faith in the vaccination process. We believe that we will play a small but effective part in helping frontline workers fight against this novel coronavirus and keep our lives healthy and safe.



---

*Source: 4321131-2021-12-02.xml*