PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Bradley, Valerie C. AU - Kuriwaki, Shiro AU - Isakov, Michael AU - Sejdinovic, Dino AU - Meng, Xiao-Li AU - Flaxman, Seth TI - Are We There Yet? Big Data Significantly Overestimates COVID-19 Vaccination in the US AID - 10.1101/2021.06.10.21258694 DP - 2021 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2021.06.10.21258694 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/15/2021.06.10.21258694.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/15/2021.06.10.21258694.full AB - Public health efforts to control the COVID-19 pandemic rely on accurate surveys. However, estimates of vaccine uptake in the US from Delphi-Facebook, Census Household Pulse, and Axios-Ipsos surveys exhibit the Big Data Paradox: the larger the survey, the further its estimate from the benchmark provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In April 2021, Delphi-Facebook, the largest survey, overestimated vaccine uptake by 20 percentage points. Discrepancies between estimates of vaccine willingness and hesitancy, which have no benchmarks, also grow over time and cannot be explained through selection bias on traditional demographic variables alone. However, a recent framework on investigating Big Data quality (1) allows us to quantify contributing factors, and to provide a data quality-driven scenario analysis for vaccine willingness and hesitancy.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementVB is funded by the University of Oxford's Clarendon Fund and the EPSRC and MRC through the OxWaSP CDT programme (EP/L016710/1). SF acknowledges the support of the EPSRC (EP/V002910/1).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:According to HRA decision tools (http://www.hra-decisiontools.org.uk/research/), our study is considered Research, and according to the NHS REC review tool (http://www.hra-decisiontools.org.uk/ethics/), we do not need NHS Research Ethics Committee (REC) review, as we only used (1) publicly available, (2) anonymized, and (3) aggregated data outside of clinical settings.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data is publicly available from the listed sources. https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/axios-ipsos-coronavirus-index https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/household-pulse-survey/data.html https://cmu-delphi.github.io/delphi-epidata/symptom-survey/contingency-tables.html https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/datasets/2010-2019/state/detail/SCPRC-EST2019-18+POP-RES.csv https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccination-trends