Public health experts in service of journalism.
Health Desk
Rapid responses to health questions for fact-checkers and journalists.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Rapid responses to health questions for fact-checkers and journalists.
Ultimately, no single statistic or measurement can accurately indicate the state of a disease within a population. To best understand the level of infection in a community, all these numbers need to be looked at together. Until there is more routine testing to identify all infected patients (with or without symptoms), the risk of infection is likely to remain unclear. In order to attempt to measure the level of infection in a community, we can look at the number of hospitalizations, the proportion of the population who has the disease at any given moment (period prevalence), or the number of new cases of disease over a given time interval (incidence rate). The number of COVID-19 deaths during a given period can provide an important snapshot to understand the impact of the virus, but it is not a very good measure of a population's risk of contracting the virus. Tracking incidence rate is a more useful measure, because it helps us understand what proportion of an initially disease-free population develops the disease over a specified time period. This is a far more accurate measure of how likely a person in a population is to get infected compared to the number of deaths within a population. Additionally, in trying to understand how the number of deaths vary between populations, it's best to compare the mortality rate (number of deaths in relation to the overall population), because simply looking at the number of deaths does not account for differences in the size of populations.
Most regulatory policies require COVID-19 vaccine candidates to go through rigorous clinical trials, which include documentation of adverse reactions. The vast majority of participants in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials did not experience severe adverse reactions. Results from the clinical studies are published and publicly available. One platform that consolidates the results is the COVID-19 Real-Time Learning Network, which is made available thanks to a collaboration between the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA). Additionally, now that COVID-19 vaccine candidates have been given to millions of people around the world, more data is becoming available from countries that are monitoring the vaccine distribution and collecting information. For example, in the United States, adverse reactions can be reported by providers of the COVID-19 vaccines, as well as by recipients on the national VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) online platform. This reporting system is part of the many expanded vaccine safety monitoring systems that have been developed. Based on early data from these reporting systems, the U.S. CDC released a report in January 2021 on anaphylaxis, a severe and potentially life-threatening allergic reaction that rarely occurs after vaccination. This report is publicly available, along with several other reports and resources, and includes recommendations such as ensuring that patients with previous history of similar allergic reactions are monitored for 15-30 minutes following COVID-19 vaccination and are taught how to recognize signs of anaphylaxis. If someone has questions about potential adverse reactions because of their health status, including any pre-existing health conditions, please consult with a healthcare provider. If someone has received a COVID-19 vaccine dose and has experienced serious adverse side effects, please consult with a healthcare provider and report the adverse effects to a vaccine safety monitoring system as appropriate. For reference, the U.S. CDC has provided a list of what is normal to expect after COVID-19 vaccination, including typical minor side effects: <https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/expect/after.html>
The virus that causes COVID-19 primarily spreads through close, person-to-person contact, not through surface contamination. However, the virus can live on surfaces and the amount of time that SARS-CoV-2 can survive on a surface depends on the material of the surface. According to a recent study published in the Virology Journal, depending on the temperature, COVID-19 survived on different surfaces from a few hours to several days, with a half-life (time taken for 50% of the virus to no longer be infectious) of up to 2.7 days. The virus remained infectious on stainless steel, polymer and paper notes, glass, cotton and vinyl for much longer at 20°C as compared to 40°C. In practice, the amount of the virus on a surface usually drops dramatically in the first few hours. It is also important to note that even though some of the living virus might still be detected on a surface after several hours or days, it might not be present in a large enough quantity to make someone sick. The recent findings, however, suggest that the virus can remain infectious for longer periods of time than considered earlier, especially at lower temperatures. If a person touches a contaminated surface with traces of the virus and then touches their eyes, nose, or mouth, they could become infected if the surface contains large amounts of the virus. This is why it is important to clean and disinfect any surfaces that people might come into contact with, especially those like doorknobs, cell phones, light switches, handles, countertops, sinks, toilets, and more. If possible, people should try to avoid touching high-contact surfaces in public. Washing your hands for 20 seconds, avoiding touching your face, maintaining six feet (two meters) of distance and wearing a mask (the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends wearing a cloth mask over a surgical mask for increased protection) are key steps in combatting the spread of the virus.
On November 19, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended against the use of the antiviral Remdesivir (also known as Veklury) due to lacking evidence, following months of controversy regarding the utility of the drug. This decision was made based on four trials, including one conducted by the WHO, called the Solidarity trial, which is the largest so far and includes over 5,000 patients being used to study Remdesivir. The pre-print study found that Remdesivir (along with Hydroxychloroquine, Lopinavir and Interferon) regimens appeared to have little or no effect on hospitalized COVID-19, measured by by rates of overall mortality, initiation of ventilation, and the duration of stay in the hospital. The study also found that that Remdesivir does not reduce COVID-19 deaths. The trial studied data from 405 hospitals in 30 countries, and randomly assigned more than 11,000 people hospitalized with COVID-19 to assess Remdesivir and three other drugs. 301 of 2,743 people hospitalized with COVID-19 taking Remdesivir died, compared with 303 of 2,708 who were not taking Remdesivir, demonstrating that Remdesivir does not have a statistically significant mortality benefit. Despite this recommendation by the WHO, Remdesivir continues to be recognized as a credible treatment for COVID-19 among hospitalized individuals, including in the U.S., Japan, and Germany. On October 22, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Remdesivir based off of the evidence of three randomized controlled trials. Remdesivir was the first officially approved treatment of COVID-19 within the U.S. The approval followed the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Remdesivir on May 1. Remdesivir was developed by pharmaceutical company Gilead. The other three studies the WHO panel reviewed evidence for to make their decision found more positive evidence regarding Remdesivir, but were smaller in size. One clinical trial, conducted by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, assessed COVID-19 recovery time within 29 days of being treated. The trial looked at 1,062 hospitalized subjects with mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19 who received Remdesivir versus those who did not. The median time to recovery from COVID-19 for those who received Remdesivir was 10 days compared to 15 days for those who did not, a statistically significant difference. The odds of clinical improvement were also higher for those who took Remdesivir at Day 15 compared to those who did not. This difference, however, was not statistically significant. A second study found that the odds of a subject’s COVID-19 symptoms improving were higher if they had taken Remdesivir compared to if they had received the standard of care. If the drug was taken for 10 days rather than 5 days, the chances increased more, but not to a statistically significant extent. The third, separate study found that a patient’s odds of their COVID-19 symptoms improving were similar for those taking Remdesivir for 5 days as those for 10 days, and that there were no statistically significant differences in recovery or mortality rates between the two groups. Once again, these studies are smaller in size than the WHO Solidarity trial. Favipiravir is also considered to be a possible treatment for COVID-19. A small study showed the virus being reduced faster with the drug in comparison to other medications. Without further study, there is not enough evidence suggesting effectiveness and safety. Many studies for COVID-19 treatments remain underway, and it is too early to determine which additional ones may be effective therapeutic options for COVID-19 patients. When Favipiravir or any medication not officially approved is prescribed, it is important that medical providers monitor the patient's clinical condition noting effectiveness and possible negative side effects.
There is no single definition of a “wave” of a disease in public health. Defining a disease wave varies across scientific literature and even by the scientist you ask. This lack of continuity has to do with the complexity of disease outbreaks, and in particular 1) the ways in which diseases affect different populations at different times, 2) the difficulty in accessing accurate data, and 3) most importantly, the lack of a standardized definition of a disease wave. We do, however, know a disease wave when we see one in public health, and agree on indicators of second, third, and fourth waves, and beyond. A disease wave can be thought of as a sustained surge (or spike) in cases, following and relative to a period of sustained low cases. Think of a line on a graph that curves high (first wave), dips low (end of the first wave), then curves high again (second wave). In defining the end of a first wave for the U.S., on June 18 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci, U.S. White House advisor and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told the Washington Post that in order to consider the first wave in the U.S. technically "over", we would need to see a specific region, state, or city have a sustained decrease of positive infection rates until they were in the low single digits. This is just one expert's definition, however, and just because a region may not have reached single digits of positive test rates does not mean they might not be considered by some to be in a second wave now, and by others in a third wave, if they’re seeing a significant and sustained surge in positive rates compared to what that area’s positive test rate number was previously.
In silico methods are computational predictions that have been used for decades to help reduce the required time and expenses during drug development, including for drugs that fight cancer and tuberculosis. During the COVID-19 pandemic, in silico methods have been used in various ways to find effective interventions for preventing and treating COVID-19. For example, in silico methods have been used to quickly screen a large number of compounds, helping to identify which have more potential to inhibit the virus SARS-CoV-2 that causes COVID-19 for application in therapeutic drugs. Another example is the use of in silico methods to model how COVID-19 can spread in a population, and to simulate the impact of different preventative measures such as wearing masks. In silico methods can also be used to speed up the design and evaluation of medical devices and other supplies. Additionally, in silico methods have been used to model, and sometimes attempt to predict, COVID-19 symptoms or complications by comparing simulations to actual clinical data. Researchers are continuing to apply in silico methods in different ways to figure out how to best prevent and treat COVID-19.
At this time, it is unlikely that a vaccine for COVID-19 will be produced before 2021. The Indian Council of Medical Research, the primary body overseeing clinical research for COVID-19 in India, has pushed to fast-track clinical trials for the Bharat Biotech-developed drug COVAXIN, which is currently in Phase II trials. ICMR had initially announced an ambitious deadline of August 15th 2020 to launch the vaccine, which had been criticized by doctors and researchers as a rushed and impractical timeline that carries substantial risks. ICMR has clarified that the intention is to complete the trials as fast as possible and speed up recruitment of participants, but everything will depend on the results of the clinical trials. The timeline to develop a safe and effective vaccine is lengthy and requires several stages of clinical trials, as well as plenty of regulatory oversight. This process usually takes several months and can continue for more than a year. Even if pre-clinical data is promising, human clinical trials that are necessary to deploy a vaccine take place in stages that take a very long time, in order to assess efficacy and safety. The process typically takes well over 12 months to complete. Lots of testing happens in animals before a vaccine begins phased testing in humans. During the first stage of vaccine testing on humans (Phase I), a new vaccine is provided to small groups of people—which is the first time the vaccine is tested in humans. The second stage (Phase II) involves testing the vaccine on people who have similar characteristics (such as age and physical health) to the target population, which means the group for which the vaccine is intended. The goal of this stage is to identify the most effective dosages and schedule for Phase III trials. The final stage (Phase III) provides the vaccine to hundreds of people across several different healthcare settings from the target population to see how safe and effective it is. Once the vaccine clears this last stage, the manufacturer can apply for a license from regulatory authorities to market for human use.
When it comes to infectious diseases, "exposure" means coming into contact with a virus or bacteria. Infection happens when someone is exposed and actually becomes sick from the exposure. Exposure does not always lead to an infection. If the time a person is exposed to the virus is very short, if the amount of virus that enters the body is not in a large enough quantity, or if the body's immune system is able to quickly fight it off, then exposure will be less likely to lead to infection. Many things have to happen for an exposure to result in an infection, especially the ways in which a person was exposed to the virus. In the case of the virus that causes COVID-19, exposure takes place usually by breathing in the virus through the nose or the mouth, and sometimes the virus enters our bodies through the eyes. People can be "exposed" to different viruses in different ways, such as by eating food with a virus on it, or getting bit by a mosquito or other animal that carries a virus. Again, in the case of COVID-19, exposure typically happens by breathing in the virus through the nose or the mouth. Other factors that can impact whether an exposure leads to an infection include whether the germ is a virus, a bacteria or a parasite; how strong or "infectious" it is; and the strength of our body defense system (immune system). For example, you could be exposed to whooping cough (pertussis) by someone in the same room as you, but whether or not you end up being infected depends on several factors. These factors include how close to the person you were, how long you were exposed for, and if you are vaccinated against whooping cough.
Though the potential for airborne transmission likely wouldn't change testing methods outside of a push for more extensive testing in general, it might influence policy regarding mandating mask wearing, air purification and ventilation systems, and other methods of prevention related to airborne viral spread. SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) is not airborne in the traditional sense. COVID-19 spreads primarily through relatively large respiratory droplets that fall to the ground and into faces and bodies of others. These larger droplets, 'respiratory droplets,’ are wet from saliva and mucus and fall quickly to the ground. Scientists think this type of infectious droplet is how the majority of COVID-19 infections spread. On the other hand, examples of airborne diseases are tuberculosis and measles, and the way these diseases spread is primarily through the air in smaller particles called 'microdroplets' or 'droplet nuclei.' Smaller droplets can stay in the air for longer periods of time because they are so small and light. Exhalation, talking, coughing, and singing can cause these small droplets to linger in the air for hours after a person leaves a room. SARS-CoV-2 viral particles may be part of these tiny droplets, and can travel beyond 6 feet (2m) in certain situations, but the disease is still not understood to be transmitted primarily through lingering infectious particles in the air. The aerosol or airborne transmission of COVID-19 occurs more indoors in close contact. This might mean that people who don't fall into the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-defined category of "exposed" to the virus (within 6 feet or 2m of an infected person for more than 15 minutes), but were in the same room as an infected person for an extended period of time, may now be considered ‘exposed’ and require testing. There is currently some controversy around this topic, as 239 scientists recently sent a letter to the World Health Organization (WHO) urging them to recognize the potential of people catching the virus from droplet nuclei via airborne transmission. These scientists believe that the evidence supporting the concept of airborne transmission mean current procedures like social distancing and vigorous hand-washing do not provide enough protection from virus-carrying microdroplets that can stay suspended in the air for hours. Thus, the potential for people inhaling these droplet nuclei into their noses and mouths means additional prevention steps are needed. The WHO previously maintained that the novel coronavirus is mainly spread by respiratory droplet transmission, but has since acknowledged the emerging evidence for airborne transmission in "crowded, closed, poorly ventilated settings," while cautioning that the evidence is preliminary and should be assessed further.
People with asthma should wear face masks. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S. CDC) note that people with moderate to severe asthma might have an increased risk of severe case of COVID-19. Therefore, wearing a mask is an important way to prevent the spread of the virus. Studies also show that wearing a mask does not reduce oxygen levels and should not make breathing more difficult. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends the use of face masks in public and when social distancing is not possible, and it is safe for people with asthma to wear a mask for as long as needed. People who feel it is difficult to breathe adequately with a mask ca, for example, try to limit the length of their outings requiring mask use. However, every patient is different and if you have been diagnosed with asthma, have a severe case, have difficulty breathing normally, or have difficulty breathing with a mask, you should speak with your doctor about options for protecting yourself and others from COVID-19. As of February 2021, the U.S. CDC recommends wearing a cloth mask over a surgical mask for increased protection.
There is currently not enough evidence to know whether or not favipiravir, also known as Avigan, can effectively treat COVID-19; however, the preliminary evidence is promising. Favipiravir is a drug that is used as an influenza medication in Japan and China, and is currently in studies to treat other viral infections, including COVID-19, in many other countries. Early studies involving favipiravir has showed promising results in reducing the duration of symptoms of COVID-19 and aiding in the recovery of patients. However, there were shortcomings to these early studies, such as only having a small number of patients involved and the presence of age differences between study groups. Additionally, not all studies randomly assigned to their groups (called randomization) and not all studies "blinded" their study subjects and their doctors (meaning they both knew which treatments they received and didn't receive). This helps explain why there is a lack of consensus as to whether or not favipiravir is an effect treatment for COVID-19 at this time. Main advantages of favipiravir are that it is administered orally and that it can be given in patients who are symptomatic but not ill enough to be hospitalized. As of November 2020, the International Journal of Infectious Diseases published a set of case studies of COVID-19 treated with favipiravir among patients in critical or severe condition, and found that all patients showed a clinical and chest imaging improvement, and all patients recovered without subsequent hypoxemia. Once again, while these results are promising, they are case studies and not formal research studies and therefore have signifiant limitations.
Llamas are being used in research to produce antibodies that _may_ help develop therapeutics to treat and prevent COVID-19 in humans. Like humans, llamas naturally produce antibodies. Antibodies are special proteins that are made from plasma cells (a type of white blood cell), and they help the body to fight "antigens" including viruses, bacteria, and other threats that can make people sick. Llamas are able to produce a special type of antibody called a 'nanobody.' Nanobodies are about a quarter of the size of the antibodies that humans produce and, because they are so small, nanobodies are more stable, can live for a long time, and are able reach tiny, hard-to-reach areas of the body to help treat infected cells. Using a known process, scientists are looking to create a treatment for COVID-19 using llama nanobodies. Though animal studies have only just begun and researchers are not yet ready for human studies, there is hope that COVID-19 antibody treatments made possible by llamas could become preventive in the future.
Brazil has reported over 1.2 million cases and 54,000 deaths as of June 26, 2020. The recent surge in cases is mainly stemming from the country's densely populated regions, such as Sao Paolo and Rio de Janeiro. Studies estimate that 25% of the Brazilian population in Sao Paolo did not adequately adhere to quarantine guidelines, and the presence of densely packed low-income neighborhoods known as favelas has exacerbated the spread of the virus. In a new study, researchers conducted over 3,000 rapid tests in six of the city's most densely populated neighborhoods and found that infection rates were far higher than the official estimates: some studies had previously estimated that 9.5% of people in Sao Paolo were infected, but the most recent estimates from the largest favela in Sao Paola indicated almost 25% of people who were tested were positive. Medical experts attribute the surge in cases in major cities to relaxed quarantine and isolation measures. Major cities in the country have lifted lockdown measures, and reopened restaurants, shops and businesses. Another research study found that more than 75% of the confirmed cases are from the relatively densely populated southern and southeastern regions of Brazil, and the exponential growth in COVID-19 cases has stemmed from difficulties in effective social distancing. The study reports that many informal workers are continuing to work and information regarding minimum infection prevention and control measures, including hand washing and social distancing, has not been effectively communicated and followed.
The renewed focus on the COVID-19 pandemic and its heavy toll has worried health experts about other infectious disease programs in low- and middle-income countries, such as the distribution of insecticide-treated bednets in sub-Saharan Africa or routine vaccination programs in India. A new modeling analysis released by the World Health Organization shows that disruptions to bednet distribution campaigns could double the number of malaria deaths in 2020 compared to the amount of deaths in 2018 (in the worst case scenario). Health experts are warning that existing vaccination programs or other vector control programs (such as indoor spraying or insecticide-treated bednet distribution campaigns) should be accelerated to prevent other infectious disease outbreaks, even as resources are focused on the COVID-19 pandemic.
Antigen tests for COVID-19 have many advantages, including rapid results, cheap production costs, and a high rate of accurate test results for people who are actively infected with COVID-19. However, one of the major downsides of these tests is their high rate of false negative results (having a negative test result even if you are actively infected with the virus). Comparatively, false positive test results, which incorrectly show that a healthy person is infected by the virus when they are not, are very rare in tests that have been approved by regulatory agencies like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Despite having low rates of false positives, these types or errors in antigen tests still exist due to technical issues like handling, contamination, or test errors. These considerations have a large impact as their effects can directly result in health impacts for people who test positive (but are not) and are quarantined with people with active infections or receive treatments like medication when it may be harmful. While most newer antigen tests aim to accurately identify people with active COVID-19 infections at least 80% and 90% of the time (true positive rate), some antigen tests have been reported to have false positive or false negative rates as high as 50%. Several experts recommend using a second test to confirm a patient is truly negative or positive, particularly when patients may have no symptoms or have not been exposed to people who tested positive for the virus. While antigen tests can usually diagnose active COVID-19 infections, they are more likely to miss an active infection in comparison to molecular tests like polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. Several countries have begun authorizing the use of newer antigen tests that report lower rates of false positives and false negatives. For example, as of early December 2020, the U.S. FDA has granted Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for a handful of the more accurate antigen tests that are available. As more of these tests are produced and used on a wide scale, we hope to learn more about their accuracy and achieve as sensitive (correctly identifying those who are are actively infected with the virus) and specific (correctly identifying those who do not have an active infection) as possible.
Health Desk provides on-demand and on-deadline science information to users seeking to quickly communicate complex topics to audiences.
In-house scientists provide custom explainers for critical science questions from journalists, fact-checkers and others in need of accessible breakdowns on scientific information. Topics range from reproductive health, infectious disease, climate science, vaccinology or other health areas.
Meedan's Health-Desk.org makes every effort to provide health- and science-related information that is accurate and reflects the best evidence available at the time of publication. To submit an error or correction request, please email our editorial team at health@meedan.com. All error or correction requests will be reviewed by the Health Desk Editorial and Science Teams. Where there is evidence of a factual error or typo, we will update the explainer with a correction or clarification and follow up with the reader on the status of the request.
Our scientists, writers, journalists, and experts do not engage in, advocate for, or publicize their personal views on policy issues that might lead a reasonable member of the public to see our team’s work as biased. If you have concerns or comments about potential bias in our work, please contact our editorial team at health@meedan.com.
Health Desk provides on-demand and on-deadline science information to users seeking to quickly communicate complex topics to audiences.
In-house scientists provide custom explainers for critical science questions from journalists, fact-checkers and others in need of accessible breakdowns on scientific information. Topics range from reproductive health, infectious disease, climate science, vaccinology or other health areas.
Meedan's Health-Desk.org makes every effort to provide health- and science-related information that is accurate and reflects the best evidence available at the time of publication. To submit an error or correction request, please email our editorial team at health@meedan.com. All error or correction requests will be reviewed by the Health Desk Editorial and Science Teams. Where there is evidence of a factual error or typo, we will update the explainer with a correction or clarification and follow up with the reader on the status of the request.
Our scientists, writers, journalists, and experts do not engage in, advocate for, or publicize their personal views on policy issues that might lead a reasonable member of the public to see our team’s work as biased. If you have concerns or comments about potential bias in our work, please contact our editorial team at health@meedan.com.
Nat Gyenes, MPH, leads Meedan’s Digital Health Lab, an initiative dedicated to addressing health information equity challenges, with a focus on the role that technology plays in mediating access to health through access to information. She received her masters in public health from the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, with a focus on equitable access to health information and human rights. As a research affiliate at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, she studies the ways in which health information sources and outputs can impact health outcomes. She lectures at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health on Health, Media and Human Rights. Before joining Meedan, Nat worked at the MIT Media Lab as a health misinformation researcher.
Megan Marrelli is a Peabody award-winning journalist and the News Lead of Health Desk. She focuses on news innovation in today’s complex information environment. Megan has worked on the digital breaking news desk of the Globe and Mail, Canada’s national newspaper, and on the news production team of the Netflix series Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj. She was a Canadian Association of Journalists finalist for a team Chronicle Herald investigation into house fires in Halifax, Nova Scotia. On top of her role at Meedan Megan works with the investigative journalism incubator Type Investigations, where she is reporting a data-driven story on fatal patient safety failures in U.S. hospitals. She holds a Master of Science from the Columbia Journalism School and lives in New York.
Anshu holds a Doctor of Public Health (DrPH) from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and a Humanitarian Studies, Ethics, and Human Rights concentrator at the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative. She is a Harvard Voices in Leadership writing fellow and student moderator, Prajna Fellow, and the John C. and Katherine Vogelheim Hansen Fund for Africa Awardee. Anshu’s interests include: systemic issues of emergency management, crisis leadership, intersectoral approaches to climate risk resilience, inclusion and human rights, international development, access and sustainability of global health systems, and socio-economic equity. Anshu has worked at the United Nations, UNDP, UNICEF, Gates Foundation, and the Institute of Healthcare Improvement.
Dr. Christin Gilmer is a Global Health Scientist with a background in infectious diseases, international health systems, and population health and technology. In the last 15 years, Christin has worked for the WHO, University of Oxford, World Health Partners, USAID, UNFPA, the FXB Center for Health & Human Rights and more, including volunteering for Special Olympics International’s health programs and running health- and technology-based nonprofits across the country. She obtained her Doctor of Public Health Degree at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, her MPH at Columbia, and spent time studying at M.I.T., Harvard Kennedy School, and Harvard Business School. Christin has worked in dozens of countries across five continents and loves running programs and research internationally, but she is currently based in Seattle.
Dr. Jessica Huang is currently a COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fellow with the Harvard Kennedy School’s Bloomberg City Leadership Initiative. Previously, she worked and taught with D-Lab at MIT, leading poverty reduction and humanitarian innovation projects with UNICEF, UNHCR, Oxfam, USAID, foreign government ministries and community-based organizations across dozens of countries. She also co-founded a social enterprise that has provided access to safe drinking water to thousands in India, Nepal and Bangladesh. Formerly trained as an environmental engineer, she earned a Doctorate of Public Health from Harvard and a Master’s in Learning, Design and Technology (LDT) from Stanford. Her projects have won multiple awards, including the top prize in A Grand Challenge for Development: Technology to Support Education in Crisis & Conflict Settings, and led to her being recognized for Learning 30 Under 30. She enjoys being an active volunteer, supporting several non-profits in health, education, environmental sustainability and social justice.
Jenna Sherman, MPH, is a Program Manager for Meedan’s Digital Health Lab, an initiative focused on addressing the urgent challenges around health information equity. She has her MPH from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Social and Behavioral Sciences, with a concentration in Maternal and Child Health. Prior to her graduate studies, Jenna served as a Senior Project Coordinator at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, where she worked on tech ethics with an emphasis on mitigating bias and discrimination in AI and health misinformation online. Previous experiences include helping to develop accessible drug pricing policies, researching access to quality information during epidemics, and studying the impact of maternal incarceration on infant health.
Nour is a Global Health Strategy consultant based in Dakar (Senegal) and specialized in health system strengthening. Most recently, she worked with Dalberg Advisors focusing on Epidemic Preparedness & Response and Vaccination Coverage and Equity across 15 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. Her previous work experiences include researching the clinical needs in point-of-care technology in cancer care at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston; and coordinating the implementation of a colonoscopy quality assurance initiative for a colorectal cancer screening program at McGill University in Montreal. Nour has a Master of Public Health from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, a Master of Arts in Medical Ethics and Law from King’s College London, and a Bachelor of Science from McGill University. She is fluent in French and English.
Shalini Joshi is a Program Lead at Meedan and formerly the Executive Editor and co-founder of Khabar Lahariya - India’s only independent, digital news network available to viewers in remote rural areas and small towns. Shalini transformed Khabar Lahariya from one edition of a printed newspaper to an award-winning digital news agency available to over ten million viewers. She has a sophisticated understanding of local media and gender, and the ways in which they can inhibit women from participating in the public sphere in South Asia. Shalini was a TruthBuzz Partner & Fellow with the International Center for Journalists (ICFJ). She is a trainer in journalism, verification and fact-checking. She has designed, implemented and strengthened news reporting & editorial policies and practices in newsrooms and fact-checking organisations. Shalini set up and managed the tipline used to collect WhatsApp-based rumors for Checkpoint, a research project to study misinformation at scale during the 2019 Indian general elections.
Mohit Nair currently serves as Partnerships Director at FairVote Washington, a non-profit organisation based in Seattle, WA. Previously, he worked with the Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) Vienna Evaluation Unit and with MSF Operational Centre Barcelona in India. He has conducted research studies on diverse topics, including the drivers of antibiotic resistance in West Bengal and perceptions of palliative care in Bihar. Mohit has also worked as a research consultant with Save the Children in Laos to identify gaps in the primary health system and develop a district-wide action plan for children with disabilities. He holds a Master of Public Health from the Harvard University T.H. Chan School of Public Health and a Bachelor of Science from Cornell University.
Seema Yasmin is an Emmy Award-winning medical journalist, poet, physican and author. Yasmin served as an officer in the Epidemic Intelligence Service at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention where she investigated disease outbreaks. She trained in journalism at the University of Toronto and in medicine at the University of Cambridge. Yasmin was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in breaking news in 2017 with a team from The Dallas Morning News and received an Emmy Award for her reporting on neglected diseases. She received two grants from the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting and was selected as a John S. Knight Fellow in Journalism at Stanford University iin 2017 where she investigated the spread of health misinformation and disinformation during epidemics.
Dr. Saskia Popescu is an infectious disease epidemiologist and infection preventionist with a focus on hospital biopreparedness and the role of infection prevention in health security efforts. She is an expert in healthcare biopreparedness and is nationally recognized for her work in infection prevention and enhancing hospital response to infectious diseases events. Currently, Dr. Popescu is an Adjunct Professor with the University of Arizona, and an Affiliate Faculty with George Mason University, while serving on the Coronavirus Task Force within the Federation of American Scientists, and on a data collection subcommittee for SARS-CoV-2 response with the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. She holds a PhD in Biodefense from George Mason University, a Masters in Public Health with a focus on infectious diseases, and a Masters of Arts in International Security Studies, from the University of Arizona. Dr. Popescu is an Alumni Fellow of the Emerging Leaders in Biosecurity Initiative (ELBI) at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Health Security. She is also an external expert for the European Centre for Disease Control (ECDC), and a recipient of the Presidential Scholarship at George Mason University. In 2010, she was a recipient of the Frontier Interdisciplinary eXperience (FIX) HS-STEM Career Development Grant in Food Defense through the National Center for Food Protection and Defense. During her work as an infection preventionist, she managed Ebola response, a 300+ measles exposure resulting in an MMWR article, and bioterrorism preparedness in the hospital system. More recently, she created and disseminated a gap analysis for a 6-hospital system to establish vulnerabilities for high-consequence diseases, helping to guide the creation of a high-consequence disease initiative to enhance readiness at the healthcare level.
Ben Kertman is a behavior change scientist and public health specialist who became a user research consultant to help organizations design experiences that change behaviors and improve human well-being. Impatient with the tendency of behavior change companies to use a single discipline approach (e.g. behavioral economics) and guard their methods behind paywalls, Ben spent the last 7 years developing an open-source, multi-discipline, behavior change framework for researchers and designers to apply to UX. Ben is an in-house SME at Fidelity Investments and consults for non-profits on the side. Ben holds a masters in Social and Behavior Science and Public Health from Harvard.
Emily LaRose is a Registered Dietitian and Nutrition and Global Health Consultant who, in addition to her work with Meedan, currently works as a Technical Advisor for Nutrition for Operation Smile. She has been a dietitian for more than 18 years and, over the past 10 years, she has worked for the World Bank, Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), PATH, Johnson & Wales University, and Children’s Hospital Los Angeles. In her work, she has conducted analytical research and written specialty reports on infant and young child malnutrition, health misinformation, global human milk banking practices, and innovative food system programs; developed tools and protocols for clinical nutrition care delivery in humanitarian hospitals; taught university-level nutrition courses; and provided nutritional care for critically ill hospitalized patients. Emily earned her Doctor of Public Health (DrPH) degree with a Nutrition and Global Health Concentration at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, her Master of Science in Dietetics at Kansas State University, and her Bachelor of Science in Culinary Arts Nutrition at Johnson & Wales University.
Bhargav Krishna is a Fellow at the Centre for Policy Research in Delhi, and adjunct faculty at the Public Health Foundation of India and Azim Premji University. He previously managed the Centre for Environmental Health at the Public Health Foundation of India, leading research and teaching on environmental health at the Foundation. He has been a member of Government of India expert committees on air pollution and biomedical waste, and has led work with Union and State governments on air pollution, climate change, and health systems. His work has been funded by the World Health Organization, Rockefeller Foundation, Packard Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, and others. He holds bachelors and masters degrees in Biotechnology and Environmental Science respectively, and graduated recently from the Doctor of Public Health program at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health. Bhargav also co-founded Care for Air, a non-profit working on raising awareness related to air pollution with school children in Delhi.
Dr. Christine Mutaganzwa is a medical doctor pursuing a Ph.D. program at the Université de Montréal in Biomedical Sciences. She holds a Master of Medical Sciences in Global Health Delivery (MMSc-GHD) from Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, and a Master of Sciences (MSc) in Epidemiology and Biostatistics from the University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. She graduated from the University of Rwanda with a degree in General Medicine and Surgery. Christine has worked with referral hospitals in Kigali, the capital city of Rwanda, during her medical training and after graduation. In addition, she has extensive experience working with rural communities in the Eastern province of Rwanda, where she organized clinical and research activities in active collaboration with colleagues within and outside Rwanda. Her research portfolio cuts across maternal and child health to infectious and chronic diseases. Christine is an advocate for children's healthcare services, especially for underserved populations. She is part of a community of scientists translating scientific findings into understandable and accessible information for the general population. Christine is an avid reader and a lover of classical/contemporary music.
Ahmad is an experienced physician, who earned his medical degree from Cairo University, Faculty of Medicine, in Egypt. He practiced medicine between 2012 and 2017 as a general practitioner where he was involved in primary care, health quarantine services, and radiology. He then taught medicine in Cairo for two years prior to starting his MPH program, at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, where he supplemented his experience with knowledge on epidemiology, health systems and global health issues. Additionally, Ahmad has an interest in nutrition, which started as a personal curiosity to how he can improve his own health, then quickly saw the potential for public health nutrition in the prevention and management of multiple, lifelong diseases. His enrollment at Harvard started his transition towards learning about food, and public health nutrition. Ahmad now combines the knowledge and experience of his medical career, with the learnings of his degree to navigate public health topics in his writing and his career. He is a life-long learner and continues to gather knowledge and experience, and works towards maximizing his impact through combatting misinformation through his work with Meedan.
Dr. Uzma Alam is a global health professional working at the intersection of infectious diseases and healthcare delivery in the international development and humanitarian contexts. She focuses on the use of evidence and innovation to inform strategies and policies. Her work has appeared globally across print and media outlets.She has international experience with roles of increasing responsibility across the science value chain having served with academic, non-profit, corporate, and governmental agencies, including advisory commissions and corporate counsel. Uzma is the former secretary of the Association of Women in Science and editor of the Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics. Currently she serves on the Board of the Geneva Foundation. She also leads the Biomedical and Health Sciences Portfolio of the Developing Excellence, Leadership and Training in Science in Africa program (DELTAS-Africa). A US$100 million programme supporting development of world-class scientific leaders on the continent. Plus heading the African Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI) Priorities Programme. A programme that engages Africa’s science and political leaders to identify the top STI priorities for the continent that if addressed, offer the highest return on investment for Africa’s sustainable development.
