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.
Chlorine dioxide has not been verified by the medical and scientific community as a cure for COVID-19 or other diseases, and its use can be dangerous to human health. The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has warned that risks of ingesting chlorine dioxide include: severe vomiting, severe diarrhea, low blood cell counts and low blood pressure due to dehydration, respiratory failure, changes to electrical activity in the heart that can lead to potentially fatal abnormal heart rhythms, and acute liver failure. The Government of Mexico and the Pan American Health Organization (Organización Panamericana de la Salud in Spanish) have also issued warnings to discourage the use of chlorine dioxide as a treatment for COVID-19. Chlorine dioxide is an oxidizing gas that can dissolve in water to form a solution. It is typically used as a disinfectant to sterilize medical and laboratory equipment and facilities or to treat water, rather than being used directly with humans, because it can pose significant health risks and has not been proven to treat diseases. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says that while using chlorine dioxide as intended (not as a treatment for disease) is generally safe, direct exposure in larger quantities can cause “damage to the substances in blood that carry oxygen throughout the body.” If experiencing serious poisoning from consumption of a toxic substance like chlorine dioxide, people can seek assistance from a poison control center or seek medical care. Adverse reactions to COVID-19 products can also be reported by consumers and medical professionals to the U.S. FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting Program.
SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, emerged in late 2019 and caused a global pandemic starting in early 2020. Following the current scientific naming convention, there has been no virus identified as SARS-CoV-3 as of early 2021. In 2008, a study was published by Chinese scientists funded by the European Commission as part of the Sino-European Project on SARS Diagnostics and Antivirals (SEPSDA). The study used the terms SARS-CoV1, SARS-CoV2, and SARS-CoV3. These numbered SARS-CoV terms refer to gene fragments of SARS-CoV-1, the virus that causes severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). The 2008 study focuses on a method of packaging an RNA sequence that could reduce labor costs. It is unrelated to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. SARS-CoV-1, originally referred to as simply SARS-CoV, was first identified during the SARS outbreaks of 2002-2004. SARS-CoV-2, originally referred to as 2019-nCoV, because it was a novel coronavirus that emerged in 2019, is a different virus from SARS-CoV-1. In a scientific consensus statement published by Nature in 2020, SARS-CoV-2 was renamed after being recognized as a sister to other respiratory syndrome-related coronaviruses, including SARS. The recognition took place based on phylogeny (the study of evolutionary relationships between biological entities), taxonomy and established practice. SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2, while related, are different viruses and just two of many coronaviruses (named for crown-like spikes on the surfaces) in the RNA virus family of Coronaviridae.
None of the three leading vaccine manufacturers (Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca) have reported data about the COVID-19 vaccine on knowingly pregnant or breastfeeding individuals. As a result, we have a limited understanding of how effective the three leading vaccines are for pregnant and breastfeeding people, and if there are specific risks. Given this lack of data, some regulators and public health entities have not included pregnant people in their vaccine recommendations to the public with some specifically warning pregnant individuals against taking the vaccine. The WHO was one of these entities until Friday, January 29. Previously their guidance said that the vaccine was "currently not recommended" for pregnant women unless they are at high risk of exposure. While their guidance, in practice, is still similar, recommending pregnant people with comorbidities or at high risk of exposure may be vaccinated in consult with doctors, they’ve directly noted that we “don’t have any specific reason to believe there will be specific risks that would outweigh the benefits of vaccination for pregnant women.” Until there is more data on COVID-19 vaccines and pregnancy, this trend of mixed guidance across different regulatory bodies and countries is likely to if and as vaccines continue to get approved. Pregnant people who do receive a vaccine may be able to produce an immunity to the virus from the vaccine that can cross the placenta which would help keep the baby protected after birth. Regarding safety, however, when you receive an mRNA vaccine for COVID-19 you expel the mRNA particles from your body within days, so if pregnant it’s unlikely to cross the placenta and impact the baby. The process for collecting this data will involve analyzing the impacts of the vaccines on individuals who receive a vaccination and later discover that they’re pregnant. Countries are coordinating internal reporting and monitoring systems to record and track this information. The clinical trials had some participants enrolled who didn’t know they were pregnant at the time of vaccination, but there were not enough of those cases to have enough data for definitive conclusions. For example, in Phase 2/3 of the Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine study, 23 pregnancies were reported through November 14, 2020. Twelve were in the vaccine group and 11 in the placebo group. Two adverse events occurred in pregnancies in the placebo group, including miscarriage. These initial data do not raise concern for lack of vaccine safety in pregnancy and breastfeeding, but more data is needed to safely recommend the use of this vaccine by pregnant and breastfeeding individuals. The U.S. FDA also recommended in June 2020 that the pharmaceutical companies developing COVID-19 vaccines first conduct developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) studies of their vaccine before enrolling pregnant or breastfeeding people, or women not actively avoiding pregnancy, in their trials. Pfizer and BioNTech have directly stated that they are conducting DART studies, which will provide us with more information on the safety and efficacy of their vaccine for pregnant and breastfeeding individuals. On December 13, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released a position paper advocating for the inclusion of pregnant women in vaccine rollouts and not waiting for further data collection. While the group advocates for obtaining informed consent from pregnant and lactating women receiving the vaccine, they feel the benefits of protection outweigh the risks. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine support the use of new mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant and breastfeeding individuals when they become eligible for receiving the vaccine. As of January 26, 2021, the World Health Organization also supports pregnant and breastfeeding women receiving the Moderna mRNA vaccine if they choose. Before more data is available, it is best for pregnant and breastfeeding individuals to speak with their doctors about the best way to proceed. While it is unlikely that a doctor would recommend a pregnant or breastfeeding person get vaccinated before more data is available unless they were high risk, every risk profile is different and is worth discussing with a care provider.
Globally, the COVID-19 vaccine rollout has been wrought with challenges and unforeseen delays. In spite of the European Union having contracts in place for 2.3 billion doses of COVID-19 vaccines, availability is still limited and rollout has been slow. This is because of a lengthy and complex vaccine approval process, delays in production and delivery, and gaps in planning. Nonetheless, according to the EU vaccine strategy, all adults should be able to be vaccinated during 2021 and the European Commission has promised that “all Member States will have access to COVID-19 vaccines at the same time and the distribution will be done on a per capita basis to ensure fair access.” To be sure, it is difficult to compare the EU to single-country jurisdictions. There are likely to be logistical rollout challenges that are specific to the EU, because one country’s hurdles can directly impact other countries in the Union. While the European Commission has encouraged Member States to follow a common vaccine deployment strategy, there is some tension between supporting a coordinated EU approach while also considering the needs of country-level governments that seek to maintain some autonomy. **Approval process delays:** Both the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine and the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine have been approved by the European Medicines Agency, but EU approvals for the vaccines have trailed approvals in other countries like the U.S. and Canada. The EU approved the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines weeks after the US and Canada did so. The Astra Zeneca vaccine, which is approved for use in the UK and Canada but not yet in the United States, is also waiting on approval from the EU. **Delays in production and delivery: **On top of its lengthy approval process, vaccine deliveries to the EU have also contributed to a slower rollout than expected. The AstraZeneca vaccine is nearing the end of the EU regulatory approval process, but the company stated recently that it plans to deliver far fewer doses than it had promised. The change has increased tensions between the vaccine maker and the EU, which pre-financed AstraZeneca’s vaccine development. Though there have not been reports of widespread delays on the Moderna vaccine, Poland reported a delayed Moderna vaccine on January 25, 2021. The new target date for the delayed delivery is during the weekend of January 30-31, 2021, though it is unclear if this will occur as planned. Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, speaking at the World Economic Forum on January 26, 2021, highlighted European investments in COVID-19 vaccine development and stated that “the companies must deliver. They must honor their obligations.” She went on to mention plans for a vaccine export transparency mechanism to ensure that vaccine allocations are being delivered as promised. A reorganization at Pfizer led to Pfizer-BioNTech reducing vaccine deliveries to all European countries starting the week of January 18. Pfizer stated in a press release on January 15 that the goal of the reorganization is to “scale-up manufacturing capacities in Europe and deliver significantly more doses in the second quarter.” As a result, a Pfizer vaccine manufacturing facility in Puurs, Belgium experienced a temporary reduction in the number of doses delivered beginning the week of January 18, set to end the start of the following week, (January 25) with the original schedule of deliveries resumed. The reorganization’s impacts were not exclusive to the EU, however, given that Pfizer’s Belgian plant supplies all vaccines delivered outside of the U.S.. Canadian officials claimed that the reduction would halve the number of vaccines they received over late January and February, and Norwegian officials also released a statement about the reduction. Italy threatened legal action. Though the reduction was set to last just one week, Pfizer noted that the reorganization would “temporarily impact shipments in late January to early February.” The company stated that to help compensate, it will significantly increase doses available for EU patients in late February and March. Given that rollouts have been slow in a number of individual EU countries, such as Germany, the Netherlands, and France, this announcement placed more pressure and concern on the in-country programs and EU vaccine rollout overall, which has been criticized for not purchasing more vaccines. It also complicates the timing of second dose vaccinations for healthcare workers and elderly individuals, and, as a result, the overall vaccine distribution timeline. **Gaps in planning: **A December 2020 report published by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, which looked at the EU, the European Economic Area, and the United Kingdom, stated that only Bulgaria, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, and Sweden were found to have existing infrastructures sufficient enough for deployment of the COVID-19 vaccines. (All 31 surveyed countries had begun deployment and vaccination plans for COVID-19 vaccines in anticipation of approvals and deliveries beginning in late 2020.) Many countries planned to employ existing vaccine infrastructure during the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, and several countries were aware of gaps in equipment to accommodate the ultra-low temperature requirements of some COVID-19 vaccines. Delivery systems, priority populations, human resource requirements, monitoring systems, and levels of preparedness for the vaccine rollout varied widely among surveyed countries. Unsurprisingly, these differences have the potential to influence how vaccines are provided to residents and can explain some of the variation observed across the EU. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control continues to support COVID-19 vaccination across the EU and has provided support to Member Countries through research and planning activities as well as collaboration with the World Health Organization Regional office for Europe, the European Medicines Agency, and the EU/EEA National Immunisation Technical Advisory Groups. The report also found that as of November 30, 2020, only 9 EU countries had published interim recommendations for priority groups to be considered for vaccination. The other countries were in the process of developing such plans. Pfizer and BioNTech reached an agreement with the European Commission to supply 200 million doses of a vaccine in November 2020, and the first COVID-19 vaccine to be approved in the EU (the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine) was approved on December 21, 2020.
Avifavir is an antiviral medication primarily used to treat severe cases of influenza. This medication is currently being studied in several countries as a potential experimental treatment for COVID-19, but we do not yet have enough evidence to determine whether or not Avifavir is an effective treatment for the virus. Recently in Russia, the health ministry approved the medication's use as a COVID-19 treatment by using an accelerated, short-term form of a clinical trial with fewer people involved than traditional studies would normally require. However, this study has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal so the data, methods, and other study characteristics have yet to be critiqued or evaluated by other scientists. Though this research is still occurring in the country, Russia's preliminary results suggested Avifavir might help reduce the number of days people are infected with the virus and shorten the duration of time people experience high-grade fevers while sick. In September 2020, a publication from India reviewed clinical trials in China and Japan, along with the on-going trials in Russia and other on-going studies in Saudi Arabia, the United States, and India. The researchers acknowledged that Avifavir does not have as much supportive data to back its use compared to other drugs, but that it may be emerging as a medication that is worth considering in mild to moderate cases. The preliminary results from a study in India suggest that Avifavir may help reduce the time it takes for COVID-19 patients to recover, and lead to a two-day shorter viral shedding period when patients are infectious. Until more studies are completed and a greater amount of data can demonstrate Avifavir's efficacy and safety, we do not have enough information to determine whether or not this medication can help treat COVID-19.
Pausing or suspending clinical trials occurs frequently in the development of new medications and vaccines. This is because every clinical trial is overseen by a data and safety monitoring board that routinely looks at data from the different trial phases to see if there are any harmful or adverse issues happening in trial participants. The board also monitors to see if there is any evidence of the vaccine being effective. If the board has any concerns at any point during a clinical trial, they will suggest stopping a trial until they can determine a) what caused the patient(s) to develop a harmful medical issue, b) if people receiving the vaccine in the clinical trials are doing much better than those who didn't, or c) if people who received the vaccine are doing much worse than the people who didn't. These prescheduled checks by the boards may sound alarming, but they occur frequently in all phases of clinical trials. As vaccines move into the third phases of clinical trials, in which they are given to tens of thousands of people, it is not surprising that one or more people develop a medical issue which may or may not be related to the vaccine itself. Lists of side effects that you see on medications stem from these clinical trial phases. Studies also have pre-set protocols and criteria that determine what events will cause them to pause or stop their research phases. They cannot ethically continue with the trial if they have reasons for concern about the health of clinical trial participants who have received their vaccines.
The World Health Organization (WHO) and other international health agencies do not recommend using disinfection tunnels to prevent transmission of COVID-19. This is due to concerns about their safety and effectiveness. Disinfection tunnels are spaces (such as a tunnel, room, cubicle, or cabinet) in which people are sprayed with chemical disinfectants or exposed to other disinfection methods, such as ultraviolet (UV) light. These disinfection methods are often applied to the surfaces of objects. Their use directly on people can be dangerous to human health and may not stop the transmission of COVID-19. If a person is infected with COVID-19 and passes through a disinfection tunnel, any disinfection would only be external and the infected person could still exhale droplets (by breathing, speaking, coughing, sneezing, etc.) that could transmit COVID-19 to others. People passing through disinfection tunnels can experience physical as well as psychological harm. Chemical disinfectants sometimes used in these tunnels can be toxic to the human body, leading to irritation or damage of the eyes, skin, lungs, and gastrointestinal system (for example nausea or vomiting). Some chemical disinfectants are flammable and explosive, generate toxic gases, and are harmful to the environment. UV light exposure, which is also sometimes used in disinfection tunnels, can lead to skin burns, skin cancer, and eye damage. The International Ultraviolet Association (IUVA) states: "there are no protocols to advise or to permit the safe use of UV light directly on the human body at the wavelengths and exposures proven to efficiently kill viruses such as SARS-CoV-2." Psychologically, the pain and stress of passing through a disinfection tunnel can be traumatic. Preventative measures (such as physical distancing, hand washing, wearing masks, and ensuring good ventilation) are recommended to help reduce the transmission of COVID-19, but disinfection tunnels are not recommended as a COVID-19 preventative measure.
Because the COVID-19 virus is new, we still don't know why some people might become sick longer than others—but we do know that people infected with COVID-19 who have severe symptoms tend to have symptoms for longer than those with mild cases. Differences in immune responses, including lower levels of antibody production, can impact how long patients remain sick with COVID-19. COVID-19 can impact many organs, which might help explain why the virus can cause symptoms that continue over a longer period of time in some patients. Akiko Iwasaki, a Yale immunology doctor, believes some potential reasons the virus lasts longer in some patients is because the virus might remain in one of the organs that is not tested by nasal swabs; that non-living parts of the virus can still cause your immune system to overreact like the virus is still alive and reproducing in your body when it isn't really doing that; and the virus might not be present in your body any longer, but your immune system is stuck in the state of fighting it off. Additionally, after becoming infected with different viruses, your body can take a while to heal. So even if you don't have the virus anymore, you may continue coughing and not be able to breathe as well as you normally do, since your throat and lungs have yet to fully heal and recover. Currently, the majority of patients infected with COVID-19 have symptoms for several days - 6 weeks.
COVID-19 and malaria are two different diseases with different ways of being spread and caught. Malaria is spread by mosquitoes, and humans become infected by mosquito bites. COVID-19 is spread by respiratory droplets that we inhale through our nose or our mouth. COVID-19 and malaria have been incorrectly linked for several reasons. Firstly, around the world, hydroxychloroquine, a drug used to treat malaria, received extensive news coverage because there were claims that the drug was effective against COVID-19. A few clinical trials and studies investigated hydroxychloroquine and found no evidence that the drug was effective against COVID-19. In some unfortunate cases, adverse events occurred in people taking this medication. Secondly, malaria and COVID-19 share some symptoms, although the list of COVID-19 symptoms currently grows and changes every day. Malaria symptoms usually appear 10-15 days after the infective mosquito bite and the first symptoms a patient feels are fever, headache, and chills. On the other hand, people infected with COVID-19 usually develop symptoms within 5 days and, in some cases, infected people never develop symptoms at all. Finally, there is a difference between fevers caused by malaria and those caused by COVID-19. Often malarial fevers are cyclical, reoccurring at predictable times based on which strain of malaria was contracted. In comparison, fevers caused by COVID-19 do not appear to occur in cycles. The most common COVID-19 symptoms are: fever, dry cough and tiredness. Less common symptoms include: aches and pains, sore throat, diarrhea, conjunctivitis, headache, loss of taste or smell, a rash on skin, or discoloration of fingers or toes.
Public health agencies have been updating their recommendations for isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic, as the scientific understanding of how long someone can be sick and infectious to others evolves. For example, the U.K. Chief Medical Officers extended their isolation period for people who test positive from 7 days to 10 days in July 2020, the Indian Ministry of Health and Family Welfare reduced their isolation period for international travelers from 14 days to 7 days in August 2020, and the French Prime Minister reduced their self-isolation period for people who test positive from 14 days to 7 days in September 2020. The World Health Organization (WHO) criteria for releasing COVID-19 patients from isolation was updated in late May 2020 to recommend that people who are asymptomatic remain in isolation for 10 days, and that people with symptoms remain in isolation for at least 10 days after symptom onset and at least another 3 days without symptoms (or a minimum of 2 weeks). One large contact tracing study found that people were less likely to become infected with COVID-19 when exposed to a positive case after 6 days or more of the infected person's symptom onset, which is in alignment with how certain countries are now using 7 days as their recommended isolation period. Other studies suggest people with mild to moderate cases of COVID-19 may be infectious up to 10 days after the symptom onset, with a documented case report of a person with mild COVID-19 who was shedding "replication-competent" virus specimens (an indicator for being able to infect others) for up to 18 days after symptom onset. Furthermore, some research suggests that people with more severe cases of COVID-19 or who are severely immunocompromised may remain infectious for up to 20 days after symptom onset. In terms of COVID-19 patients having evidence of the virus in their bodies for long periods of time, there have been studies suggesting that people with COVID-19 can continue to shed detectable virus specimens from their upper respiratory system for up to 3 months (or about 90 days) after symptom onset, but it is important to recognize that this may not be at a concentration that's high enough for the virus to replicate and infect others. People who continue to shed virus specimens for many weeks or even months after symptom onset are sometimes called "persistently positive," but according to a review of studies by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there is currently little evidence of transmission by "persistently positive" people who have clinically recovered from COVID-19. Most of the data on how long people with COVID-19 remain infectious comes from adults, so more research is needed to understand how long children and infants may remain infectious. Additionally, research is ongoing on how the virus is shed in certain situations, such as in people who are immunocompromised. As more research findings emerge, public health guidelines will likely be updated around the recommended isolation periods for people with COVID-19 or who have been in contact with someone confirmed to have COVID-19.
Zoonotic diseases are infectious diseases that can spread from animals to humans. "Spillover events" (when a disease jumps from an animal to a human) have been known to cause outbreaks, like ebola virus disease. Since some infectious diseases can live within an animal without causing any illness to it, certain interactions with an infected animal can result in transmission to humans. Roughly 6 out of 10 known infectious diseases in people are zoonotic. Of all the emerging infectious diseases (a disease that has newly appeared in a population or has increased incidence in recent years), 3 out of 4 come from animals. Scientists are increasingly worried about zoonotic diseases as they are growing in frequency. In some cases which animal transferred infection to humans is unknown, like SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. As humans expand in the environment through globalization and infringement on undeveloped natural environments, like forests or jungles, the risk for exposure to zoonotic disease increases. Similarly, factors such as the exotic animal trade, the impacts of climate change, and the expansion of animal markets can cause zoonotic diseases to spread more rapidly and widely.
The evidence around COVID-19 and immunity is rapidly evolving. Based on what we know so far, people infected with COVID-19 become immune (protected from reinfection) for somewhere between 2 - 8 months depending on a range of factors including vaccination status, vaccine received, the variant the person was infected with, viral load, etc. – with immunity likely waning after the second or third month.
EIDD-2801, also called Molnupiravir, is an oral antiviral drug that was developed by the Emory Institute for Drug Development (EIDD). It was originally developed to treat influenza. It is in Phase II/III of its clinical trials as a treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Similar in function to Remdesivir, EIDD-2801 targets the enzymes in the COVID-19 virus and replaces them with another compound. This switching creates mutations in the virus that make it incapable of functioning. The nonprofit biotechnology company owned by Emory University, Drug Innovation Ventures at Emory (DRIVE) partnered with a biotechnology company in Miami, Ridgeback Biotherapeutics to start the clinical trials for this treatment. Ridgeback has partnered with Merck & Co. to develop and distribute EIDD-2801.
When our bodies are exposed to pathogens - tiny, foreign organisms such as viruses, bacteria, fungi, worms and other invaders - our natural defense called the 'immune system' tries to protect us and keep us healthy. When the body senses that the pathogen, in this case, COVID-19, is trying to get into the body through the nose, mouth, or eyes, it launches into the first part of this defense called the 'innate immune system.' A. Innate Immune System This part of the immune system tries to prevent the virus from spreading and reproducing in our bodies, and from moving around in our bodies. The innate immune system is made up of several types of defenses, including the skin and body openings (like the mouth and nose); different white blood cells to defend our bodies from pathogens; and different substances in bodily fluids and the blood to try and stop the virus from reproducing. This system tries to prevent the virus from entering the body through the mouth, nose, and eyes, but if the virus does get inside a person, then white blood cells will move toward the virus' location and cause an increase in blood circulation there so it becomes hot and swollen while the body might also produce a fever (as high temperatures can sometimes kill pathogens). At this point, other cells in the blood and tissue try to enclose the virus and eat the viral particles. But if after four to seven days, the innate immune system is not able to kill all of the virus and the virus causes an infection, the adaptive immune system will begin to defend the body. B. Adaptive Immune System The adaptive immune response, also called the acquired immune system, is a much more focused effort to target and destroy the foreign threat: the virus. Two important parts of the adaptive immune system are white blood cells called B cells and T cells. B cells create antibodies - small proteins that attach** **to unique parts of each pathogen called 'antigens'. When your body senses a particular antigen attached to the virus in the body, B cells then creates antibodies that can connect to those antigens using a specific shape that was created to match it. Meanwhile, T cells try to kill the antigen like an army fighting off an invader. Some T cells also help B cells make antibodies while others are busy working to stop the virus from reproducing in your body and spreading to different parts of your body. This part of the adaptive immune response also creates longer term memory of the virus that will help it fight off the virus if it is exposed to it again in the future, and to launch its defenses more quickly. Researchers are now studying how long-term this memory-based immunity lasts and how strong it is in defending against COVID-19 infection in the future. C. Conclusion Hopefully at this point, the innate and adaptive immune systems are able to kill the virus and create some immunity to it. If not, the immune system continues working to fight off the virus, but symptoms might worsen as the body weakens after spending so much energy to fight off the virus. In some cases, COVID-19 might impact organs so severely that it can result in death.
COVID-19 can impact people in different ways, but most people who are infected with the virus will only have mild to moderate symptoms and won't need to be hospitalized. Most cases of the virus are not dangerous, but should be taken seriously. The World Health Organization says the most common symptoms are: - fever - dry cough - tiredness Symptoms fewer people have include: - aches and pains - sore throat - diarrhea - conjunctivitis - headache - loss of taste or smell - a rash on skin, or discoloration of fingers or toes Symptoms that are serious and which mean people should contact a medical professional as soon as possible include: - difficulty breathing or shortness of breath - chest pain or pressure - loss of speech or movement A person may have mild symptoms for a week or so, and then their condition might worsen rapidly. There maybe others who show no symptom at all. Children, generally speaking, have similar symptoms to adults but with milder illness. People who are older have been shown to have more severe forms of illness. Some people with COVID-19 have also been experiencing neurological symptoms, gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms (relating to the stomach and intestines), or both. Because we are learning more about this virus every day, including new symptoms, it is important to pay attention to what your body is feeling and contact a medical professional if you begin to experience any of the above symptoms or notice any other changes in how you normally feel. Additionally, the United States Centers for Disease Control People with COVID-19 have had a wide range of symptoms reported – ranging from mild symptoms to severe illness. This list does not include all possible symptoms, but these may appear **2-14 days after exposure** **to the virus**: - Fever or chills - Cough - Shortness of breath or difficulty breathing - Fatigue - Muscle or body aches - Headache - New loss of taste or smell - Sore throat - Congestion or runny nose - Nausea or vomiting - Diarrhea Additionally, the United States Centers for Disease Control urges people to seek emergency medical care if they are experiencing any of these symptoms: - Trouble breathing - Persistent pain or pressure in the chest - New confusion - Inability to wake or stay awake - Bluish lips or face
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.
