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.
There are 3 main types of COVID-19 tests. Two are diagnostic (molecular and antigen tests), which means they show active infections. One test type looks for antibodies that occur in the body following a previous infection (also known as antibody tests). 1) Molecular tests (polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests, viral RNA tests, and nucleic acid tests) are completed using nasal swabs, throat swabs, and through testing bodily fluids like saliva. These tests look for evidence of genetic material from the virus. They have a low rate of false-positive results (when a test says you have the virus, but you do not). Using a deep nasal swab PCR test that collects viral material at the back of nose, near your throat, is the most trusted option of the molecular tests. That's because it is the most accurate, and there is a higher amount of virus in that area of the body than anywhere else. These tests are highly sensitive, which means they are able to accurately determine when a person actually has an infection. However, the method is uncomfortable, the results can take hours to days, they are the most expensive to do, and can be overly sensitive and pick up inactive virus fragments when a person no longer has an active infection. 2) Antigen tests are completed using nasal or throat swabs and they look for proteins (antigens) from the virus. Most people are familiar with this technology because it is commonly seen in pregnancy tests. These results are available in as little as 10 minutes, the test is less expensive than other forms, and uses simpler technology than PCR tests. These tests are usually mostly accurate for positive results, but might require a molecular test to confirm if a person really is negative because they can often have a high rate of false-negative results. 3) Antibody tests are different than diagnostic tests because they are blood tests that look for a former COVID-19 infection through the presence of antibodies, a protein that latches on to foreign invaders in the body - in this case, COVID-19 - neutralizes them, and then remains in a person's system after infection. A person produces COVID-19 antibodies when they are exposed to the virus, so an antibody test can show whether or not someone has been infected in the past. Antibody test results are usually available within a few days. However, these tests produce some false-negatives and we don't know enough about how long antibodies last after exposure or infections, how long any immunity might last, and how many antibodies are needed in a person who has recovered from the virus to show a positive test result. There are many different elements involved in how accurate or reliable tests may be at the time they are taken and at the stage of exposure and infection each person is presently in, and every testing type has different strengths or weaknesses. It is important to remember that the best test for each person should be chosen with their doctor on an individual basis.
Standard vaccine development is a long process. Multiple studies on safety often take place over multiple years. Manufacturers use phased testing to determine an effective vaccine dose and to evaluate if the vaccine works, if it’s safe, if it has significant or serious side effects, and if immune systems respond well to the vaccine. To pursue regulatory authorization, a vaccine’s benefits must be shown to be greater than its risks, and vaccine safety and effectiveness are considered to be top priorities by regulatory agencies. Regulators around the world oversee vaccine development and testing at both national and international levels. In the European Union (EU), the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has a COVID-19 Task Force (COVID-ETF) that takes “quick and coordinated regulatory action on the development, authorization, and safety monitoring” for medicines and vaccines to treat and prevent COVID-19. In the US, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) ensures that “rigorous scientific and regulatory processes are followed by those who pursue the development of vaccines.” Similar to the COVID-ETF in Europe, the FDA has also recruited experts from government agencies, academia, nonprofit organizations, pharmaceutical companies, and international partners to “develop a coordinated strategy for prioritizing and speeding development of the most promising treatments and vaccines.” To facilitate timely vaccine development during health crises, the US FDA sets clinical trial standards for scientific data on safety and efficacy, which manufacturers need to achieve in order to bring a vaccine to the US population. Once manufacturers meet those criteria, companies can pursue Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) approval, through which the manufacturer’s EUA submission is reviewed by FDA career scientists and physicians. So far, Moderna and Pfizer have both submitted data on their vaccines for FDA EUA approval. While some COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers have requested emergency authorization with regulatory agencies around the world, it is important to note that if emergency authorization is approved, it is generally considered to be an emergency exception, with temporary permissions designed to accommodate the current COVID-19 public health crisis. Emergency authorization is not the same as formal licensing, which can take months. Unlicensed vaccines may be authorized by regulatory agencies and their lack of licensing does not mean that the vaccine has not been rigorously tested. Because of the nature of pandemic circumstances, for emergency authorizations, governmental agencies rather than manufacturers often assume responsibility for vaccine safety. In the US, for example, the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) provides manufacturers, distributors, and others with liability immunity, as long as they have not participated in “willful misconduct.” Regulatory oversight and monitoring will continue even once vaccines are approved for emergency use. In addition to testing by the vaccine manufacturers, government regulators regularly test vaccines for quality, and tweak manufacturing once they are released onto the market. Post-authorization, US vaccine safety monitoring is performed by the federal government (US FDA and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]) and other agencies and organizations who are involved in healthcare delivery. Vaccine safety and monitoring systems are in place to quickly identify rare side effects that were not identified in clinical trials, and to detect possible vaccine safety problems. Though no major safety concerns have been identified in the current vaccine trials, even when the current clinical trials are completed pharmaceutical companies, regulatory agencies, public health experts, researchers, and others will continue to evaluate safety, efficacy, effectiveness, and side effects in the years to come. The US FDA has stated that “efforts to speed vaccine development to address the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic have not sacrificed scientific standards, integrity of the vaccine review process, or safety.”
Immunological memory is the ability of your body's immune system to recognize a foreign virus or bacteria that the body has encountered before and start an immune response. A pre-print study was released on November 16, 2020 that assesses immunological memory to the virus SARS-CoV-2 for more than six months. This study analyzed 185 COVID-19 cases in the United States, including 41 cases after 6 months post-infection. Study authors found it promising that they could measure at least three components of immune memory in 96% of cases over 5 months after symptom onset. The authors believe this implies that durable immunity to help protect against reinfection of COVID-19 could be possible in most people. No significant difference was detected between males and females, and the authors reiterated that "the magnitude of the antibody response against SARS-CoV-2 is highly heterogenous between individuals." The authors acknowledge several study limitations, such as the relatively low number of severe COVID-19 cases in their study. Additionally, there is limited data on protective immunity against the virus SARS-CoV-2 and the disease COVID-19, so the authors cannot make direct conclusions about protective immunity from their study results at the time of publication because "mechanisms of protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 are not defined in humans." More research is underway to better understand long-term immunity against COVID-19.
Transmission of COVID-19 from surfaces contaminated with the virus has not been documented, but it is possible that the reason for this is due to gaps in research and contact tracing.\_ \_There is limited research about the effectiveness of disinfecting public spaces, but researchers are working to determine whether or not spraying disinfectant will impact the amount of virus transmissions that occurs from people coming into contact with objects like water fountains, playground equipment, and hand rails. The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention still states that thoroughly cleaning and disinfecting indoor surfaces in public places is a best practice for preventing the spread of COVID-19. As it is possible to spread the virus through contaminated surfaces, thoroughly cleaning and disinfecting all surfaces - not just spraying disinfectant - that humans touch in both public and private settings.
Imposing restrictions at a hyper-local level, such as by postal code or zip code, can work to contain COVID-19, but is not without challenges and comes with a set of both pros and cons. The pros come into effect if individuals who are residents of that zip code or neighborhood a) follow the restrictions imposed and do not travel outside their neighborhood, especially at a mass level. The cons come into effect if individuals who are residents of that zip code or neighborhood either do not follow restrictions imposed, or travel outside their neighborhood, especially at a mass level. As a result, it’s crucial to communicate with residents so that they understand the expectations and what is at risk if local measures aren’t followed. To help ensure that they are followed, local public health officials and leaders must share information with residents on how to access the resources that they need hyper-locally, both for healthcare and otherwise, so that individuals are not pushed to seek resources outside of their affected area, and in turn potentially increasing positive rates in other neighborhoods, worsening the problem overall. Of note is that hyperlocal surveillance of COVID-19 is also useful for tracking and ultimately controlling the spread of the virus, as the more local the data is, the more granular it is likely to be and the less gaps it is likely to have.
There are many thousands of COVID-19 virus variants that exist, most of which are not concerning. However, experts are concerned about a variant that is dominant in South Africa, also known as 501.V2 or B.1.351. This variant was first identified in Nelson Mandela Bay, South Africa, in samples that date back to the start of October 2020. It has since become the dominant virus variant in the Eastern and Western Cape provinces of South Africa and spread outside of South Africa to at least 20 countries, including the U.S., Norway, Japan, the U.K., and Austria. Most variants are not significant and in some cases can even weaken the virus. The South African variant is one that appears to be more contagious and more evasive of current vaccines. Its contagiousness is due to a mutation in the virus's spike protein that makes it easier to spread. The UK variant also has this protein, making the variants similar. There is no evidence so far to suggest that the South African variant causes more severe or more deadly cases of COVID-19. In a pre-print study of the Pfizer vaccine using blood samples from vaccinated individuals studying protection against two of the South Africa variant mutations, efficacy was just slightly less than the original 95%. Early results from a Moderna study of the vaccine’s efficacy against the variant suggest around the same efficacy (94.1%), although the immune response may not be as strong or prolonged. Early results for Novavax and Johnson & Johnson suggest some protection but reduced. Testing for the Novavax vaccine suggests a reduction from 89.3% efficacy against the virus to 60.1% efficacy against the variant, and early results from the Johnson & Johnson testing suggest a reduction from 72% efficacy to 52%. And finally, preliminary data on protection from Oxford’s AstraZeneca's vaccine suggests that it offers limited protection against the South Africa variant when mild disease is triggered, but experts state that it should still protect against severe disease.
There are several reasons why scientists might combine clinical trial phases in the process of developing a vaccine. Usually, testing a vaccine occurs in three to four phases after early, preclinical research is done in the lab or on animals, like primates. Phase 1 trials are where researchers try to study very basic elements of vaccines in small groups of people to see how the body absorbs the drug, how long it stays in the body, and to show how toxic the vaccine may be depending on the dosage. Phase 2 trials examine how effective a vaccine is in different doses and looks at short-term side effects, usually with several hundred patients. Finally, phase three trials involve hundreds or thousands of volunteers. They are used to see how well a vaccine may work and what types of side effects are most common over a longer period of time. Phase three trials often determine whether the benefits of a vaccine outweigh the risks. Many vaccines never reach the the third phase as the vaccines might not be shown to be beneficial, may have dangerous side effects, or might not work as well in humans as they do in animal studies. Developing vaccines often takes many years, sometimes decades, and this can cause major challenges when a disease like COVID-19 is spreading quickly around the world. Vaccines do not usually keep up with the speed of a pandemic, so researchers often combine phases 1 and 2 or 2 and 3 to speed up the development and testing processes. This helps scientists learn much more quickly whether a vaccine will continue being studied if it appears safe and effective or if it will be stopped because it has not shown to help prevent severe symptoms of an illness. When study phases are combined, the same safety protocols and standards are used as in traditional trials and all safety requirements must be met even at a more rapid testing speed.
Digital thermometers do not damage your brain in any way. Digital thermometers are universally used with children and adults and can come in a wide variety of forms including oral, rectal, temporal artery (forehead), tympanic (ear), and axillary (armpit) versions. These thermometers require a sensor, which typically produces either a voltage, current, or resistance change when there is a change of temperature. These are all widely used and safe. There is no evidence to suggest that neurons or brain cells can be damaged in the process. Older thermometers were glass tubes with mercury inside them. The mercury expanded and contracted based on the temperature of the subject. Now, digital thermometers are far more common and easier to read than traditional mercury-based thermometers, and digital thermometers are considered safer than mercury-based thermometers because mercury is toxic, and there is a possibility for exposure if the glass tube containing the mercury were to break.
While many businesses and public spaces have begun using temperature checks as a way to try to identify people who might be infected with COVID-19, several studies have proposed that using a smell test in addition to a thermometer check may be a more accurate way of detecting potential cases. The reasons for this are numerous, and are mostly due to concerns about the effectiveness of temperature checks. Some of these issues include: - The fact that many people with COVID-19 never develop any symptoms such as fevers; - People with fevers might not have the virus at all and could have any number of other illnesses; - Infrared/non-contact thermometers are often inaccurate and operating errors may occur; and - People who take over-the-counter medication for fevers might be ill but will not present with a fever. Using a temperature check alone is not an effective strategy to detect COVID-19 infections at public sites. On the other hand, the potential benefits of a smell test are numerous, as the loss of smell— also called 'anosmia'—is relatively unique to COVID-19, whereas fevers are common symptoms in many illnesses. For instance, a recent preprint study (awaiting peer-review) showed that COVID-19 patients were 27 times more likely to have lost their sense of smell than people without the virus, but only 2.6 times more likely to have fever or chills than those without the virus. Another study demonstrated that people with a loss of smell are "more than 10 times more likely to have COVID-19 than other causes of infection," according to Dr. Carol Yan, making it a more accurate marker for COVID-19 than a fever would likely be, as they have many other causes and are associated with many other illnesses. Reasons like this are why many health experts believe that a combination of a smell test in addition to temperature checks could more accurately test and identify people for COVID-19.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) does recommend that people who have had COVID-19 still get vaccinated, because it may be possible to get reinfected and vaccines can sometimes induce better immunity than natural infection. However, this recommendation typically applies to people who have recovered from COVID-19, rather than people who are currently still sick. For people who currently have an active COVID-19 infection, their bodies are already creating antibodies in response, so health experts recommend waiting until after recovery for vaccination. Researchers are still understanding how immunity evolves over time, but it is generally thought that most people have some level of protection against reinfection for the first few months after recovery. The U.S. CDC even suggests that people who have not had COVID-19 in the past 90 days should be a higher priority for vaccination than people who have had COVID-19 recently. Additionally, it takes time for the body to develop immunological protection after vaccination, and vaccines requiring two doses do not have maximum protection until after the second dose. This means that it is still possible for someone to become sick if exposed to COVID-19 before or immediately after vaccination. People who are known to have COVID-19 may not be able to go receive vaccinations until after they recover because they could risk getting others sick. Scientists are continuing to learn about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines with the ongoing studies and data collection. For vaccines that have been approved by regulatory agencies and are already in the market, phase 4 clinical trials (also called “open-label studies” or “post-marketing surveillance”) are a way to continue studying the risks and potential benefits over a longer period of time. More data will become available in the future.
COVID-19 can be spread in all climates and seasons. According to an August publication in the journal Nature, 'No human-settled area in the world is protected from COVID-19 transmission by virtue of weather, at any point in the year.' Studies that have explored the impact of temperature or weather on COVID-19 have shown mixed results. Some have been positive, some negative, and others neutral. Researchers have concluded that there are many factors that likely play a much larger role in the spread of the virus than the weather, including population density, human mobility, social distancing policies and practices, testing, public health facilities, and more. While more studies are needed, warmer weather does not appear reduce the spread of COVID-19, and it does not impact how the virus spreads from person to person. Routine hand-washing, social distancing practices, avoidance of crowds, wearing face masks, and surface cleaning should be used to prevent the spread of COVID-19 between people and via indirect (non-contact) transmission.
People with severe COVID-19 illness often require medical care due to the symptoms they experience, like trouble breathing, chest pressure, fatigue, etc. While there is no specific treatment or cure for COVID-19, as it is a new viral infection, people are receiving supportive treatment to help them recover, though some people eventually die as a result of the virus. Supportive treatment is treatment that helps to alleviate the symptoms caused by an illness but can't actually cure the illness itself. Supportive care gives symptoms relief while the infection naturally subsides over time, at which point the symptoms diminish greatly and patients can go back home. Examples of this include giving oxygen to a patient, injecting steroids to reduce inflammation, giving ventilation to help them breathe, and other necessary medical interventions that do not stop the virus but do treat the more severe symptoms.
Positive COVID-19 antibody tests and a prior COVID-19 infections do not guarantee immunity to the virus, making the COVID-19 vaccine recommended for individuals who have tested positive for the COVID-19 virus and/or for COVID-19 antibodies. With regards to safety and efficacy, so far the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine trials have concentrated on individuals who were not already previously infected with COVID-19, so it's still not clear what the effect of vaccination will be on those who have been previously infected with COVID-19 or have COVID-19 antibodies at the time of vaccination. In those trials, some individuals had prior infections, and evidence suggests that the vaccine was safe and effective for them. Receiving a vaccine even after infection is also common practice with other viruses, such as influenza and the Human papillomavirus (HPV). To help ensure safety, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends waiting until you have recovered from the illness if experiencing symptoms before receiving the vaccine (typically 10 days after the onset of symptoms).
The claim that the prolonged use of face masks can cause oxygen deficiency, carbon dioxide intoxication, dizziness, or other health challenges is not grounded in science. Science shows that the risks associated with wearing masks are generally minimal, and the benefits plenty. Even if a person is wearing an airtight medical grade mask, like an N95 or FFP2 mask, the risks of lethargy, headache, and dizziness are low, even after wearing one for several hours. For an average healthy person wearing a cloth or surgical mask, there is even less risk of these symptoms occurring, because they still allow oxygen to flow out of the mouth and nose freely. While it might feel like breathing is more difficult in a mask and you are not getting enough air, that is likely a response to stress or anxiety from wearing the mask and can usually be helped by focusing on normal breathing patterns. Shallow breathing, hyperventilation, and breath holding can cause increases in carbon dioxide which leads to headaches and nausea. These symptoms are generally not caused by the use of masks.
Some vaccines, including the Oxford Astra-Zeneca vaccine, are developed using something called a viral vector. A viral vector involves using a weakened and modified version of a virus, in order to teach the body how to activate an immune response against the actual virus. The University of Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, AZD122, uses an adenovirus vector as its technology. A spike glycoprotein (S) is found on the surface of the SARS-Cov-2 coronavirus virus through which the virus binds to receptors on human cells (ACE2 receptor) and gains access to insert itself and cause infection. Genetic material of this spike protein is added to ChAdOx1 virus vector so that the adenovirus can stimulate a response from a person's immune system when their body detects it in cells. When the vaccine is injected, it penetrates into the body and gives a blueprint (DNA) for how to defend itself against COVID-19. In this case, that means the cells start to produce club-shaped spike proteins found in coronaviruses, including COVID-19. These three-dimensional spike proteins are so similar to a normal COVID-19 infection that it causes inflammation and the creation of antibodies and T cells. Then, when a vaccinated person is eventually exposed to COVID-19, their body attacks the virus because it already recognizes how to respond to those spike proteins, and can fight against them to prevent infection. Essentially, the vaccine helps train human bodies to detect and eliminate a real COVID-19 infection by showing it mock spike proteins, before COVID-19 can cause any severe symptoms or a severe infection. Similar to all vaccination, it could cause side effects. Completed Phase 3 study results of this vaccine trial are yet to be published, but some early trial data showed that 60% of trial participants reported side effects from the injections. These symptoms included pain, feeling feverish, chills, muscle ache, headache, and malaise and many were treated with paracetamol. Injection-site pain and tenderness were the most common local adverse reactions within 48 hours of the injection and a significant number of side effect symptoms were reported in each age group over temporary symptoms of fever, sore throat, headaches or diarrhea.
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.
