This month the conversation with the MAHA movement continues along with some important lessons for all of us. The end of the academic year brings with it award season and we are pleased to present the awardees from this year's SER annual meeting. In addition, as part of our ongoing series about professionals throughout their career, this month we are featuring an article from an early career epidemiologist who likens working with scientific data to working with music.
Our look back at Covid continues with a comprehensive interview with Anthony Fauci from our July 2020 issue. The interview was conducted by two virologists and is an extensive overview of everything we knew about Covid at that time.
As always, we continue to provide you with our popular monthly word game feature, Notes on People, an overview of what we are reading from the public media, and a listing of upcoming epidemiology events. Finally, don't miss the Job Bank offerings this month. We have some interesting opportunities.
In This Issue
What I'm Learning from MAHA
And why public health needs to catch up with the curiosity-driven movement
Author: Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, MPH
NOTE: This article was originally published on June 6, 2025 by Your Local Epidemiologist on Substack.
About a month ago, a few of us in public health began meeting with members of the grassroots advocacy group Make America Healthy Again (MAHA). I shared some initial reflections, and our conversation aired on the podcast Why Should I Trust You. It went viral, sparked by an immense wave of curiosity people wanted to understand what it looks like when two seemingly opposing sides sit down and actually talk.
I’m happy to report that we’ve continued exchanging emails and texts, met again, and even planned more conversations to expand
our circle. And… we still haven’t killed each other!
That might not sound like much, but in today’s polarized climate, it feels like progress. Honestly, it’s given me more hope than I’ve felt in a long time.
We’ve tackled some hard topics: vaccines, mistrust, government overreach, scientific credibility. On our side, the damage is real. On theirs, the opportunity of the current landscape is exciting. What’s kept us at the table isn’t agreement but a shared curiosity, some common ground, and a growing recognition that we each have something to learn from the other.
A Zoom picture of the MAHA crew and the public health crew coming together for tough conversations. Hosted by Why Should I Trust You.
Here’s what I’ve taken from these conversations over the past month about communication, community, and trust—and what I hope they’ve taken from us, too. - MAHA
But first, a note to fellow health professionals
One of the hardest parts of engaging with MAHA hasn’t been the conversations themselves. To me, it’s the anticipation of backlash from within my field. The quiet fear of a thousand paper cuts. So before this post circulates more widely, I want to make an important distinction. One that I think many of us are struggling to see clearly:
There’s a real difference between the leadership of MAHA, like RFK Jr., and the grassroots supporters drawn to the movement.
I don’t believe RFK Jr. is acting in good faith. His record is riddled with contradictions and falsehoods. His tactics often erode trust under the guise of restoring it. Treating him as a serious partner would be a mistake.
But many people who support MAHA at the grassroots level are asking real, good-faith questions. They’re responding to gaps and failures that public health professionals recognize, too.
If we fail to see that difference, we risk further alienating those who already feel unheard. We confirm the very narrative they’ve been fed: that the health ecosystem doesn’t listen, doesn’t care, and paints all its critics with the same brush.
There’s meaningful common ground to build on clean food, chronic illness, safe schools, and air quality. That’s a good place to start.
What I’ve learned so far
Over the past month, I’ve learned a LOT! Here are three key lessons from these conversations.
1. Trusted messengers and co-developing is the name of the game
A recurring theme in our conversations was this: “Communication just doesn’t reach us.” At first, I didn’t buy it. There’s no shortage of information online. But the more I listened, the clearer it became: information being available is not the same as being accessible, understandable, or shared by or within their trusted networks.
They mainly get information from long-form podcasts, like Joe Rogan’s, and rarely see evidence-based information on social media— which I think is largely due to algorithms, because it’s there!
So I followed up. I sent one of MAHA’s leaders a plain-language vaccine FAQ that the YLE team and Yale created in November 2024. It’s been downloaded 50,000 times but I hadn’t heard much from folks who weren’t already in our corner.
She responded almost immediately. Her feedback was kind, sharp, and incredibly constructive.
Here’s what I learned:
Nuance matters. She appreciated that the FAQ wasn’t trying to convince anyone. It didn’t oversimplify. It acknowledged uncertainty and gave people room to make their own informed decisions.
Context builds trust. The original version included over 100 studies but only as a bibliography. She suggested including one sentence per study summarizing what was found and why it matters.
Access is empowerment. She asked for clickable links to the studies. A small fix, but one that increased transparency and usability.
Respect different realities. Her biggest suggestion was adding a question: If someone can’t—or won’t—vaccinate, what else can they do to protect their family? It reminded me to meet people where they are, not where we wish they were.
The YLE team implemented every change she suggested. (It took a lot of work!) I sent the revised FAQ back as a thank you.
And without being asked, she shared it with her network.
You can read the updated version here:
Routine Vaccine Questions
975KB PDF file https://tinyurl.com/mxejjzzt
This not only highlights the need to co-develop but also to partner with trusted messengers in established information networks, as there are clearly echo chambers.
2. Autonomy comes first
A MAHA member brought up RFK Jr.’s nowinfamous quote in a follow-up meeting: “People shouldn’t take my medical advice.”
To those of us in public health, that’s deeply frustrating. Sure, you shouldn’t get your rash checked out by a politician, but it signaled something else: the burden of medical decisionmaking is entirely on individuals. It tells people: diagnose yourself, verify your doctor’s guidance, interpret the vaccine schedule, and sort fact from fiction. Alone. Most American's don't have
the time, training, or tools to do that. And they shouldn’t have to. That’s why we build public systems and scientific consensus. Just like I rely on a mechanic to fix my car, we should be able to rely on public health experts to interpret the science.
But MAHA members heard something different. RFK’s comment affirmed their autonomy. It signaled that they can make decisions for themselves and their families, even if those decisions go against expert consensus.
This is where public health can and must step in: not by taking away that autonomy, but by supporting it. We can build tools that help people explore the evidence, understand it, and weigh it for themselves.
This led the conversation down a difficult path. One public health colleague said, “Sure, do what you need to do, but please don’t kill someone else.”
That didn’t land well, and one MAHA person said, “Just saying that will lose so much ground [in trust].” I understand why. MAHA members do care deeply about protecting their families and those around them. Assuming that they don’t, doesn’t help. But for them, autonomy still comes first.
Here’s where I hope the learning flows both ways: Autonomy matters. But so does community. Public health isn’t about either/or. It’s about both. It’s about protecting individuals and protecting each other through collective action.
3. Public health is not Big Pharma
Many MAHA members are incredibly skeptical of the entire medical-industrial complex, especially Big Pharma. I, too, am very skeptical
about their role thus far in the health ecosystem of the U.S.
But this is where we need to be louder and clearer: public health is not Big Pharma, Big Food, or Big Insurance. It doesn’t profit but rather protects.
There seems to be a genuine misunderstanding of this separation from MAHA. So, when scientists speak up for vaccines, it can sound like defending the industry in their eyes, which erodes trust with this group.
Public health has flaws (bureaucracy, underfunding, and clumsy communication, to name a few), but the mission is fundamentally different. And that distinction matters. Some in MAHA are starting to see that. One member recently said: “We have to stop they-ing you.” That stuck with me.
In public health, we need to do a better job educating people on what we do and who we are and honestly voice our general frustration with the systems, too. What are our solutions to the industry-captured health ecosystem?
Over the past five years, I’ve learned a lot about what makes public health communication work: the value of nuance, the power of trusted messengers, the importance of meeting people where they are, and the creativity needed to develop two-way streets.
But this past month, MAHA taught me something new: Curiosity can be a bridge.
Even when shaped by different lived experiences and priorities, curiosity creates a space to begin. If we’re willing to sit with discomfort, ask better questions, and truly listen, we can rethink how public health works and who it serves.
I look forward to continuing to learn. I also hope they continue to discover what public health offers as an institution and as a partner in helping individuals and communities thrive. ■
This article was originally printed in Your Local Epidemiologist. To read more content from this source subscribe to Your Local Epidemiologist (YLE): https://tinyurl.com/47494ms4
Do you want to read more content like this? This piece was reprinted from Substack. YLE can be found here: https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/
Your Local Epidemiologist (YLE) is founded and operated by Dr. Katelyn Jetelina, MPH PhD an epidemiologist, wife, and mom of two little girls. YLE reaches more than 305,000 people in over 132 countries with one goal: “Translate” the ever-evolving public health science so that people will be wellequipped to make evidence-based decisions. This newsletter is free to everyone, thanks to the generous support of fellow YLE community members.
To support the effort, subscribe or upgrade your existing subscription: https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/
Society for Epidemiologic Research Announces 2025 Award Winners
This year's SER 2025 Annual Meeting was held in Boston, MA in mid-June. The awards announced at that event recognize work done throughout the career cycle of epidemiologists and several of this year's winners are names which are familiar to regular readers of The Epidemiology Monitor over the years. We offer our heartfelt congratulations to the winners and our thanks to the nominators and the committees for the work involved in making the final selections.
Award: Distinguished Service to SAR Winner: David Savitz, Brown University
David Savitz is Professor of Epidemiology in the Brown University School of Public Health, with joint appointments in Obstetrics and Gynecology and Pediatrics in the Alpert Medical School. He is the former President of the Society for Epidemiologic Research and the Society for Pediatric and Perinatal Epidemiologic Research and North American Regional Councilor for the International Epidemiological Association.
He arrived at Brown in 2010 from Mount Sinai School of Medicine teaching and conducting research at the University of North Carolina School of Public Health and at the Department of Preventive Medicine and Biometrics at the University of Colorado School of Medicine. Dr. Savitz received his undergraduate training in Psychology at Brandeis University, a Master’s degree in Preventive Medicine at Ohio State University in 1978, and the PhD in Epidemiology from the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health in 1982.
Award: Kenneth Rothman Career Accomplishment Award Winner: Carolyn Drews-Botsch, George Mason University
Drews-Botsch specializes in pediatric epidemiology, and the factors, particularly in the perinatal period, that contribute to the causation of certain diseases. She is an expert on occlusion therapy (eye patching) in children with unilateral congenital cataract and amblyopia, commonly known as “lazy eye,” in children.
Over her time as an academic, Drews-Botsch has received the National Research Service Award in Cancer Epidemiology from the National Institutes of Health, has been elected to the American Academic of Epidemiology, and, most recently, received a Fulbright U.S. Scholar Award to teach and research amblyopia in Ireland. She has published over 175 peer-reviewed studies on topics related to pediatric disease causation.
Award: Sherman James Diverse & Inclusive Award
Winner: Eric Rubenstein, Boston University
Eric Rubenstein, PhD, ScM is an Assistant Professor of Epidemiology at the Boston University School of Public Health. His work is focused on improving the lives of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), including Down syndrome (DS) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Epidemiology, the science of public health, is the crucial tool that can help reach the ultimate goal of improving health and wellbeing for the population with IDD. That work cannot be done without input and collaboration from the IDD community, which motivates and drives the work to be impactful and translatable.
Award: Tom Koepsell & Noel Weiss Excellence in Education Award
Winner: Daniel Westreich, UNC-Chapel Hill
Dr. Daniel Westreich is a professor of epidemiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Gillings School of Global Public Health. He received his PhD in epidemiology from UNC-Chapel Hill in 2008.
Substantively, his research investigates the intersection of HIV with reproductive health. This work has elucidated relationships between pregnancy and response to antiretroviral therapy, clarified methodology for studying the potential impact of hormonal contraception on acquisition of HIV. He is currently a PI of the STAR Cohort of reproductive-age HIVpositive and -negative women, and a co-investigator on the MACS-WIHS Combined Cohort Study. He also studies issues related to COVID-19, and the intersection of HIV and chronic disease.
Award: Marshall Joffe Methods Award
Winner: Timothy Lash, Emory University
Timothy L. Lash, DSc, MPH, is Rollins Professor and Chair of the Department of Epidemiology at the Rollins School of Public Health. Dr. Lash serves as Associate Director of Population Sciences at Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University.
Dr. Lash is a member of Winship's Cancer Prevention and Control Research Program. He serves as chairperson of the Cancer, Heart and Sleep Epidemiology B Study Section, Center for Scientific Review at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). He also holds memberships with the American Association of Cancer Research and the Society for Epidemiologic Research.
Award: Roger Detels Infectious Disease Award
Winner: Anne Rimoin, University of California, Los Angeles
Dr. Anne W. Rimoin is Professor of Epidemiology at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health and holds the Gordon–Levin Endowed Chair in Infectious Diseases and Public Health. She directs the UCLA Center for Global and Immigrant Health and is internationally recognized for her work on emerging infectious diseases, global health security, and One Health approaches to pandemic preparedness. Since 2002, Dr. Rimoin has worked in close partnership with collaborators in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where she established the UCLA–DRC Health Research and Training Program alongside the Kinshasa School of Public Health and the National Institute of Biomedical Research.
Award: Carol Hogue Mid-Career Award
Winner: David Rehkopf, Stanford University
David Rehkopf a social epidemiologist and serves as an Associate Professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Population Health and in the Department of Medicine in the Division of Primary Care and Population Health. His research is focused on understanding the health implications of the myriad decisions that are made by corporations and governments every day - decisions that profoundly shape the social and economic worlds in which we live and work. While these changes are often invisible to us on a daily basis, these seemingly minor actions and decisions form structural nudges that can create better or worse health at a population level. In all of his work, he has a focus on the implications of these exposures for health inequalities.
Award: Brian MacMahon Early Career Award
Winner: Ellen Caniglia, Univ of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine
Dr. Caniglia is a perinatal and HIV epidemiologist who works to improve health outcomes among pregnant people and their children, and among people with HIV. Her work utilizes methods for causal inference to identify optimal treatment and prevention strategies in these populations. She received a K01 award from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) to estimate the effects of micronutrient supplementation strategies during pregnancy on adverse birth outcomes, to identify barriers to supplementation, and to pilot an intervention to provide supplementation at antenatal clinics in Botswana. Caniglia collaborates broadly on projects related to causal inference; HIV; and reproductive, perinatal, and pediatric epidemiology. She is passionate about teaching the next generation of epidemiologists.
Working with Scientific Data - a Musical Perspective
Author: Wanyu Huang, PhD, MS
Editor's note: The following article was submitted by an early career epidemiologist. We look forward to presenting additional pieces with a unique perspective on their topics in the coming months. To submit an article for consideration please send it to: info@epimonitor.net
I have fallen in love with finding metaphors to understand and interpret what I learned from when I was a high school student. Back then, physics was one of my favorite subjects, and I said that Newton's Third Law of Motion (the one that claims the equal and opposite reaction) was a perfect metaphor that persuades us to treat our lives the way we want to be treated by our lives. Years later, from 2019, I turned my path to music for my PhD journey in Epidemiology (I have been playing the violin for over two decades from a child and still love to play, now)through which I got more systematic scientific research training. I have been having fun thinking about how working with
scientific data inherently relates to interpreting and playing music, wondering if I would be able to see a systematic connection between them, as well. After a few years, it turns out that the process has been helping me out a lot - including but not limited to developing more thoughtful designs of scientific studies, having better organization of analysis plans, conducting more efficient data analyses, as well as gaining more confidence when selfevaluating the accuracy of my research results. Here, I would like to present the key parallels (or analogies) that I have thought about, in between conducting scientific (in my case epidemiological) studies and the routine for musical practices.
Parallels between working with scientific data and musical practice.
Practicing the basics
Every time I start to practice my violin, the very first thing I play is a scale that appears boring. Yet in musicians' eyes, scale is an essential technique to master, because it serves as the backbone of the music. From here, we can start to perceive working with scientific data in an analogous approach. I am an epidemiologist, so let's take an epidemiologic study as the example: we find out the descriptive statistics of the exposures (e.g., a measure of our living environment and/or social construct) and the health outcomes in the study population, lay out a simple two-by-two table, then we start building statistical models to adjust for potential confounders, or to assess potential effect modifications, etc. Now let us go just a bit further: because practicing scales can be boring, I do not practice them exactly the very same way each time - instead, I like to make changes, such as the tempo and/or the key. This not only makes practice much more fun, but it tailors the practice more specifically towards the musical nature of the very piece(s) I aim to practice later (e.g., I practice the scale in the same key, as the piece I practice later).
Similarly, when conducting my own epidemiologic research, I always try my best to purposefully lay out descriptive analyses as close to the way the results are organized. Interestingly then, I will figure out later that my descriptive statistics leads naturally to further analyses (with regard to this point, I was more than excited to come across published papers on this issue [1, 2]). You may ask: doesn't building statistical models require more thought than simply summarizing the descriptive features of the data? But let me give you an example: we all know the song Do Re Mi from our childhood, where a basic scale itself makes a wonderful piece of music. So technically, if you practice this scale and learn the basics, you have almost learned the music. Analogously, in
the scientific world, a stand-alone two-by-two table can say a lot about the study population in epidemiologic research, as well as the big picture for the relationships between your exposure and outcome of interest. In this, it is never a waste of time to work on the basics, which does take time.
Main theme and variations
We all remember the song Twinkle Twinkle Little Star from our childhood when we started to learn the alphabet. If I treat scientific data analysis as composing a musical piece, then a brief and straightforward set of analyses can be a great one, like a good song that everyone knows. Later, people may write many variations on it, in diverse ways and on different musical instruments. Nevertheless, all these variations develop from the main theme. Analogously in scientific data analysis, no matter how seemingly different sets of sensitivity analyses address the main study question from different perspectives, they shall be all pertinent to the main study question asked - and correspondingly, the descriptive statistics tailored to the main study question.
Variations for the main theme, in musical context, come in diverse formalities. And these composing 'techniques' are used either by themselves or altogether. Musical composers can make a change for the tempo (slower theme to a faster variation, and vice versa), impose a tweak on the tune (a major key to a minor one, and vice versa), alter the dynamics, and/or simply add some interesting 'decorations' to enrich the main themeincluding, but not limited to building up chords, overlaying overtones, etc. There are so many (indeed, almost infinite) ways to compose variations. - Musical cont'd on page 11
In my musical learning experience as a violinist, the most impressive related episode dates back to high school, when I was sixteen. By then, I was starting to pick up the Chaconne in D minor, by Johann Sebastian Bach. As one of his greatest masterpieces of his sonatas and partitas for solo violin (BWV 1001 - 1006), it is quite lengthy and technically demandingincluding appropriate demonstration of chords, dynamic contrasts, and good control of sound. I was provided with a lot of guidance to tackle a variety of technical difficulties - nevertheless, the single most important piece of advice was that I should always bear the 8-measures melodic line (i.e., the main theme) in my mind. We are all prone to instantly recognize that musical variations make the tunes more beautiful, the most important aspect is, nevertheless, that through the demonstration of variations, we remember the main theme deeper in our heart.
A similar workflow happens when we deal with scientific data. In analysing scientific data, we perform additional sets of analyses besides our primary results, by which we call them 'sensitivity analyses,' to make sure that our results are robust and believable. This is what we get from our scientific training. To put my doctoral work into the musical context, the 'main theme' was to evaluate how different outdoor environmental factors (e.g., air pollutants, pollen) independently and jointly related to (or potentially affects) children's respiratory health (asthma exacerbation) in an urban setting. When it came to a more detailed picture, the 'variations' included assessing alternative definitions of cases, subgroups of different types of visits (outpatient, ED, hospitalization), as well as the scope to which the adjustment of additional confounders (e.g., other co-pollutants) affected the main relationship of interest [3]. In addition, I know
that defining timing (i.e., which exposure precedes, which follows; how long is the latency period) [4], as well as the environmental exposures used and their level of precision are essential, which always deserves more exploration [5]. Sensitivity analysis results never appear the same as results from the main analysis, but are meant to reinforce the big picture that describes the relationship between environmental exposures and population health, which calls for alleviation of related environmental risk factors for better health prevention.
Picking up a good musical instrument
One of the pre-requisites of playing a good piece of music, without doubt, is choosing a good musical instrument that fits the characteristics of music. In many situations, multiple musical instruments can all be suitable for playing the same tune, however some simply do not work out (e.g., the violin may not play a tune as low-pitched as the double bass). In this, composers keep in their minds about the strength and limitations of each musical instrument - and choose the one that suits the best to create a specific piece of music. Each research area also has different study designs (which we also, sometimes, call tools or instruments) to conduct scientific research. We compare those study designs and choose the best that is suitable for the study question. More 'tools' are emerging nowadays - we are getting more options and need to choose more judiciously.
Tuning the musical instrument
After I tune my violin, the tune I play will be as expected, upon placing my fingers accurately - Musical cont'd on page 12
on the finger board. Analogously, performing high-quality data management is essential in conducting good scientific data analysis, which cannot be overlooked. We should be clear about the structure of the data: what is the exact meaning of each variable? Where did they come from, and how were they processed?
An iterative process
When I practice my musical instrument, I go back-and-forth in between the different musical pieces and the basics (e.g., scales), to make the practice more efficient and fun. Similarly, when I am in the process of working with data to answer epidemiologic questions, I constantly remind myself of the descriptive features of the study population. It may be intuitive to think that the flow of working with scientific data goes exactly as what is in a manuscript - but indeed, I perceive it as an iterative process. We do not need to know about every descriptive feature of the study population before diving into formal analysis; and when we go into the details of the analysis, we also need to keep the big picture in mind from different descriptive characteristics.
I always got much more confidence in my own results - because an iterative process between the big picture and the details not only helps me get more smoothly into the data analysis, but also enables be to check if the results are reasonable. Last, if there is anything for us to be cautious about, it is that the iterative process is not equivalent to picking up the results we desire - but simply: we do not need to know about every detail of descriptive feature of data before diving into formal analysis; and when we get more detailed in the analysis, we also need to keep the big picture in mind.
process of putting aspects of scientific research parallel to the musical context that I started getting exposed to from my childhood. I found it a very efficient and fun way to build my knowledge frameworks for conducting epidemiological research. As a nutshell of intellectual curiosity, music served as an artistic metaphor. And now I am starting to see a systematic connection between science and music.
Discerning the connection across different disciplines is essential in understanding a scientific discipline and eventually contributes to the establishment of new theories - with no exception for epidemiology[6]. Therefore, I would bravely assert, that if even a seemingly distant dialogue between music and science can be established, then we shall not be hesitated to discover more connections that await us - from other disciplines/aspects out in the world in our lives, and to close those gaps with regards to how they interplay. All these, taken together, will not only be an intellectual-rewarding journey for us, but a process in accumulating evidence towards continuing learning to conduct scientific research and teaching/mentoring the next generation. ■
Conclusion
Throughout these years, I have really loved the
- Musical cont'd on page 13
Acknowledgements: I always owe my sincere gratitude to Dr. Anneclaire De Roos, who mentored and guided me throughout my PhD journey at the Dornsife School of Public Health at Drexel University, from which I accumulated invaluable experiences and thoughts for conducting scientific research. I am also truly thankful to Dr. Neal Goldstein, my instructor for the Epidemiology PhD Seminar class during my second year, for taking his time knowing about and discussing these ideas with me. Last, I greatly appreciate the effort of Dr. Marc Weisskopf at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who supported me through proofreading and sincerely providing editorial suggestions.
REFERENCES:
1. Fox, M.P., et al., On the Need to Revitalize Descriptive Epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol, 2022. 191(7): p. 11741179.
2. Hayes-Larson, E., et al., Who is in this study, anyway? Guidelines for a useful Table 1. J Clin Epidemiol, 2019.114: p. 125-132.
3. Huang, W., et al., Effects of ambient air pollution on childhood asthma exacerbation in the Philadelphia metropolitan Region, 2011-2014. Environ Res, 2021. 197: p. 110955.
4. Huang, W., et al., Do respiratory virus infections modify associations of asthma exacerbation with aeroallergens orfine particulate matter? A timeseries study in Philadelphia PA. Int J Environ Health Res, 2024. 34(9): p. 3206-3217.
5. Weisskopf, M.G. and T.F. Webster, Trade-offs of Personal Versus More Proxy Exposure Measures in Environmental Epidemiology. Epidemiology, 2017. 28(5): p. 635-643.
6. Krieger, N., Epidemiology and the people's health: theory and context. 2024: Oxford University Press.
About the author
Wanyu Huang, PhD, MS
Department of Environmental Health, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
From Our Archives
What We Knew About COVID-19 in July 2020
What it means and why it matters
EDITOR'S NOTE: As we have now reached the 5th anniversary of the initial days of our awareness of COVID19, it seemed appropriate to begin looking back at what we knew, when we knew it and how our thoughts evolved over the early months of the pandemic. Accordingly, we will be reprinting our articles from that period over the next few months. We welcome your comments and suggestions about what you would like to see.
Special Recap: Going From A to Z On Coronavirus With Anthony Fauci A Unique Interview Conducted By Fellow Scientists
An informative, up-to-date interview with Anthony Fauci, NIH’s Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and widely regarded as the nation’s go-to expert on scientific topics related to the COVID-19 pandemic took place in mid-July on the podcast This Week In Virology. The interview was remarkable because the virologistinterviewers, Vincent Racaniello from Mt Sinai School of Medicine and Richard Condit Emeritus Professor from the University of Florida, have been reporting and discussing COVID-19 for months and were well prepared and armed with a full set of key questions on timely and relevant COVID topics. They peppered him with questions in a collegial manner for 30 minutes. The session was not without its humorous and candid moments and it is easy to understand why Fauci has won so many supporters. Below is a recap of the highlights of the interview.
On Modes of Transmission
Interviewers wasted no time in asking Fauci about the relative importance of three routes of transmission often ascribed to SARS CoV-2, namely droplet spread, aerosol, and contact with contaminated surfaces. Fauci stated there is no firm data but it is assumed that droplet
spread accounts for most of the transmission. He noted that without a special event, as happened in the hotel in Hong Kong with the first SARS virus which traveled vertically and then across to another hotel, it is impossible to tell that spread is occurring via aerosol and how much is aerosol.
Fauci added it is “an intelligent guess” that the large majority of COVID-19 is transmitted by droplet spread within a distance of 6 feet or less, but that he would not rule out the possibility that aerosol spread occurs without knowing how much of the spread is caused that way. Likewise, Fauci said the amount of spread by direct contact with contaminated surfaces is unclear. It has been detected on surfaces, but we are unsure if the detected viral material is really infectious. He allowed that if someone coughed in their hand, then touched a door knob, and someone else came behind them 15 minutes later, then that could transmit the virus effectively. But in his view, droplet spread predominates over spread from touching surfaces.
The question is an important one because it speaks to the potential effectiveness of wearing masks.
- Fauci
Period of Infectivity
Another important question covered in the interview was about the length of time a patient is infectious. The question arises particularly for persons recovering from COVID-19 who remain positive by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for extended periods of time. Can the amount of virus or viral load as measured by “cycle threshold” in the test be used to evaluate infectiousness because some persistently positive patients have very low viral loads of 35 or above (the lower the Ct level the greater the amount of target nucleic acid in the sample).
According to Fauci, the chances that the viral material detected is infectious or “replication competent” is miniscule and this threshold value can be interpreted to mean a patient is not contagious. The Ct values are often not given but are available if patients ask for them with their test results.
Percent Asymptomatic or Presymtomatic
Fauci joked that he liked these kinds of questions because there is no right or wrong answer. He said one can guess at the answers to such questions provided one does not take the guess too seriously! He used the outbreak on the Theodore Roosevelt nuclear aircraft carrier where there was only one or a few symptomatic sailors out of about 1100 sailors who got infected to establish that there would have to be a substantial amount of asymptomatic cases in order to account for this pattern. He could not imagine one person coughing enough to infect so many others.
Infection in Children vs Adults
Fauci was asked if children acquire or transmit infection with COVID-19 differently than adults
since this question is relevant for what to do about opening schools. Also, some persons appear to believe that because children do not get as sick as adults, they can be returned to school safely. Fauci joked again that this question took them to a “data free zone”.
To correct this lack of information, a new study called the Human Epidemiology and Response to SARS-CoV-2 (HEROS) will rapidly enroll 6,000 people from 2,000 U.S. families already participating in NIH-funded pediatric research studies in 11 cities. The study team will prospectively follow these children and their families for six months to determine who gets infected with SARS-CoV-2, whether the virus is transmitted to other family members, and which family members with the virus develop COVID-19.
Safest Way to Open Schools
Fauci believes the fundamental guiding principle should be that to the best of our capabilities, we should try to get kids back to school because the unintended deleterious consequences for the children, their parents, and society can be substantial. Possibilities will depend a great deal on where children are living. Some counties may be able to send kids back to school without worrying about anything, and other places will have enough infection to be unsafe, or infection levels requiring mitigating risk. Such mitigation activities could include using alternate day classes, morning or afternoon classes, wearing masks, and protecting the vulnerable. It is paramount he added that everyone be attentive to the safety of the children AND the teachers. Otherwise, schools could reopen and teachers might not want to come back.
- Fauci cont'd on page 16
Inexpensive Testing
The interviewers had recently spoken with Michael Mina at Harvard who is championing the idea of having a saliva-based antigen test that would only cost a dollar and could be manufactured in extremely large quantities and made widely available. Fauci was asked what he thought about that and whether or not it would ever happen. He said something along those lines is really needed, essentially an easy test where you can get the answer instantaneously. It would alleviate a lot of anxiety and it would be important for public health because you could test a group before sending them in to class or to a factory knowing that at that given moment everyone was negative.
According to Condit, such tests would be less sensitive than PCR, but offered that we do not need exquisitely sensitive tests in these situations if you can catch all the persons with high viral load who are the contagious ones. It would be enough to identify these to mitigate the spread of infection. This goes back to the concept that not all PCR positive patients are infectious. As Fauci noted, the effort to get highly sensitive tests is a good example of where the perfect can be considered the enemy of the good!
Local or Systemic Viral Infection
Fauci was asked to what extent he thinks SARSCoV-2 infection is confined to the respiratory system or whether it escapes and also infects other organs directly such as the vasculature, kidneys, and even the brain. Alternatively, should the effects of COVID-19 being seen in other organs be considered sequelae of the respiratory infections. Fauci said he believes the “virus is getting out, although there is not
overwhelming evidence that this is in fact the case. It could be that we are seeing downstream distal effects that are essentially respiratory. He offered that we will learn the answer to this question from autopsy studies. If virus is seen in these other organs, then it will be an open and shut case that this is a systemic infection.
Infection Fatality Rate
Another favorite topic of inquiry for epidemiologists was pursued by the virologistinterviewers who wanted to elicit Fauci’s best guess about the infection fatality rate.
He reported that his early thinking was the IFR at 1%. Just giving it a ballpark look, it is obviously more than seasonal flu, and looking at what goes on with other corona viruses such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) which had an IFR of 10% or Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) which kills 37%, the IFR for COVID-19 has to be around 1%. The calculation is difficult to make accurately because it depends on the number of asymptomatic cases, said Fauci.
Seroprevalence
Not content to ask only about fatality, the interviewers pursued Fauci asking what do you think is the best estimate of the seroprevalence of COVID-19 antibodies in the United States? It is going to vary depending on where you are, but New York is leading the pack at 22%, he said. Overall Fauci’s best estimate is that seroprevalence is probably a few percentage points, say 3-4%.
This immediately prompted the question of - Fauci cont'd on
whether or not herd immunity can actually be achieved without a vaccine. In Fauci’s opinion, if we want to get herd immunity purely on the basis of excluding vaccine, an awful lot of people are going to get sick. “I don’t want to see herd immunity because we had 70% of the people get infected.” I am putting my stock in getting a vaccine as quickly as possible, Fauci added.
Immunity
A great deal of uncertainty has surrounded the kind of immune response produced by COVID19, how durable it may be, and how protective against future infection.
Condit posed the question in five parts, namely, what fraction of infections generate immunity, does it wane, if so, how fast does that immunity wane, does reinfection actually occur and at what rate, and what are the consequences of any reinfection that does occur is it milder?
Joking about having to answer five questions in one, Fauci nevertheless took on the challenge and thought he could meet it because the questions were related. Based on the experience with other coronaviruses that cause the common cold, Fauci said he thinks 100% of infected persons get immunity, but we don’t know how long that immunity lasts because the virus has not been around long enough to determine the duration of immunity. To get a good view of the “immunity landscape” would require a year or two of observation to see what happens.
Of course it is possible for immunity to wane, according to Fauci, and a question buried in there is does the sub-optimal immunity make things better or worse upon re-exposure. Fauci said he did not think there is any evidence that
waning immunity makes things worse. Looking for evidence about this, Fauci offered that persons who have had a coronavirus cold do not appear to get a worse coronavirus cold the next time, though he was not sure how well this phenomenon has been looked at.
Vaccine Efficacy
Given the remaining uncertainty about the quality and quantity of immunity conferred by a COVID-19 infection, the interviewers were quick to ask whether or not waning immunity has any impact on the thinking about how a vaccine might work. According to Fauci, the answer is no, at least not on how a vaccine might work. It does influence thinking about whether or not you might need to get boosted.
The data just published in the New England Journal for the Moderna mRNA vaccine really does look good said Fauci. You don’t want to put all your marbles on a study population of only 45 subjects, but they got a pretty robust neutralizing antibody response using the moderate dose (100mg) vaccine against wild type virus. That response is as high as or higher than what we find in convalescent serum. So at least for a finite period of time we can get a good response, said Fauci. How long it lasts we don’t know, he said, and added I’ll worry about that later because now the first worry is if you can get protection long enough to cover a season, and if the immunity wanes, we can worry about a booster shot.
Vaccine Make Up
Continuing the interview focused on vaccines, the virologists asked if it is a good idea for vaccine makers to be focused so centrally on
- Fauci cont'd on page 18
the spike protein as the key antigen on the viral surface at the expense of all the other viral proteins that might be important for inducing immunity
Fauci noted this was a loaded question, presumably because of all the different vaccine candidates in contention for becoming the vaccine or vaccines of choice. In Fauci’s view, if you look at it theoretically and conceptually, the antibody that blocks virus binding to the receptor on host cells is classically how you block infection. He said antibodies to the other components are not unimportant, however, antibody to the spike protein correlates with animal protection and so it really looks pretty good.
Duration of Immunity
In seeking to better understand the duration of immunity, Fauci reminded listeners that if COVID-19 is merely a respiratory infection then you would expect a weaker response and not long lasting immunity. On the other hand, if persons with multi-system disease with COVID have a systemic viremia, then you could get “years worth” rather than “months worth” of durable immunity. And we know from other viral diseases like measles that a more systemic infection produces a more lasting immunity. Again, it is from autopsy studies that researchers will learn to what extent COVID-19 is a local viral infection with distant sequelae for other organs or a systemic infection with virus.
Decision Making Around COVID-19
Asked to explain what the different groups involved with operation Warp Speed are doing, Fauci described Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) as a public private partnership of people from different agencies as well as outside
investigators who are brought together to help prioritize which agents to pursue and to make sure that resources are appropriately divided among the different priorities. Operation Warp Speed is more of an operational group looking at diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines but now mostly focused on therapeutics and vaccines. They do not actually conduct the work but outline the protocols, identify common primary and secondary endpoints, and provide other types of standardizing guidance across studies.
Criteria for Vaccine Selection
Rich Condit asked what are the criteria used in prioritization. One is what the proposed vaccine or therapeutic looks like in animal studies, and what is the current need for it in treating the disease For example, Fauci noted we have two therapies now that work well for COVID-19 but what we need now are agents that work earlier on to prevent a sick person from going to the hospital. So these earlier acting agents are the ones we want to study such as convalescent plasma, hyperimmune globulin, direct antivirals, and monoclonal antibodies—all are being studied based on the deliberations about prioritization, according to Fauci.
Vaccine Distribution
In addition to worrying about finding an effective vaccine or vaccines, government officials must also be concerned about the adequacy of the eventual vaccine supply. Fauci’s assessment of the situation is as follows. He believes that deployment looks promising because the federal government has invested hundreds of millions of dollars per vaccine candidate and we are having the vaccine makers proceed whether or not they know if
- Fauci cont'd on
the vaccine will be successful. They are making these vaccines even before they know if they are going to work. If it does work, you save many months. If it doesn’t work you’ve lost a lot of money. So the urgency of the situation dictates that it’s worth investing the money to save a lot of time. The companies say they will have enough vaccine by the first quarter of 2021 to be able to start distributing tens if not hundreds of millions of doses.
Unique Response
In closing their interview, Racaniello and Condit wanted to know if there has ever been anything like this in response to a new infection. They already suspected the answer and paraphrasing Fauci he said there’s never been anything like this for sure. I don’t like the name Warp Speed because it makes it look like we are callously rushing out to do things he said. In the way we’ve done things right now, it is truly remarkable in the view of someone like me who has been doing this for 40 years and I’ve been
involved in the development of a bunch of vaccines. The speed we have been moving at is mind boggling and is orders of magnitude more quickly than what we were doing a decade ago.
Future Funding
In closing, Racaniello wanted to know if Fauci foresees extra funding being made available for basic science on emerging pathogens that are a little bit too risky for the normal funding procedure.
Fauci noted that monies have been available even before COVID-19 for preparedness work. He said he believes that Congress realizes that we really have to be prepared for the next one and he is hoping for the infusion of a lot of money into this type of preparedness research.
To listen to the 30 minute podcast, readers should visit This Week in Virology at: https://bit.ly/32DrG5V ■
Your Ad Should Be Here
Do you have a job, course, conference, book or other resource of interest to the epidemiology community? Advertise with The Epidemiology Monitor and reach 35,000 epidemiologists, biostatisticians, and public health professionals monthly.
Advertising opportunities exist in this digital publication, on our website and social media accounts, and in our Epi-Gram emails.
For more information please contact: Michele Gibson / michele@epimonitor.net
Epi
It's Mosquito Season
We know the end of the academic year is incredibly busy for our readers so this month, instead of a long crossword, we are bringing you a short word search. Good luck - don't let the easy words fool you!
For an interactive online version go to: https://tinyurl.com/5n7xf6hh
Words to find:
1. Chikungunya
2. Citronella
3. Mosquito
4. Oropouche
5. DEET
6. Repellent
7. Dengue Fever
8. Rift Valley Fever
9. Encephalitis
10. West Nile Virus
11. Filariasis
12. Yellow Fever
13. Larva
14. Zika Virus
15. Malaria
What We're Reading This Month
Editor's Note: All of us are confronted with more material than we can possibly hope to digest each month. However, that doesn't mean that we should miss some of the articles that appear in the public media on topics of interest to the epi community. The EpiMonitor curates a monthly list of some of the best articles we've encountered in the past month. See something you think others would like to read? Please send us a link at info@epimonitor.net and we'll include it in the next month
Washington DC Chaos
♦ More than 400 CDC staff may be called back to work after being laid off in April (NPR)
https://tinyurl.com/5ajazea5
♦ Why a Vaccine Expert Left the C.D.C.: ‘Americans Are Going to Die’ (NYT)
https://tinyurl.com/2f3uk4cu
♦ South Africa Built a Medical Research Powerhouse. Trump Cuts Have Demolished It. (NYT)
https://tinyurl.com/4rxj4r6z
♦ Trump's termination of health research grants shows anti-LGBTQ+ and racial bias, judge rules (The Advocate via AppleNews)
https://tinyurl.com/bdhsynbx
♦ The Disappearing Funds for Vaccine Research (NYT)
https://tinyurl.com/363bhte6
♦ Takeaways from AP’s report on how federal public health cuts are affecting communities across the US (Associated Press)
https://tinyurl.com/37af8vx3
♦ What to expect from CDC vaccine advisory committee meeting with RFK Jr.'s new members (ABC News via AppleNews)
https://tinyurl.com/2k23yva6
♦ Pandemic preparedness 'dramatically eroding' under Trump, experts say (Guardian via AppleNews)
https://tinyurl.com/yetzd7x6
♦ Judge orders many NIH grants restored, calling cancellation unlawful (The Hill)
https://tinyurl.com/ye2yxuu9
- Reading cont'd on page 22
What We're Reading This Month
[Type a quote from the document or the summary of an interesting point. You can position the text box anywhere in the document. Use the Text Box Tools tab to change the formatting of the pull quote text box.]
- con't from page 21
Public Health Topics, cont.
♦ Nepal set to deploy more than 150 field epidemiologists for Covid surveillance (Kathmandu Post)
https://tinyurl.com/3u8p22ay
♦ Breaking Tradition: Should Biostatistics Doctoral Qualifying Exams Evolve to Better Serve Our Students' Ability to Demonstrate Readiness to Conduct Independent Research?
https://tinyurl.com/mv8n6rr7
♦ Measles Vaccination Rates Are Plummeting Across the U.S. (Time)
https://tinyurl.com/y495r29k
♦ The tick situation is getting worse. How to protect yourself (NYT)
https://tinyurl.com/ydztb9hk
♦ COVID 'razor blade throat' rises as new subvariant spreads in California (LA Times via AppleNews)
https://tinyurl.com/vxbxz24e
♦ People With Severe Diabetes Are Cured in Small Trial of New Drug (NYT)
https://tinyurl.com/y5cwswab
♦ French scientists discover new blood type in Guadeloupe woman (CBS News)
https://tinyurl.com/2d7fypxa
♦ Thousands Sickened, 9 Killed from Virus Outbreak at 4 Popular Holiday Destinations (People via AppleNews)
https://tinyurl.com/m4p6u36n
♦ Tick risk varies by region. Here's where diseases have spread and how to stay safe. (NPR)
https://tinyurl.com/y3fzbyt7
Join EpiMonitor on our Facebook page at: https://bit.ly/2U29gUA on Twitter at: @theEpimonitor on Instagram at: @epimonitor
Notes on People
Do you have news about yourself, a colleague, or a student?
Please help The Epidemiology Monitor keep the community informed by sending relevant news to us at this address for inclusion in our next issue. people@epimonitor.net
Honored: Fred Hutch Cancer Center biostatistician Peter Gilbert, PhD, received the 2025 Marvin Zelen Leadership Award in Statistical Science from Harvard University. The award recognizes Gilbert’s contributions to public health and vaccine research. A professor in Fred Hutch’s Vaccine and Infectious Science Division (VIDD), Gilbert specializes in improving the design and analysis of clinical trials for vaccines against HIV, SARS-CoV-2 and other infectious diseases, as well as defining the biomarkers that predict whether a new vaccine or therapeutic will work.
Honored: The WHO Executive Board awarded the 2025 Dr LEE Jong-wook Memorial Prize for Public HealthPrize to Professor Helen Rees (South Africa) for her outstanding contribution to public health at the local, national, regional and global levels. She founded the Wits Reproductive Health and HIV Institute (Wits RHI) in 1994, which has treated over 650 000 people living with HIV and which operates in 52 sites across South Africa with regional partnerships in 23 countries.
Honored: Alberto Ascherio, professor of epidemiology and nutrition at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, received the Breakthrough Prize in April for his groundbreaking research on multiple sclerosis (MS). The award recognized his work establishing the Epstein-Barr virus infection as the leading cause of MS.
Honored: James M. Robins was recognized for “outstanding and sustained contributions to statistical theory and methods for causal inference and semiparametrics, and for dedication to mentoring young statisticians.” He was also awarded the 2025 Committee of Presidents of Statistical Societies Distinguished Achievement Award and Lectureship for his contributions to the creation of the modern field of causal inference.
Notes on
Do you have news about yourself, a colleague, or a student?
Please help The Epidemiology Monitor keep the community informed by sending relevant news to us at this address for inclusion in our next issue. people@epimonitor.net
Honored: The Royal Statistical Society awarded Professor Eric Tchetgen Tchetgen is the David Cox Medal for Statistics for his outstanding contributions to the development of pioneering statistical theory and methods that have reshaped our understanding and practice of causal inference. Eric’s noteworthy contributions recognised by this award include the development of Proximal Causal Inference and groundbreaking contributions to instrumental variable methodology, two fundamental analytic frameworks for credible causal inference in the face of intractable confounding.
Named: Muhammad Pate, Harvard T.H. Chan adjunct professor of public health, made the 2025 Time100 Health list for his work shaping Nigeria’s health systems. He has been the country’s minister of health and social welfare since 2023.
Named: Yashaswini Singh, assistant professor of health services, policy and practice at the Brown University School of Public Health, has been named a 2025 Aspen Ideas Health Fellow by the Aspen Institute. Nominated by Arnold Ventures as one of four health care leaders under 40, Singh is recognized for her achievements and her success in translating research into actionable policy.
Passed: UCSF professor and University of California Health System chief data scientist Atul Butte, MD, PhD died June 13th. Butte held the Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg Distinguished Professorship of pediatrics, bioengineering and therapeutic sciences, and epidemiology and biostatistics at UCSF. He was director of UCSF’s Bakar Computational Health Sciences Institute and chief data scientist of UC Health.
Near Term Epidemiology Event Calendar
Every December The Epidemiology Monitor dedicates that issue to a calendar of events for the upcoming year. However that often means we don't have full information for events later in the upcoming year. Thus an online copy exists on our website that is updated regularly. To view the full year please go to: http://www.epimonitor.net/Events The events that we are aware of for the next month follow below.
July 7-8
Type: Short Course
Title: Further Survival Analysis
July 2025
Sponsor: University of Bristol Location: Virtual
July 7-25
Web: http://tinyurl.com/26sm9fs8
Type: Summer Program Web: https://bit.ly/2QnqkHv
Title: 60th Summer Session in Epidemiology
Sponsor: University of Michigan Location: Ann Arbor, MI
July 7-30
Type: Summer Program Web: https://tinyurl.com/46y94ked
Title: 17th Annual Summer Institute in Statistics and Modeling in Infectious Diseases (SISMID)
Sponsor: SISMID & Emory University Location: Atlanta, GA
July 7 – August 2
Type: Summer Program Web: https://tinyurl.com/5xwkmwdy
Title: 8th Annual Summer Institute in Statistics for Clinical & Epidemiological Research (SISCER)
Sponsor: University of Washington Location: Virtual
July 13-17
Type: Conference
Web: https://tinyurl.com/yykcnub6
Title: IAS 2025 - 13th IAS Conference on HIV Science
Sponsor: International AIDS Society Location: Kigali, Rwanda
July 14-18
Type: Conference
Title: NACCHO 360 Conference
Sponsor: NACCHO Location: Anaheim, CA
July 16-18
Type: Conference
Web: https://bit.ly/3GC1mtG
Web: https://tinyurl.com/47krjwce
Title: 2025 Annual Meeting - Australasian Epidemiological Association
Title: 46th Annual Conference of the International Society for Clinical Biostatistics (ISCB)
Sponsor: Basel Biometric Society Location: Basel, Switzerland
August 4-22
Type: Summer Program Web: https://tinyurl.com/mtpbw2kn
Title: Erasmus Summer Program
Sponsor: Erasmus MC Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Postdoctoral Research Fellowships in Cancer Prevention and Control
Position Location: St. Louis, MO
Eligibility: PhD, DrPH, MD, or other doctoral degree in a public health related discipline, or a doctoral degree in another discipline with an interest in public health research. T32 applicants are limited to United States citizens, non-citizen nationals, or must be lawfully admitted for permanent residence and possess registration requirements.
Seeking postdoctoral fellowship applicants with an interest in cancer prevention and control to join diverse team of multidisciplinary researchers in the Division of Public Health Sciences and Siteman Cancer Center at Washington University in St. Louis. We welcome applicants from a variety of disciplines. Our multidisciplinary faculty conducts worldleading research on a wide range of health issues and leads community education and outreach to prevent cancer and other diseases, promote population health, and improve quality and access to health care in Missouri and beyond. Engaging community members, addressing key needs in our catchment area, and addressing cancer disparities are priorities in the work we do.
The Division has a diverse range of NIH funded projects and faculty mentors to see the full range, consult our website While we welcome applicants in any relevant research area, these are the highest priorities for the Training Program:
• Cancer Disparities and Access to Care
• Community-based and Community-engaged Research
• Cancer Epidemiology
• Intervention and Implementation Science
• Contextual Drivers of Health and Healthcare
Washington University School of Medicine is an equal opportunity employer. We particularly welcome applications from first generation college graduates and other backgrounds underrepresented in biomedical sciences.
Washington University offers excellent benefits. Support is available for tuition, books, software, conference travel, and research. Postdoctoral positions are partially funded by NCI grants (f32CA190194), with annual stipend starting at $61,428.00 for up to 2-3 years of training. Mentorship and career development are available to our vibrant cohorts of postdoctoral fellows. Our trainees have a strong track record of finding funding and faculty positions after completing their postdoctoral training. You’ll find ample opportunities to collaborate with investigators from a range of disciplines.
Send inquiries to: The T32 Program Coordinator at PHSpostdoc@wustl.edu. You can also contact Dr. Aimee James and Dr. Graham Colditz, Training Directors, at aimeejames@wustl.edu and colditzg@wustl.edu
To apply: Fill out an application and submit your cover letter, curriculum vitae, and three professional references by visiting https://redcap.link/phs-postdoc.
You can also access the online application by scanning the QR code below.
Please email PHSpostdoc@wustl.edu with any questions. Applications are considered on a rolling basis.
Tenured: Professor & Department Head
The School of Public Health at Texas A&M University invites applications for consideration as Department Head and Professor (Tenured) for the Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics. Located in College Station, TX on the flagship campus of the Texas A&M University System, the CEPH-accredited School of Public Health (SPH) has over 95 faculty across four distinct departments. Texas A&M University, a land-, sea-, and space-grant institution, was the state’s first public institution of higher learning, is a member of the prestigious Association of American Universities (AAU) and boasts world-class resources. The School of Public Health is currently ranked #1 in Texas and 27/219 by U.S. News & World Report and has the 5th largest student enrollment in the nation. The school has had record external funding growth over the past five years. This full-time, 9-month, hard-money-supported appointment would start Summer 2026, although this date is flexible.
The next department head will have the opportunity to build on the department’s strong foundation and craft a vision that will continue to foster scientific discovery and scholarly excellence. We seek a faculty-centered, student-supportive leader who will actively cultivate a dynamic environment in which all faculty, staff, and students will thrive.
The successful applicant will be an innovative thinker with a strategic vision for guiding the department to a higher level of excellence and who can communicate this vision to a constituency that includes academia, government, industry, and current and former students. The candidate must have notable accomplishments and experience in academic leadership, research, teaching, and scholarship.
Applicants can apply at https://apply.interfolio.com/167473 Please provide: (1) curriculum vitae, (2) cover letter outlining managerial and leadership philosophy, managerial and leadership experience, and managerial and leadership preparation to head a Department, (3) personal statement including philosophy and plans for research and teaching. Additionally, please provide a list of five (5) references; references will be contacted only if you are selected for an interview.
Questions regarding this academic leadership opportunity may be sent to Dr. Eric Wilson, Assistant Dean for Accountability and Strategic Initiatives, at eric.wilson@tamu.edu You may also contact the Search Chair, Dr. Adam E. Barry (aebarry@tamu.edu).
Equal Opportunity/Veterans/Disability Employer.
More Information: https://tinyurl.com/ye7jmm9c
The Epidemiology Monitor ISSN (2833-1710) is published monthly
The Epidemiology Monitor
Editorial Contributors
Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, MPH Editor and Publisher
Operations
Christopher Jetelina Operations Manager
Advertising Sales
Michele Gibson sales@epimonitor.net
Advertising Rates
All
in a Digital Version is available FREE to subscribers
The Epidemiology Monitor is available exclusively online in the same familiar print format subscribers were accustomed to, and they can read through the publication on their electronic devices in the same manner they did with the print version. In addition, you can download and save copies of The Epidemiology Monitor for easy future access.
