Five years. That's a number that's hard to believe but this month marks five years since the EpiMonitor published its first COVID-19 article. This month we begin a new series to look back on what we were all thinking on a month-by-month basis during the early days of the pandemic.
In addition, we have a piece that talks about the current chaos in Washington and what we can do as public health professionals - remembering that Power Also Comes from the Bottom Up. You'll also find a thought provoking article that discusses talking about vaccination across the political divide.
As always, we continue to provide you with our popular monthly crossword feature, Notes on People, an overview of what we read from the public media, and a listing of upcoming epidemiology events. Finally, don't miss the Job Bank offerings this month. We have some fantastic opportunities advertised on our website.
In This Issue
Power Also Comes From The Bottom Up
Don't forget you have it
Author: Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, MPH
NOTE: This article was originally published on January 28, 2025 by Your Local Epidemiologist on Substack. As the chaos in Washington, D.C. continues to grow we felt it appropriate to reprint this piece.
Today [January 27, 2025] felt like waiting for a nuclear bomb to go off in public service. The new administration released a memo to freeze $3 trillion in federal grants, pausing activities to ensure alignment with Presidential priorities. The order went into effect at 5 p.m. ET, but a D.C. judge blocked it thereafter.
While the White House tried to clarify that this freeze won’t impact all grants excluding some individual programs like student loans— its ambiguity, murky terms, and far-reaching implications created a cruel void of uncertainty and chaos among academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, public health departments, and small businesses. What counts and what doesn’t? What will be available when a domestic violence survivor shows up tonight? Many answers to these questions are still in limbo.
This follows days of unsettling developments: CDC’s halting communication with the WHO, the freezing of all foreign aid, the reclassification of federal workers so they are easier to fire, uncertainty with NIH grants, the firing of entire DEI teams, offering 2 million federal workers buyouts, and more.
We’re left with more questions than answers about what’s been impacted, what’s next,
and what this means for public health and our communities. But one thing is known: We aren’t powerless.
What we know and what we don’t know
Federal grants are the backbone of America’s public service system.
Federal grants aren’t just funding lab scientists in white coats (although they are critical, too); they underpin the services millions of Americans rely on daily. Suicide hotlines, domestic violence shelters, opioid treatment centers, meals for seniors, cancer survivor support programs. Medicaid payment systems were turned off today—41% of all births in the U.S. are covered by Medicaid. If organizations don’t have a cash reserve and can’t find funding elsewhere in the interim, they will (or already have) closed their doors. The lives of people hang in the balance. Innovation hangs in the balance. Our economy hangs in the balance.
Counterbalances are at play. Many legal motions are being filed. For example, the National Council of Nonprofits, the American Public Health Association, and small businesses filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to block the funding pause. A D.C. judge ruled tonight to block the order. Academic institutions, Congress, professional organizations, and advocacy groups were mobilized and organized. This is all working mostly behind the scenes.
Many people support this change. To them, the system feels broken elitist, inefficient, and unresponsive. Trust in institutions has eroded over decades. And from their perspective, the
- Power cont'd on page 3
only way to fix it is to break it.
The uncertainty is vast, and much remains unanswered:
1. How long will the chaos last? Is this a 4year thing or a 100-day thing? Some programs, like Medicaid processing, will get rebooted quickly. But others may stay offline far longer, tangled in political battles and legal systems.
2. Who will have the energy to fight? After years of crisis pandemic, political upheaval, and economic strain many are exhausted. Is it safer to keep your head down and focus on selfpreservation, or do you muster the stamina to push back?
3. What happens to communities the federal government serves? The stakes couldn’t be higher. These aren’t just bureaucratic hiccups; lives are on the line.
The perfect storm
This is the kind of chaos that thrives in a fractured world. Burnout leaves us too tired to organize. Threat of retribution makes us fearful. Expertise is siloed no one can be an expert on everything, and no single team can fight every battle at once. Meanwhile, opportunists—some rising out of narcissism and others out of ideology seize this moment to dismantle systems they view as broken, elitist, or unresponsive.
I’ve spent years working inside public health systems, fixing what’s broken from within. I know these systems need reform. But reform requires vision, patience, and a plan. Blowing everything up overnight without a roadmap
isn’t reform; it’s reckless gambling. And it’s about overwhelming the system. If you attack one program at a time, advocates can organize and fight. But by burning everything down at once, there’s no single target, no clear way for coalitions to unite. It creates chaos, forces compromises, and settles for partial “wins.”
What can you do
The destabilization isn’t a side effect; it’s the point. Russ Vought, a key architect of this freeze, said plainly during his confirmation, “I want people to feel the pain.” And we do. But we’re not powerless. Even amid exhaustion, fear, and uncertainty, we have a role to play.
Here’s how you can take action:
1. Share your story
I put together a survey with the help of many people today. We want to hear how this federal grant freeze impacts you, your organization, and the people you serve. Please take a moment to complete this anonymous survey and help us humanize the data with real stories.
CLICK HERE
2. Advocate for transparency
Contact your representatives and let them know the stakes. Be clear about how this freeze disrupts essential services in your community.
3. Strengthen local networks
Collaborate with community leaders, organizations, and coalitions to find temporary solutions for gaps. Grassroots efforts can often fill critical voids.
- Power cont'd on page
4. Stay informed and share accurate information
Rumors thrives in chaos. Stay grounded in verified facts and help others in your network do the same.
5. Support counterbalances
Legal challenges, advocacy groups, and organizations are pushing back. Lend your voice and support to these efforts.
The sweet spot between self-preservation and action
This moment demands balance. We can’t fight every battle, and no one has infinite energy. For many, the instinct is to put their heads down and focus on survival and that’s okay. For those with the capacity to act, this is the
moment to rise. Find the sweet spot: do what you can, where you can, with the energy you have. Even small actions sharing a story, making a call, connecting with others can ripple outward.
Bottom line
The firehose of information and change and the chaos it creates is intentional. But power isn’t just top-down. It’s also bottom-up. Share stories on the ground, focus on what we can control, strategize, mobilize, and support counterbalances.
Let’s ensure the voices of those most affected are heard, and that we have a plan for rebuilding when the dust settles. ■
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 well-equipped 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/
How to Discuss Vaccines Amid the Partisan Divide
Biostatistician Jeffrey Morris says effective dialogue requires an awareness of how politics shape a person’s beliefs.
Interviewer: Sarah Talpos
NOTE: This interview was originally printed by Undark Magazine on January 9, 2025 and we thank then for their permission to reprint.
What’s the best way to discuss vaccines with a politically polarized public? Jeffrey Morris has been considering this question since the Covid-19 pandemic, when he created a dedicated blog and ramped up his use of X (formerly Twitter) in an effort to pass along trustworthy information about the new virus. He eventually came to focus on Covid-19 vaccines, in part because so many false claims were circulating about them online.
As a biostatistician, Morris was well-positioned to explain statistical concepts and techniques employed in vaccine studies. But good communication requires more than data, he said. Social media and artificial-intelligence algorithms have helped create opposing echo chambers, in which individuals aligned with one group may view members of another group with distrust or even hostility. Particularly under these conditions, Morris says, effective dialogue requires respect, transparency, a willingness to acknowledge uncertainty, and an awareness of how politics and partisanship can shape a person’s beliefs.
Morris’ views seem particularly timely given the contentious atmosphere surrounding Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s nomination to become the next head of the Department of Health and Human Services. “My primary concern is that the HHS director, whoever it is, follows the principles of
evidence-based science,” Morris said. “To me that means using all of the best available evidence from the existing studies and data to guide practice and recommendations.”
Morris recently published a commentary in the American Journal of Epidemiology that summarizes the evidence about the effectiveness of Covid-19 mRNA vaccines over time and that discusses some of the fallacies that have proliferated online. He is currently the director of the Division of Biostatistics at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine.
Our interview was conducted over Zoom and has been edited for length and clarity.
Undark: You’re a biostatistician, which is not a job one usually associates with politics. Yet you’ve suggested it’s important for people who
- Discuss cont'd on page 6
Jeffrey S. Morris, PhD University of Pennsylvania - Director, Biostatistics
work in public health to be thoughtful about politics and political polarization when communicating about vaccines. Can you elaborate?
Jeffrey Morris: People’s political views have a major impact on what information is presented to them and how they frame that information. Because of this, when it comes to scientific communication of public health messages, politics must be taken into account. There’s a few principles that I think we need to keep in mind.
First, we should all self-scout and be mindful of our own political beliefs and views that could bias how we view and interpret the emerging data, and for scientists to be disciplined to try to remove that bias and to see the data as objectively as possible.
Second, I think scientists, especially those involved in scientific communication, should be very careful not to overtly identify themselves with one political side or the other. In my opinion, it would be best if those individuals keep their political views private, but it’s critical to at least avoid blatant partisan comments, and especially to not attack individuals they perceive to be on the other political side. Especially in matters of public health, it’s crucial to effectively engage the entire society, as we can’t afford to alienate half the population by being perceived as partisan.
Third, I think we need to understand and account for the political diversity of our society in our scientific communication and our public health messaging. During the pandemic, I frequently witnessed people being silenced for asking legitimate questions about matters such as varying Covid risks across different groups, the potential collateral effects of mitigation policies, the immunity from previous infections, and vaccine safety often because their inquiries were linked to specific political or policy perspectives.
I think we would be in a stronger position regarding public trust if policy makers, the media, and the scientific community had done a better job of listening to those questions, responding objectively with evidence-based answers, openly acknowledging the uncertainties in our knowledge, and the potential limitations of the policies, and most importantly, showing respect for those asking the questions.
The impatient and aggressive responses to these questions only deepened polarization and division, driving people into the arms of those spreading false information, thereby legitimizing and empowering them.
UD: A clear majority of Americans, 69 percent, say that it’s extremely or very important for children to be vaccinated. But this number has fallen by 25 percentage points since 2001. What do you think is driving the decline?
JM: It’s difficult to know for certain, but there’s a number of likely factors that I think are important here. First of all, the past 25 years have been characterized by the emergence and organization of anti-vaccine activism, partially fueled by the later retracted Wakefield paper. [That paper, which claimed to show a link between vaccines and autism, was found to be incorrect and fraudulent. Subsequent studies have found no such link.]
Looking at the report you cited, it’s interesting that 15 of the 25-point decline has occurred just since the beginning of the pandemic. It’s clear that pandemic-associated factors have accelerated this decline. So if we think about the factors: the rapid development, approval, and deployment of Covid vaccines raised significant concerns to many, as did the fact that some of these vaccines utilize cutting-edge technologies that had not previously been publicly
- Discuss cont'd on page 7
disseminated. I think that’s one factor.
But I also believe that the widespread mandates for these vaccines strongly contributed to this backlash. Had they been voluntary, individuals with serious concerns could have simply chosen to decline them. However, the sense of being coerced into taking the vaccines heightened fear and anxiety, fostering an environment that allowed vaccine skepticism to grow. These factors also heightened the visibility and influence of vaccine skeptics, including not only those who raise legitimate questions and concerns, but also those spreading false claims and exaggerating the vaccines’ harms.
I also believe the false claims about Covid vaccines, which continue to circulate and thrive on social media, have contributed to a decline of trust in vaccines. This opposition now seems to have expanded more broadly to include all vaccines.
It’s also worth noting that the survey you cited also highlights an escalating political divide on this issue, further reinforcing the concerns I raised earlier about political influence and selective information.
UD: Can you tell me about the work that you’re doing with the Annenberg Public Policy Center?
JM: I’m working with them to help prepare materials to educate the public about the vaccine safety monitoring systems used in the USA, including passive reporting systems like VAERS to identify potential safety signals, as well as active reporting systems looking at medical records and claims data to test and validate them. There’s been a great deal of misunderstanding of these systems and their nuances, much of it related to statistical aspects of how to properly interpret the data from the various systems.
We’re also working to study the effectiveness of
these messages using randomized designs within the Annenberg Science and Public Health Knowledge survey, or ASAPH. This study uses a diverse cohort of individuals from across the political spectrum to assess beliefs and understanding and then utilizes randomization to assess the effectiveness of particular scientific communication strategies.
Just trying to rigorously evaluate scientific communication itself — using randomized studies and careful cohort designs is, to me, very interesting and promising.
UD: I think you had spoken to me once before about how there’s a tendency, sometimes, to simplify messaging around vaccines so that it’s understood by everyone, but that there may be a desire for more sophisticated levels of information.
JM: Yes, actually, I think part of what has contributed to some of the confusion and maybe even loss of trust among the public has been oversimplification of messaging, either by media or by scientific communicators. Sometimes that’s done to try to promote practices and recommendations that they determine to be good for the public health.
They want to keep the message simple because they think that has the best chance of being understood. But I think that this can kind of backfire.
Much of the public in the U.S. is quite sophisticated and educated. If they feel like they’re being talked down to, or talked to like children and especially if nuances that are easily found online are ignored and withheld from the public, the way parents might withhold more difficult-to-explain information from a child this contributes to the erosion of trust.
- Discuss cont'd on page 8
In controversial issues, in newly emerging issues, where there’s considerable uncertainty where there’s real risks, where there’s real concerns transparency is critical to show the public that nothing is being hidden. Everything is being looked at.
I understand the concern that once you acknowledge a risk, it’s akin to leaving a door cracked, and some people will come and try and kick that door open. For example, if there’s a new vaccine that has a rare but serious risk in some subgroup. This becomes known to scientists and published but some people are hesitant to talk too much about it because some will exaggerate that risk and try and use that to disproportionately criticize the vaccines. But coming back to that main point, I think it’s critical for scientific communication to be done as transparently and as completely as possible.
UD: Prominent public health officials have expressed concern about Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s nomination for head of Health and Human Services, particularly with regard to his views on vaccines. Do you share these concerns?
JM: I would be concerned if there was any move to discontinue any of the current childhood vaccines, or to discourage parents from vaccinating their children, either directly or indirectly, since this could invite dangerous childhood diseases that have been previously eradicated and controlled to return.
I support any efforts to promote rigorous studies to answer important unanswered questions. But
it’s also important that all existing scientific knowledge be taken into account, and in particular, that all the available literature needs to be considered when identifying the research gaps that need to be addressed and prioritized, or any policies and recommendations that they think need to be revisited.
UD: Is there anything else that you’d like to add?
JM: I think if you have people that are both wellintentioned making good faith arguments about what they really believe, and they respect each other, and they’re curious to understand the other perspective, I think it’s possible for any two people to talk about any issue, no matter how controversial.
I think people can even talk about politics and religion in this manner, if they’re disciplined to have respect for the other person, to be curious about what they believe, and to not just try and attack them and tell them they’re wrong, but understand what they believe and learn from them. Then it’s fair enough for you to say, “I agree with this part, but this is the part I disagree with.”
If we talk that way to each other if we dealt that way with the uncertainty of accruing scientific knowledge I think we would all discover the truth together, and we would be unified in it. But that process and discourse, especially in modern society, is more and more rare to see. ■
For more content like this, please visit UnDark at: https://undark.org/latest-from-undark/#
From Our Archives
A look back at the early days of COVID-19
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.
Amidst Uncertainty, Epidemiology Modellers Make The Case For Social Distancing Measures
Most Drastic Strategy Seen As The Only Option
Effectiveness Still In Doubt
Author: Roger Bernier, PhD, MPH
Developments in the current COVID-19 pandemic are happening rapidly as case counts are doubling every several days and policy interventions are being modified to keep pace with new information about how this virus behaves or is likely to behave.
Modelling
A modelling study which reportedly had significant influence on decision making about social distancing measures in Great Britain and the United States was released on March 16 by a COVID-19 Response Team at the Imperial College in London. Entitled “Impact of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand”, the paper characterizes the public health threat as “the most serious seen in a respiratory virus since the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic.” It was authored by Neil Ferguson and 29 coauthors from the various centers and institutes at the Imperial College.
Unmitigated Pandemic Impact
Without putting into place effective control measures, the pandemic is predicted to cause 2.2 million deaths in the US, peaking this coming summer, and about a quarter of that number (510,000 deaths) in Great Britain, peaking a bit earlier. Of special concern is that this number of cases creates a demand for critical care beds that exceeds 30 times the current maximum bed capacity in both countries.
Mitigation Vs Suppression
With control measures possible, the report makes a distinction between mitigation and suppression strategies. Mitigation seeks to slow but not stop virus spread in an effort to buy time for the healthcare system to care for patients. Suppression seeks to reverse the increasing number of cases and to keep case numbers low.
- Pandemic cont'd on page 9
Perhaps the most significant finding in the report, according to the authors, is that mitigation strategies still result in a need for hospital beds that is 8 times greater than the existing surge capacity. More alarming, mitigation alone still allows for 250,000 deaths in the UK and 1.1-1.2 million in the US. “We therefore conclude that epidemic suppression is the only viable strategy at the current time,” says the report, for countries that can achieve it.
Can it be done?
The feasibility of such an all-out suppression strategy is very much in question, not only because of its inherent challenges but because it must be implemented for a long period of time until a vaccine becomes available. Otherwise, removing the austere measures would be likely to produce a rebound in transmission. But even if it succeeds, suppression may not completely protect the most vulnerable and deaths could still be high, according to the report.
The authors admit making their recommendation without consideration of ethical, indirect adverse health, and economic consequences that might be entailed by a suppression strategy. Saving lives from coronavirus death is prioritized above all else.
Proposed Interventions
Since the feasibility of effectively implementing suppression strategies remains an open question, it is important to consider what interventions are involved in a suppression strategy. According to Ferguson and colleagues, suppression requires 1) long term sustained social distancing of the entire population,
2) home isolation of cases and household quarantine of their family members, and possibly 3) school and university closures. Under their model, long term sustained social distancing means that all households reduce contact outside the household, school, or workplace by 75%. In this scenario, household contact rates are assumed to increase by 25%.
Conclusion
The authors conclude that it will be necessary for jurisdictions to layer multiple interventions and that “The choice of interventions ultimately depends on the relative feasibility of their implementation and their likely effectiveness in different social contexts.”
Somber Note
The report ends on a somber note: “…it is not at all certain that suppression will succeed long term; no public health intervention with such disruptive effects on society has been previously attempted for such a long duration of time. How populations and societies will respond remains unclear.” ■
Epidemiologists In The News
The Public Now Knows What Epidemiologists Do
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented attention to epidemiologists and their work. All of a sudden the world knows who epidemiologists are and what they do. Whether on television, newspapers, or social media, epidemiologists are being interviewed constantly to get their opinions about various characteristics of the SARS CoV-2 virus causing the pandemic and potential control measures. Old acquaintances that have fallen out of touch are reconnecting with their epidemiologist
friends or former neighbors to “get their take” on the pandemic. One benefit of all this attention No more guesses about epidemiologists being skin doctors.
The Epidemiology Monitor has collected a sample of these news items involving epidemiologists to give readers a sample of the more visible public role being played by epidemiologists everywhere.
Interviewed in the New Yorker: Justin Lessler, associate professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Topics covered are the ways in which our understanding of the pandemic has improved, what we can learn from different governments’ responses, and why older adults seem to be more at risk of serious illness. “I would definitely say that what China has been able to accomplish has been quite impressive,” said Lessler. LINK: http://bit.ly/2J1wXco
Point-Counterpoint: John Ioannidis Stanford professor of epidemiology and statistics and Marc Lipsitch Harvard professor of epidemiology recently showcased different perspectives on the COVID-19 epidemic in opinion pieces published in STAT.
Ioannidis’ article was entitled “A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data”. He raised concerns about decision making without good information. Lipsitch quickly contributed an opinion article whose title encapsulates his view, namely “We know enough now to act decisively against COVID-19. Social distancing is a good place to start.”
Quoted in PC Gamer: Eric Lofgren (Washington State University) and Nina Fefferman (University of Tennessee, Knoxville) on the lessons learned from the “Corrupted Blood” outbreak in the game World of Warcraft. Both epidemiologists have written a paper on this topic published in Lancet Infectious Diseases in 2007 and are now working on coronavirus. "For me, it was a good illustration of how important it is to understand people's behaviors," Lofgren says. "When people react to public health emergencies, how those reactions really shape the course of things. We often view epidemics as these things that sort of happen to people. There's a virus and it's doing things. But really it's a virus that's spreading between people, and how people interact and behave and comply with authority figures, or don't, those are all very important things. And also that these things are very chaotic. You can't really predict 'oh yeah, everyone will quarantine. It'll be fine.' No, they won't."
Fefferman’s perspective from her earlier work is "It led me to think really deeply about how people perceive threats and how differences in that perception can change how they behave," she writes. "A lot of my work since then has been in trying to build models of the social construction of risk perception and I don't think I would have come to that as easily if I hadn't spent time thinking about the discussions WoW players had in real time about Corrupted Blood and how to act in the game based on the understanding they built from those discussions." LINK: http://bit.ly/2Uoeqfp
Interviewed: Nigel Paneth, Michigan State University epidemiologist, in East Lansing Info, a non-profit citizen-run local news cooperative, about coronavirus. Asked if current responses to the pandemic are hysteria and overreaction, Paneth said the risk of COVID-19 cannot be overblown, stating that he had never seen such a public health threat in his life. He urged more social distancing and added that proactive communities can implement interventions that will spare them the worst outcomes of this pandemic. In this sense, local communities are in control of their level of success. LINK: http://bit.ly/2U2c3A4
Eric Lofgren
Nina Fefferman
Nigel Paneth
5 Years of Pandemic Memories
. For an interactive online version go to: https://tinyurl.com/mvr3bxk8 - Crossword Questions
Looks like a crown
Time of difficulty or danger
Vaccine manufacturer
. Recently retired NIH head
Transfer blood to another person
. Worldwide disease spread
. First infected
Abnormally high body temp
____ school 27 Automotive clutch manufacturing lines were repurposed to build these
. Likely to spread to others 31. Most Americans did this during COVID
These happened daily
Resistant to infection
Rules or principles
Disturbing experience
_____ protein
Extra inoculation
Middle East Respiratory Syndrome
City in China
Incorrect information
Suspension spread through air
This was rationed in homes and by stores
State of confusion
2 Mask
3. 6 feet
4. At risk of death
5. Pass on
6. Dispense
8. Uncontrollable fear
9. Spreading disease another person
10. Large gatherings
11. Keep something under control
12. Exposure to danger
14. Free from dirt or stains
15 Line on a graph
19. Sign of disease
23. Found on the grocery store floors
28. Separate
29. Likely to spread rapidly
31. 5 letter NYT word game invented as a COVID distraction
32. ____ immunity
35. New vaccine type
36. Early tests used these
37. Existing alone
38 Contained group of people
40. Clean something to destroy bacteria
43. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
45. Retired NIAID head
46. Vaccine ________
47. ________ checks
54. Masks, gowns & gloves
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
♦ Trump's science cuts have thrown the research world into chaos (Bloomberg via AppleNews)
https://tinyurl.com/p65hz5ud
♦ Johns Hopkins Slashes More Than 2,000 Jobs Due to USAID Cuts (WSJ via AppleNews)
♦ ‘Deadly consequences’: Health agencies reel from thousands of job cuts while critical research grants remain on hold (CNN)
https://tinyurl.com/yw2tkw4c
♦ US stops sharing flu data with WHO amidst one of its worst flu seasons (New Scientistt via AppleNews)
https://tinyurl.com/yt783mtm
♦ CDC Director nomination withdrawn (Fox5 Atlanta)
https://tinyurl.com/ycs6epz5
♦ Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo and former Texas Congressman Michael Burgess floated for CDC director
https://tinyurl.com/2y4t38rn
Public Health Topics
♦ 5 years since the pandemic started, long COVID patients are still hoping for a cure (NPR) https://tinyurl.com/yzjjxcn8
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 15
Public Health Topics,
cont.
♦ Am I Protected Against Measles? It Might Depend On When You Were Born (Slate)
https://tinyurl.com/576r5ffd
♦ The virus that could start the next pandemic is already here (New York Magazine)
https://tinyurl.com/5f5a7e6p
♦ A small study of COVID vaccine aftereffects triggers a political and scientific storm (LA Times via AppleNews)
https://tinyurl.com/5ckra4m8
♦ During the last major measles outbreaks in the U.S., it took extraordinary measures to stop the spread (CNN)
https://tinyurl.com/2vz8nefd
♦ There is no imminent infectious disease crisis at the border (STAT via AppleNews)
https://tinyurl.com/yc2dxy85
♦ As childhood vaccination rates slide in Canada, health-care providers look for new ways to fight skepticism (Globe and Mail via AppleNews)
https://tinyurl.com/z4jknfjd
♦ US reports first outbreak of deadly H7N9 bird flu since 2017 (Reuters via AppleNews) https://tinyurl.com/2ytk4c8d
♦ New strain of bird flu wipes out Mississippi poultry farm; human flu may offer immunity (LA Times via AppleNews)
https://tinyurl.com/u6feduh2
♦ 5 years since the pandemic started, long COVID patients are still hoping for a cure (NPR) https://tinyurl.com/yzjjxcn8
♦ How vulnerable might humans be to bird flu? Scientists see hope in existing immunity (NPR)
https://tinyurl.com/26en285k
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
Apppointed: LSU has appointed Dr. Don Mercante as the new Program Director for the Biostatistics and Data Science Program. Currently, he is a Professor of Biostatistics at the LSU School of Public Health, where he has been a cornerstone of the faculty. His academic involvement includes his roles as a conjoint Professor in the Department of Genetics, School of Medicine, and the School of Nursing, as well as an Adjunct Professor of Experimental Statistics at LSU Baton Rouge. He also leads the Biostatistics and Epidemiology Key Component at LSUHSC.
Appointed: Washington University St. Louis has announced Jing Wang, PhD, professor of biostatistics, has been appointed the director of the Biostatistics Consulting Service at the Institute for Informatics, Data Science, and Biostatistics (I²DB). As director, Dr. Wang will lead the Biostatistics Consulting Service, which provides biostatistical consultation across a wide range of areas. These include the statistical design of experiments and clinical trials, protocol development, database management, data analysis, and interpretation of results.
Named: The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) has named Gonzalo Bearman, MD, MPH, chair of the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, the inaugural editor-in-chief of its new journal, Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology (ASHE). ASHE will be the companion journal to SHEA’s Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology (ICHE), published in partnership with Cambridge University Press
Named: The new administration has selected Gerald Parker, a veterinarian and former top-ranking federal health official, to head the White House's pandemic office, two U.S. officials tell CBS News. Congress created the White House Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy after the COVID19 pandemic. Parker was previously the associate dean for Global One Health at Texas A&M University. He was also recently head of the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity under the Biden administration.
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
Named: Karen Edwards, a genetic epidemiologist, has been appointed the chair of the Department of Epidemiology at the University of Washington School of Public Health (UW SPH). Edwards received her Ph.D. from the UW Department of Epidemiology and was on the UW SPH faculty for 15 years. During her time at the UW, she was promoted to full professor and served as director of the Institute for Public Health Genetics. For the last decade, Edwards has been a tenured full professor in the Department of Epidemiology at University of California, Irvine (UCI), where she held several leadership roles.
Awarded: Dr. Yize Zhao, PhD, associate professor in the Department of Biostatistics at the Yale School of Public Health (YSPH),has received the IMS Thelma and Marvin Zelen Emerging Women Leaders in Data Science Award for her fundamental contributions to analytical methods and applications in medical imaging, neuroscience, psychiatry, and mental health. The award is given out annually by the Institute of Mathematical Statistics to three women data scientists who are within 10 years of having completed their PhD.
Appointed: Nova Scotia Health has announce that Dr. Mark Asbridge has been appointed Head of the Department of Community Health and Epidemiology. This appointment is for a five-year term. Dr. Asbridge is a Professor in the Department of Community Health and Epidemiology and the Department of Emergency Medicine, Dalhousie University. Prior to joining Dalhousie, he completed his Ph.D. at the University of Toronto, where he was a recipient of the H. David Archibald Fellowship in Addiction Studies, and a postdoctoral fellowship at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto.
Retired: Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, announced in a statement his retirement as Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). A physician-geneticist, Dr. Collins took office as the 16th NIH Director on August 17, 2009, after being appointed by President Obama and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. In 2017, he was asked to continue in his role by President Trump, and in 2021, by President Biden. Prior to becoming NIH Director, Dr. Collins served as the Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute from 1993 to 2008, where he led the international Human Genome Project, which culminated in April 2003 with the completion of a finished sequence of the human DNA instruction book.
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
Appointed: Donald Warne, MD, MPH was appointed to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Foundation board of directors in January. Warne is the co-director of Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Indigenous Health and a professor at the university’s Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Appointed: Colorado School of Public Health has announced Dr. Elizabeth Brickley will become the new head of the Center for Global Health, effective July 1, 2025. Brickley is currently a Professor in the Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology & International Health at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). She leads LSHTM’s Health Equity Action Lab, a diverse interdisciplinary team committed to conducting policy-relevant, community-engaged research to improve health equity worldwide.
Withdrawn: The White House has withdrawn the nomination of Dr. David Weldon, a former Florida congressman, to serve as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), according to the Associated Press. The decision came just before a scheduled Senate confirmation hearing, following concerns over his stance on vaccines and a lack of support in the Senate.
Appointed: The Ohio State University has selected Paula H. Song as its next College of Public Health dean, effective July 9, pending Board of Trustees approval. Since 2020, Song has served as the Richard M. Bracken Chair of the Department of Health Administration at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), where she is also a professor. While at VCU, she served as interim dean of the College of Health Professions from 2023-24. Previously, she served as the director of residential master’s programs in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where she was an associate professor.
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.
April 3-4
Type: Conference
Title: Cancer Retreat 2025
April 2025
Web: https://tinyurl.com/2jd9m8
Sponsor: Erasmus MC Cancer Institute Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
April 5
Type: Meeting
Title: 11th Annual NYC Epidemiology Forum
Sponsor: Multiple Location: New York, NY
April 6-8
Type: Conference
Web: https://tinyurl.com/5n7pebnh
Web: https://tinyurl.com/3vhfx9nz
Title: Annual Conference - American Society of Preventive Oncology
Sponsor: ASPO Location: Philadelphia, PA
April 7-9
Type: Conference
Web: https://tinyurl.com/56fc85hu
Title: RISE Conference on Social Determinants of Health
Sponsor: RISE Health Location: Louisville, KY
April 9-11
Type: Conference
Title: Genomics of Rare Disease
Web: https://tinyurl.com/ytdbndtw
Sponsor: Wellcome Connecting Science Location: Hinxton, England
April 10-13
Type: Conference
Web: https://tinyurl.com/2wrxk9fr
Title: 2025 Annual Conference - Population Association of America
Sponsor: PAA Location: Washington, DC
April 11-15
Type: Conference
Title: ESCMID Global 2025
Sponsor: ESCMID Location: Vienna, Austria
April 14-16
Type: Short Course
Title: Cardiovascular Epidemiology
Web: https://tinyurl.com/y2e6s2ad
Web: http://tinyurl.com/msdrnpt2
Sponsor: Erasmus MC Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
April 16-18
Title: SOPHE 2025
Type: Conference
Web: https://tinyurl.com/kkusp9c4
Sponsor: Society for Health Education Location: Long Beach, CA
Sponsor: Oregon Health Authority Location: Sunriver, OR
April 25-30
Type: Conference
Web: https://tinyurl.com/bdfcwy8m
Title: 2025 Annual Meeting - American Association for Cancer Research
Sponsor: AACR Location: Chicago, IL
April 27-30
Type: Conference Web: https://bit.ly/3BHaIUI
Title: SHEA (Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America) Spring 2025
Sponsor: SHEA Location: Championsgate, FL
Apr 28 – May 2
Type: Short Course
Title: Infectious Diseases in Adults
Sponsor: Harvard University Location: Virtual
Apr 28 – May 2
Type: Short Course
Web: https://tinyurl.com/yp9j9ade
Web: http://tinyurl.com/3y8ejd74
Title: Designing and Conducting Pragmatic Randomised Controlled Trials
Sponsor: University of Bristol Location: Virtual
Apr 29 – May 1
Type: Conference Web: https://bit.ly/3WuSZrQ
Title: Public Health 2025
Sponsor: Canadian Public Health Association Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Type: Conference Web: https://bit.ly/3oLZ2Kz
Apr 29 – May 2
Title: NACCHO Preparedness Summit 2025
Sponsor: Multiple Location: San Antonio, TX
Apr 30 – May 2
Type: Meeting
Title: 2025 Public Health Partnership Conference
Web: https://tinyurl.com/bhzrp9t7
Sponsor: NY State Public Health Associates Location: Ithaca, NY
Apr 30 – May 2
Type: Conference
Web: https://tinyurl.com/2cbk7y2r
Title: 95th Georgia Public Health Association Annual Conference
Sponsor: GPHA Location: Jekyll Island, GA
Apr 30 – May 2
Type: Conference
Web: https://tinyurl.com/4829ws8e
Title: 5th IMA and OR Society Conference on Mathematics of Operational Research
Sponsor: Institute of Mathematics & Its Applications Location: Birmingham, England
April TBD Type: Conference
Web: https://tinyurl.com/6ka7wvuj
Title: Joint Meeting ADAM / European Dermato-Epi Network
Sponsor: European Dermato-Epidemiology Network (EDEN) Location:
April TBD Type: Conference
Title: Annual Mid-Year ISPE Conference
Sponsor: ISPE Location:
Web: https://tinyurl.com/bdzmtjmb
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.
May – June TBD Type: Summer Program Web: http://bit.ly/38mW6tl
Title: 101st Annual Education Conference
Sponsor: Summer Institutes in Global Health Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada & Virtual
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.
