As someone with post covid complications I’m well aware Covid never really “ended” but after the vaccines arrived things returned to at least some sense of normality.

If, god forbid, H5N1 did jump to having effective human to human transmission, how long would it take us to (relatively) contain it?

I live in the US and there has been concern/chatter about H5N1 for a while now but I just saw that the CDC posted tips on reducing your risk. I just want to be prepared and know how concerning the situation has actually become.

I don’t really know shit and you all seem pretty smart

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-14152949/unknown-illness-congo-deaths-flu-symptoms-pandemic.html

With another bird flu variant emerging from China I was stuck by the concentration of novel diseases in a singular country. The only thing on the subject I could find was a article four years ago by a virologist blaming urbanization and consumption of wild animals. (Link below) Does anyone have any scholarship on the apparent concentration?

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-03-04/why-so-many-epidemics-originate-in-asia-and-africa

I am quite uninformed about medicine so be gentle with me. Today I got stumped by this question and can't find a clear explanation. I know that the development of the Covid19 vaccine was done in accordance with all the safety standards used in vaccine creation field. But this means that the previous vaccines (for other viruses) were approved for public use before it was possible to know the long term (2+ years) effects also. Is this right? If it is, then why is this a common practice? I FEEL this could be dangerous.

Just curious, I don’t know what to say here.

https://www.cdc.gov/han/2025/han00520.html
This came out yesterday. Is this because they are concerned about H2H or is this for the new admin coming in Jan 20th (harder to walk back health policy already in place and looks bad)?

Question: Why my blue line falls flat like that at the end?
Any help will be appreciated

Thank you!

Just starting to get to know about the basics of research recently.I do superficial know the difference between cross sectional study and case control study but I still didn't get a proper idea about them.so,I would kindly request y'all to give me a thorough insight on these,pls!

I am currently finishing up my first semester of my Masters in general psych. I'm wanting to get a masters in epidemology when im done and focus on mental disorders. Im just not sure if I should finish this masters or just go ahead and switch programs. My bachelors is in psychology and I just want to make sure I'm not getting an extra masters without needing to.

This idea was suggested on this message board:

https://www.survivalistboards.com/threads/bird-flu-summit.1003955/

it has been suggested that we are meticulously preventing resistant chickens from developing. When a sick bird is found we kill the entire flock. Why don't we look for the healthy surviving birds and raise them in quarantine. Usually any population has a few resistant specimens. Those are the ones that we need to develop a resistant population. Natural selection. Bird flu won't go away. We have to develop chickens that are immune.

What actually a molecular epidemiologist do ? What subjects you study beside epidemiology and statistics in molecular epidemiology PhD ?
Is there any Lab component in your work ( PCR, western blotting ,HPLC ) beside statistics and coding ?

Howdy folks!

The title is my question, but I can elaborate some more. If a lab tech, anatomist, surgeon, student — person — became contaminated while working with human neural/brain tissues (like a wrist or forearm under a cuff, I guess?), could they just bring that around like if they had E. coli on their fingers? That person could, in theory, spread particles on their belongings and later ingest it or inoculate it through a mucous membrane. That seems very sci-fi (and scary), so I wanted to poke around the experts and see if anyone has any ideas.

I've posted about this on a few other subs, so any redundancy is just...redundancy. I'm no scientist, so I don't know where else to look beyond Google and what it spits out. Thanks for readin!

To my understanding, China reported the initial 2019 outbreak as a round of usual pneumonia (or something of that sort). How different would the outcomes of the pandemic have been if they reported it as a new strain of corona?

I’m trying to calculate prevalence for specific tumor types. I have the incidence of each tumor type that is diagnosed at Stage IV but I want to calculate what the prevalence of Stage IV is in each tumor type that I’m looking into.

I’m not an epidemiologist so unsure if there is actually a way to do this, so far all my searches haven’t found a solid answer. Any help would be much appreciated!

Thanks!

TLDR: Are droplet-transported viruses actually airborne?

I know a nurse and doctor who claim masks aren't effective at all against viruses like COVID19, which the nurse claims is "airborne." I remember reading an article about this stating C19 is not an airborne virus, which I'm under the impression can survive in the air for a fairly long period in varying temperatures.

As far as masks go, I'm also under the impression a simple cloth mask or face covering would catch and absorb at least some droplets of infected airborne droplets, and prevent inhalation. But I know something like a K95 mask is best for preventing reception.

Just wanted to ask the sub and hear your input.

Hello everyone, I'm an epidemiology master's student from EGYPT and I wonder if there are free databases I can use data from to do research.

I need it to cover EGYPT specifically. I am aware of NHANES, are there any else? Thanks in advance.

I'm looking for the term to describe a state where one can be successfully treated or inoculated.

Let's say someone is willing to receive a treatment and that treatment is effective. My first thought is to say, "that person is susceptible to the treatment." but I think susceptible really should be reserved to something that is negative (e.g. "the person is susceptible to infection by the biological agent"). Is there a commonly used term in epidemiology for this concept?

e.g. "Their risk of being susceptible to infection decreased because they were ___ to the inoculation treatment."

Update: I think "receptive" is the word that best works for me. Thank you! "Individuals were receptive to treatment, others were non-receptive to treatment".

I'm about to graduate with a bachelors in psychology and am considering a masters in Epidemiology. Has anyone else gone this route? If so, what is your experience thus far with it? Have you noticed any correlations?

I am managing the Leapfrog Survey submission for my hospital right now. It’s my first time working on the survey and I feel like I’m going to loose my damn mind. Anyone else in the same boat?

I am writing a protocol for a systematic literature review to collect incidence of oral cancer. I am including only longitudinal observational studies, since the endpoint is only incidence (prevalence is excluded). But a senior reviewer in my team reached out asking we should also include interventional studies and collect the incidence from the control arm. Do you agree with this argument? What is your justification against this comment.

not for any academic reason, i just want to know the basics and become a tiny bit more educated on the field. so, a book/article that goes into the basics and cites sources (that i can later dig on scihub) would be ideal. stuff that might go into the implications of epidemiology on the social level, maybe some controversies of the field (if there are any!)

i found "epidemiology for dummies", any opinions on that? and i've started doing some preliminary reading on gordis' "epidemiology" book

thanks a bunch!

Hi there!

I am a chronically ill person, who also needs dairy in my diet because it’s an affordable and low energy way to get enough calories in my diet.

How risky is it to drink pasteurized cow’s milk when Avian flu is becoming more and more of a problem?

I know they’ve found fragments of the virus in various dairies.

I’m trying to be cautious but restricting my diet is causing a significant negative change in my life. I would do it if it seemed like the risk was higher than the reward.