AJPH EDITOR’S CHOICE
On Being a Former Student
Editor in the Midst of a Pandemic
T
he unfolding of the coronavirus pandemic is a pivotal moment, one that
will shape us individually and collectively for
years to come. Experiencing these events as
an early career public health professional has
brought to mind lessons I have learned about
the value of public health evidence. Having
reliable information in this time is critical,
particularly as we are called to do our part in
curbing the spread of the virus through social
distancing. As a public health professional, I
support my personal network of family and
friends by sharing meaningful evidence. I
share information to stay connected and
highlight how public health works and what
we know about this novel virus, and I offer
a perspective on what the mitigation efforts
we are living through mean for our health.
Within my state, this includes watching a
daily press conference hosted by the governor
of Ohio, reading updates from my colleagues
in epidemiology, and searching emerging research for information about the virus.
Lessons in how to evaluate evidence were
among the most important that I learned
through my doctoral studies. Experience in
how to do so was bolstered by my role as the
first student editor of AJPH. By working with
editor-in-chief Alfredo Morabia, MD, PhD, and
the entire editorial team of the Journal, I learned
the value of strong public health evidence and
how to identify it. I developed these skills by
working with associate editors as they made
decisions about which articles to feature and
about finding leading public health professionals
to provide editorials. Through these activities, I
strengthened my ability to think critically about
evidence, observed firsthand how evidence is
vetted, and participated directly in the important
work of the Journal. I also acquired insight into
how important the dissemination of research is.
Sharing evidence and results with the broader
community is an essential piece of the research
process. Through my experience as student editor, I acquired a deep appreciation for this process
August 2020, Vol 110, No. 8
AJPH
that I now apply to my own work as a postdoctoral researcher. This has become particularly
relevant in these times, as wide dissemination of
evidence about coronavirus is informing the
actions taken at all levels of the public health
system.
When I view these experiences in light
of the current pandemic, it is clear that the
work of public health is continual and that
new evidence emerges about this novel
coronavirus every day. It is essential to determine what is factual and accurate and to
promote information that helps others take
needed and appropriate action. News reports
have applauded the efforts of Ohio’s Governor DeWine and health director Amy Acton,
MD, MPH, for their work in implementing
evidence-based social-distancing measures
early, while working to educate the public on
how to “flatten the curve.”
Social-distancing measures have been in
place in Ohio since early March, beginning
with the closure of the 2020 Arnold Classic,
a fitness expo in Columbus, Ohio, that
brings together athletes from more than 80
countries and 60 000 spectators. With the
closure of Ohio’s universities shortly thereafter, I found myself undertaking completely
virtual work. No one has been left untouched
by these widespread mitigation efforts, and
while we all adjust to this “new normal,” it is
important not to lose sight of the facts and
evidence that inform these policies. Each day, I
am reminded about the power of information
and evidence, and I actively promote its importance. Public health professionals are
working tirelessly across the globe to develop
and share the necessary evidence that will help
us, as a global society, emerge from this pandemic safely.
Diana M. Kingsbury, PhD
Kent State University, College of Public Health,
Kent, OH
65
Years Ago
Pandemic Influenza
Cases clinically characteristic of those
occurring in pandemics have been
confirmed as influenza by viral isolations
and antibody responses. . . . Mutants or new
subtypes, whether arising spontaneously or
induced in the laboratory, have common
properties by which they can be typed and
related to older or original strains. . . . It
therefore seems reasonable to assume . . .
that a “pandemic” may be produced by one
or more strains of the influenza viruses that
for unknown reasons acquire unusual
virulence or biologic properties. . . . The
probability and time of occurrence of
another pandemic of influenza cannot
now be predicted, nor can the efficacy of
any measure—including vaccine—for
prevention or control be estimated.
From AJPH, September 1955, p. 1165
95
Years Ago
How the Influenza Problem
Looked in 1925
[The Influenza Pandemic of 1918 was]
incomparably the worst catastrophe of the
sort that has visited the human race since
the Black Death of the Middle Ages. In
modern times the ravages of neither the
Asiatic cholera nor the bubonic plague can
vie with those of influenza. . . . Judging
by the past, nothing is more certain than
that we shall some day have another
visitation of this destructive infection. It is a
commonplace that if it were to descend
upon us tomorrow we, as public health
workers and students of disease, should be
little if at all better equipped to deal with it
than we were 7 years ago.
From AJPH, November 1925, p. 943
doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305737
Kingsbury
Editor's Choice
◢
1109
