Cyprus Epidemiology and Public Health Association

10/09/2026

“Some humans may be rats, but rats are not humans.”

A wonderfully sharp line from the celebrated (late) Danish epidemiologist Jørn Olsen on both the value and the limits of animal models — and the importance of studying human health in humans!

Sometimes a little humour captures an entire epidemiological philosophy.

Olsen put this principle into practice throughout his career, most notably through the landmark Danish National Birth Cohort, following around 100,000 pregnancies and their children, and through his role in developing and supporting other major pregnancy and birth cohorts internationally.

These long-term population studies have helped us understand how exposures and experiences from pregnancy and early life can shape health across the life course.

10/09/2026

Causes and prevention: lessons and reflections from Joern Olsen's career for the future of Epidemiology.

Full house at the IEA Plenary of the joint 70th Society for Social Medicine & Population Health Annual Conference and European Congress of Epidemiology!

08/09/2026

Pre-congress business meeting of the International Epidemiological Association and National Epidemiology Societies

European Congress of Epidemiology 2026 and 70th SSMPH Annual Meeting

Nicos Middleton Ourania Kolokotroni Andrie Panayiotou

08/09/2026

🥪Lunch with European Public Health Association - EUPHA hosted by Cyprus Epidemiology and Public Health Association

Lunch with EUPHA | EU Presidency – Lessons learned

📅Date: 21 October 2026 | Time: 12:00-13:00 CET

What happens when your country holds the Presidency of the Council of the EU — and what does that mean for public health?

Cyprus concluded its EU Presidency in July, and we are delighted to host the next Lunch with EUPHA, sharing some of the experiences, insights and lessons learned along the way.

🇨🇾🇪🇺 Drawing on the experience of CyEPHA members who were involved during the Presidency, we’ll reflect on what happens behind the scenes, what we learned, and how the public health community can build on that experience going forward.

Welcome! You are invited to join a meeting: Lunch with EUPHA hosted by CyEPHA: EU Presidency – lessons learned. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email about joining the meeting.

26/08/2026

Not at all surprising that the American Public Health Association honoured Dolly Parton for her contribution to public health.

And it wasn’t just about her support for COVID-19 vaccine research.

Long before that, Dolly Parton was investing in something fundamental to public health: communities and the conditions that shape people’s lives.

Born, in her own words, “dirt poor” in rural Tennessee, those circumstances did not determine where her own life would take her — but they clearly shaped her understanding of just how profoundly the social conditions into which we are born can influence the opportunities available to us and the trajectories our lives may take.

📚 Through the Imagination Library, she tackled early childhood literacy and access to books — recognising, perhaps without ever needing to call it a "social determinant of health", that opportunities early in life profoundly shape education, equity, health and well-being across the life course.

🏘️ Her wider work was similarly rooted in community building: creating opportunities, supporting families and investing in communities that might otherwise be left behind.

Because health is shaped where we are born, grow, learn, work and live — through education, income, opportunity, social support and the strength of our communities.

In public health, we talk about the social determinants of health through concepts, frameworks and diagrams. Dolly Parton’s legacy offers something much more tangible: an example of what investing in the social determinants of health can actually look like in people’s lives and communities.

And perhaps that is what makes her contribution such a powerful public health example: much of it never carried the label “public health” at all.

Sometimes the most consequential public health work doesn’t look like “health” — it looks like building stronger communities and creating opportunities for people to thrive.

Or, as Dolly Parton herself put it: “If I see somethin’ that ain’t right, I try to make it right.”

A remarkable , well beyond . 🕊️

22/08/2026

Ερώτηση: Πώς ακριβώς προκύπτει το συμπέρασμα ότι η λύση στα προβλήματα του ΓεΣΥ είναι… περισσότεροι ΟΑΥ;

Το παράδοξο είναι ότι όλα όσα αναφέρονται στην ανάρτηση είναι πράγματι υπαρκτά προβλήματα και σωστές προτεραιότητες για το ΓεΣΥ - Οργανισμός Ασφάλισης Υγείας:

➡️ «ανταγωνισμό στην ποιότητα και στην εξυπηρέτηση»
➡️ «δημοσίευση συγκριτικών αποτελεσμάτων για χρόνους αναμονής, ποιότητα υπηρεσιών, κόστος, αποτελέσματα υγείας και ικανοποίηση των ασθενών»
➡️ «ισχυρότερα κίνητρα για πρόληψη»
➡️ «καλύτερη πρωτοβάθμια φροντίδα και διαχείριση των χρονίως πασχόντων»
➡️ «μεγαλύτερο συντονισμό μεταξύ προσωπικών γιατρών, ειδικών, νοσοκομείων, εργαστηρίων και φαρμακείων»
➡️ «περισσότερη καινοτομία και τεχνολογία»
➡️ «καλύτερη διαχείριση ραντεβού και αξιοποίηση των δεδομένων προς όφελος του ασθενούς»
➡️ «ισχυρή και ανεξάρτητη κρατική εποπτεία»

Όμως, από αυτή τη διάγνωση μέχρι το συμπέρασμα ότι η θεραπεία είναι να κατακερματίσουμε τον έναν ΟΑΥ σε δύο, τρεις ή τέσσερις οργανισμούς υπάρχει ένα μεγάλο νοητικό άλμα.

Δεν εξηγείται με ποιον μηχανισμό αυτή η αλλαγή θα επιλύσει τα προβλήματα που όλοι γνωρίζουμε ότι υπάρχουν.

Άσε που υπάρχει και μια μικρή ειρωνεία στον όρο «ΓεΣΥ 2.0». Γιατί, αν πάρουμε το σημερινό σύστημα με τις ίδιες αδυναμίες και απλώς το κατακερματίσουμε σε περισσότερους οργανισμούς, μάλλον δεν θα έχουμε δημιουργήσει ΓεΣΥ 2.0. Θα έχουμε δημιουργήσει ΓεΣΥ 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 κ.ο.κ.

Δηλαδή περισσότερες εκδοχές του ίδιου συστήματος, με τα ίδια άλυτα προβλήματα — και πιθανώς με επιπλέον προβλήματα συντονισμού και κατακερματισμού.

Γιατί το βασικό πρόβλημα σήμερα δεν είναι ότι έχουμε «μόνο έναν ΟΑΥ».

Είναι η διαχρονική δυσκολία του ΟΑΥ —και θα ήταν εύλογο να αναρωτηθούμε γιατί δεν θα την αντιμετώπιζαν και οι ΟΑΥ 1.1, 1.2 και 1.3— να λειτουργήσει ως πραγματικά στρατηγικός αγοραστής υπηρεσιών υγείας: να εφαρμόσει κατευθυντήριες οδηγίες και πρωτόκολλα, να αναπτύξει μηχανισμούς ελέγχου και διασφάλισης ποιότητας, να καθορίσει ουσιαστικούς δείκτες ποιότητας και αποτελεσμάτων και να συνδέσει με αυτούς τη συμβατική σχέση και την αποζημίωση των παρόχων.

Και, κυρίως, να τους δημοσιοποιεί.

Γιατί εδώ η αρχική ανάρτηση βάζει ίσως ένα από τα σημαντικότερα ζητήματα: «δημοσίευση συγκριτικών αποτελεσμάτων για χρόνους αναμονής, ποιότητα υπηρεσιών, κόστος, αποτελέσματα υγείας και ικανοποίηση των ασθενών».

Ακριβώς. #Δημοσιοποίηση. Όχι απλώς συλλογή δεδομένων. Όχι δείκτες που παραμένουν εσωτερική πληροφορία του συστήματος. Δημόσιοι, συγκρίσιμοι και ουσιαστικοί δείκτες ποιότητας και αποτελεσμάτων ανά #πάροχο, ώστε ο πολίτης να γνωρίζει, να μπορεί πραγματικά να επιλέγει και οι ίδιοι οι πάροχοι να λογοδοτούν για την ποιότητα των υπηρεσιών τους.

Όμως, εδώ καλά-καλά δεν έχουμε καταφέρει να συμφωνήσουμε ότι αυτοί οι δείκτες πρέπει να δημοσιοποιούνται. Ακόμη και η συζήτηση του θέματος συναντά αντιστάσεις, με διάφορες προφάσεις για το γιατί «δεν μπορεί» ή «δεν πρέπει» να γίνεται.

Αν λοιπόν χρειαζόμαστε περισσότερο ανταγωνισμό, ας δημιουργήσουμε πρώτα πραγματικό ανταγωνισμό μεταξύ των παρόχων στη βάση διαφανών, δημοσιευμένων και συγκρίσιμων κριτηρίων ποιότητας. Εκεί η επιλογή του πολίτη μπορεί πράγματι να λειτουργήσει ως μοχλός βελτίωσης.

Ασφαλώς το ΓεΣΥ χρειάζεται πρόοδο και εξέλιξη (όχι απαραίτητα μετεξέλιξη). Αλλά, αυτό δεν σημαίνει ότι πρέπει να ξεκινάμε από μια οργανωτική λύση, επειδή υπάρχει κάπου αλλού, και να αναζητούμε ποια από τα δικά μας προβλήματα μπορεί να λύσει.

Ας αναρωτηθούμ: ποιά είναι τα πραγματικά προβλήματα (τα γνωρίζουμε και πάνω-κατω συμφωνούμε όλοι) και ποιοι οι πραγματικοί λόγοι που τα δημιουργούν ή/και τα συντηρούν (εδώ είναι που δεν συμφωνούμε πάντα). Μόνο έτσι οι παρεμβάσεις θα είναι στοχευμένες.

Διαφορετικά, αντί για το ΓεΣΥ 2.0 που πράγματι χρειαζόμαστε, θα καταλήξουμε με πολλά ΓεΣΥ 1.x.

Ή, κατά την παροιμία, "αντί να δείρουμε τον γάιδαρο, δέρνουμε το σαμάρι".

18/08/2026

An interesting and rather unsettling read about the return of ideas and practices that we might have assumed modern medicine and public health had left behind long ago.

👉 COVID undoubtedly contributed to the loss of in science, medicine and public health.
❓️But was COVID really the - or did it simply expose, accelerate and amplify something that was already happening?

■ It is increasingly difficult to see what is happening in in isolation from what is happening in other areas of our lives.

■ We seem to be living through a broader questioning, even active dismantling, of things that, perhaps rather complacently, we had come to regard as settled principles of modern social life.

■ And this extends far beyond evidence-based policy and practice:
○ human rights and civil liberties;
○ equity and social justice;
○ gender equality and inclusion;
○ respect for the rule of law and democratic institutions;
○ ethical reasoning and professional standards;
○ scientific expertise and academic freedom;
○ solidarity and collective responsibility;
○ the value of the common good;
○ and, importantly, an understanding that many societal problems have structural and systemic roots rather than simply reflecting individual choices, behaviours or failings.

■ And somewhere in this sits a growing culture: the idea that challenging the established position is inherently evidence of independent thought; that consensus itself should make us suspicious; that expertise is establishment; and that almost anything associated with “woke” thinking (however loosely that term is defined) is something to be reversed.

Public health certainly needs to reflect on its own role in creating the conditions for mistrust. One comment in the article is particularly important:

👉“I think being critical of people who draw the wrong conclusions is one of the major errors in public health.”

Exactly❗️❗️

The people who turn to misinformation, questionable treatments or simplistic explanations are not the cause of the problem. They are often its recipients — even its victims. Focusing criticism on them is rather like focusing on people experiencing poor health while ignoring the conditions that produce it.

That is, after all, one of the most basic principles of public health: look upstream.

□ Why are people losing trust?
□ Why are simple explanations more attractive than complicated evidence?
□ Why do alternative systems fill the gaps left by institutions?
□ Why does contrarianism resonate? And what structural, social, commercial and political forces benefit from that mistrust?

There is a revealing line elsewhere in the article:

👉 "When we don’t acknowledge structural issues, people tend to look for other systems to fill in the gaps.”

❓️Perhaps COVID was a remarkable amplifier of all this. But is COVID where the story started?❓️

Perhaps, what we are witnessing is not simply an anti-science or anti-public-health moment at all.

It is part of a much wider debate about what counts as progress and whether some of the things we thought society had learned are now being deliberately unlearned.

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/08/16/us/modern-wellness-medieval-middle-ages-cec

11/08/2026

💉🥤 If we are going to measure in soda bottles, perhaps — just for Public Health fun — we should also measure in vaccine doses.

Before, we should clarify that the claim that children have the equivalent of a soda-bottle of liquid, "with an explosive combination of vaccines", “pumped into their bodies” through vaccination is simply not true. It is false. No question about that.

But, it is a powerful image. And, a communication trick, when it comes down to it.

So, let’s reverse it. Instead of vaccines (falsely) being measured in soda bottles, let's measure soda in vaccine doses(accurately).

🥤 🥤 According to an estimate cited by the American Academy of Pediatrics, children in the United States consume more than 30 US gallons of sugary drinks, on average, every year.

(This estimate refers to American children, but let's run with it - it' d be interesting to know how this figure compares with Cypriot children)

💉 Measured in 0.5 mL typical volumes, that is roughly: 227,124 vaccine doses of soda. And that is every year. So, imagine an infinite supply of syringes filled with soda for every child, every year!

Yet, perhaps, this image (even though, it is actually based on true estimates) may not have quite the same emotional punch as imagining a bottle-sized cocktail of vaccines being “pumped” into a child. And that is the problem.

📏 Units can help us understand scale.
They can also be used to manufacture alarming images.

Paint a sufficiently alarming imaginary picture, especially one that plays to pre-existing fears and confirmation bias, and the image may stick, even when the claim behind it is simply false.

Sometimes, when extraordinary and unfortunate comparisons (soda, really!!?) become the of the day, a little arithmetic may be the most useful function of all. 😉

07/08/2026

❓️Ever heard of the Cyprus Malaria Eradication Programme?
❓️Ever heard of Mehmet Aziz?
❓️Ever wondered how malaria was actually eradicated from Cyprus?
❓️Ever wondered about the legacy of one of the most famous eradication programmes in the history of public health — a story that we, Cypriots, have barely heard of?

❓️And ever wondered how, today, we respond to new invasive species and the re-emergence of vector-borne diseases?

🎥 Tonight, The by After Malaria group is being screened as part of the International Documentary Festival

■ At its centre is Mehmet Aziz — the Cypriot public health pioneer who led the extraordinary campaign that resulted in the elimination of malaria from Cyprus.

■ A campaign that mobilised hundreds of people, reached every village and every corner of the island, and made Cyprus, the first country in the world to eliminate malaria through a systematic eradication programme.

❗️But The Flycatcher is about much more than one man. And the story of malaria eradication is about much more than mosquitoes.

It is a story about the origins of public health in Cyprus — about science and epidemiology, but also about people and communities; colonialism and political power; poverty and living conditions; labour and organisation; geography and the environment; cooperation and conflict.

It is, ultimately, a story about Cyprus and its people.

And perhaps most strikingly, it is a story that many of us have never heard. Or, if we have heard it, we may only know parts of it.

🏫 Our children may encounter the Cyprus malaria eradication programme at school.

They may learn about Sir Ross, mosquitoes and malaria as an example of ecology, science and intervention in a Geography class.

■ But how many would recognise the name of Mehmet Aziz?

■ How many learn about the hundreds of Cypriots who carried out the work?

■ How many learn about the social and political circumstances in which this extraordinary public health achievement took place?

❗️Because this could just as easily be a History lesson. Or a Biology lesson. Or Anthropology, Sociology or Political Science. And, of course, Epidemiology and Public Health.

In fact, this is a story that could follow us through the , from nursery school to university— each time revealing another layer of this extraordinary (hi)story.

🌍 And it is not only .

As climate and environmental change alter the distribution of mosquitoes and other vectors, as invasive species establish themselves in new places, and as vector-borne diseases again challenge countries across Europe and our region, the questions faced by Aziz and his contemporaries — about surveillance, prevention, environment, communities, collective action and political commitment — remain remarkably relevant.

"The Flycatcher" gives us an opportunity to rediscover a remarkable chapter of our own public health history — but also to look at the story we thought we knew from a different perspective.

🎬 Tonight at the Limassol International Documentary Festival at 18.30.

A story worth discovering.
A story worth discussing.
And a public health legacy worth remembering.