菏泽那家癫痫病医院好聊城看癫痫的医院哪儿有,滨州治疗医院癫痫专病排名前十,枣庄癫痫怎么治效果好,泰安小儿颠痫病可以治愈吗,烟台治疗羊癫疯那家医院好啊,青岛治疗羊羔疯病花多少钱,山东省正规医院治疗羊羔疯多少钱

When Villanova won its 2016 national championship, the Wildcats needed a bucket at the buzzer to secure the victory. On Monday, no such shot was needed. Villanova gained the lead in the first half of Monday's national title game against Michigan and never looked back, as the Wildcats representing a relatively small private Philadelphia university defeated the flagship state university of Michigan by a 79-62 margin. The win marked Villanova's second title in three seasons under coach Jay Wright. No team has won two titles in three seasons since Florida won back to back titles in 2006 and 2007 under Billy Donovan. Despite other heavy favorites getting tripped up throughout March Madness, Villanova was barely tested in the 2018 NCAA Tournament. Villa nova won all six of its tournament games by double figures. Michigan, on the other hand, did not have to face a top-five seeded team until Villanova in the NCAA Tournament. Michigan came into Monday's game with a 14-game winning streak.That did not mean Michigan wasn't tested. The Wolverines eked out two wins by less than four points in this year's tournament. Michigan trailed by double figures in Saturday's game against Loyola-Chicago in the Final Four, before pulling ahead to win by double figures.Donte DiVincenzo, who did not play in the 2016 national title game for Villanova, led the way on Monday by scoring 31 points for Villanova. DiVincenzo's 3 with 6:08 left in the first half gave Villanova a 23-21 lead. Villanova would not relinquish the advantage for the remaining 26:08 of the game. Villanova led 37-28 at halftime, after Michigan trailed by just two with 3:34 left in the half. Within two minutes of the second half, Villanova opened a 14-point lead, causing Michigan to call a timeout. The timeout failed to stop the bleeding, as Villanova out-hustled Michigan for loose balls and rebounds.  1935

Who gets to be first in line for a COVID-19 vaccine? U.S. health authorities hope by late next month to have some draft guidance on how to ration initial doses, but it’s a vexing decision.“Not everybody’s going to like the answer,” Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, recently told one of the advisory groups the government asked to help decide. “There will be many people who feel that they should have been at the top of the list.”Traditionally, first in line for a scarce vaccine are health workers and the people most vulnerable to the targeted infection.But Collins tossed new ideas into the mix: Consider geography and give priority to people where an outbreak is hitting hardest.And don’t forget volunteers in the final stage of vaccine testing who get dummy shots, the comparison group needed to tell if the real shots truly work.“We owe them ... some special priority,” Collins said.Huge studies this summer aim to prove which of several experimental COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective. Moderna Inc. and Pfizer Inc. began tests last week that eventually will include 30,000 volunteers each; in the next few months, equally large calls for volunteers will go out to test shots made by AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson and Novavax. And some vaccines made in China are in smaller late-stage studies in other countries.For all the promises of the U.S. stockpiling millions of doses, the hard truth: Even if a vaccine is declared safe and effective by year’s end, there won’t be enough for everyone who wants it right away -- especially as most potential vaccines require two doses.It’s a global dilemma. The World Health Organization is grappling with the same who-goes-first question as it tries to ensure vaccines are fairly distributed to poor countries -- decisions made even harder as wealthy nations corner the market for the first doses.In the U.S., the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a group established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is supposed to recommend who to vaccinate and when -- advice that the government almost always follows.But a COVID-19 vaccine decision is so tricky that this time around, ethicists and vaccine experts from the National Academy of Medicine, chartered by Congress to advise the government, are being asked to weigh in, too.Setting priorities will require “creative, moral common sense,” said Bill Foege, who devised the vaccination strategy that led to global eradication of smallpox. Foege is co-leading the academy’s deliberations, calling it “both this opportunity and this burden.”With vaccine misinformation abounding and fears that politics might intrude, CDC Director Robert Redfield said the public must see vaccine allocation as “equitable, fair and transparent.”How to decide? The CDC’s opening suggestion: First vaccinate 12 million of the most critical health, national security and other essential workers. Next would be 110 million people at high risk from the coronavirus -- those over 65 who live in long-term care facilities, or those of any age who are in poor health -- or who also are deemed essential workers. The general population would come later.CDC’s vaccine advisers wanted to know who’s really essential. “I wouldn’t consider myself a critical health care worker,” admitted Dr. Peter Szilagyi, a pediatrician at the University of California, Los Angeles.Indeed, the risks for health workers today are far different than in the pandemic’s early days. Now, health workers in COVID-19 treatment units often are the best protected; others may be more at risk, committee members noted.Beyond the health and security fields, does “essential” mean poultry plant workers or schoolteachers? And what if the vaccine doesn’t work as well among vulnerable populations as among younger, healthier people? It’s a real worry, given that older people’s immune systems don’t rev up as well to flu vaccine.With Black, Latino and Native American populations disproportionately hit by the coronavirus, failing to address that diversity means “whatever comes out of our group will be looked at very suspiciously,” said ACIP chairman Dr. Jose Romero, Arkansas’ interim health secretary.Consider the urban poor who live in crowded conditions, have less access to health care and can’t work from home like more privileged Americans, added Dr. Sharon Frey of St. Louis University.And it may be worth vaccinating entire families rather than trying to single out just one high-risk person in a household, said Dr. Henry Bernstein of Northwell Health.Whoever gets to go first, a mass vaccination campaign while people are supposed to be keeping their distance is a tall order. During the 2009 swine flu pandemic, families waited in long lines in parking lots and at health departments when their turn came up, crowding that authorities know they must avoid this time around.Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration’s effort to speed vaccine manufacturing and distribution, is working out how to rapidly transport the right number of doses to wherever vaccinations are set to occur.Drive-through vaccinations, pop-up clinics and other innovative ideas are all on the table, said CDC’s Dr. Nancy Messonnier.As soon as a vaccine is declared effective, “we want to be able the next day, frankly, to start these programs,” Messonnier said. “It’s a long road.”___The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content. 5581

William "Bill" Barr, a former attorney general under President George H.W. Bush, is emerging as a consensus candidate to succeed Jeff Sessions as attorney general, two sources familiar with President Donald Trump's thinking tell CNN.A third source familiar with the process said if Trump offered the position to Barr, he would be willing to accept.Trump's consideration of a new attorney general comes during a critical time for special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, of which the next Justice Department chief will inherit oversight. Barr, 68, has previously offered mixed opinions about the investigation, having praised Mueller but also publicly criticizing political donations made by several members of his team.The Washington Post first reported that Barr is the leading candidate. Sources cautioned to CNN, however, that Trump makes the final decision.Barr served as Mueller's boss when he was attorney general in the early 1990s and Mueller led the criminal division at the Justice Department.The former attorney general hasn't shied away from weighing in on Mueller's investigation. He expressed confidence in Mueller early on and suggested the investigation wouldn't devolve into a "witch hunt," but he also has shared some disappointment when asked by The Washington Post last year about the donations that some of Mueller's team members made to Democrats."In my view, prosecutors who make political contributions are identifying fairly strongly with a political party ... I would have liked to see him have more balance on this group," he said in July 2017.Barr also defended Trump's decision to fire former FBI Director James Comey, who was criticized for flouting Justice Department protocols when he announced in July 2016 that he wouldn't recommend charges against Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified info during her time as secretary of state."I think it is quite understandable that the administration would not want an FBI director who did not recognize established limits on his powers," Barr wrote in a Washington Post op-ed in May 2017. "It is telling that none of the president's critics are challenging the decision on the merits."The prospect of Barr taking over the Justice Department was well-received by some leading members of Congress in both parties Thursday.Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, a Texas Republican who sits on the Judiciary Committee, called Barr an "interesting pick.""I think getting the next nominee confirmed is going to be a little bit of a challenge," he said. "(Barr) may be the kind of person who would be easier to confirm."Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said she was unfamiliar with Barr's views but encouraged by a suggestion that he was an "establishment" Republican."I would hope (Trump) would pick someone who would be by the book and not by the politics," Feinstein said.CNN reported late last month that Barr was among several potential candidates to succeed Sessions.At the time, CNN reported that Trump was considering tapping the assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Antitrust Division, Makan Delrahim, to succeed acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker. At the time, White House officials said Trump was in no rush to nominate a permanent successor to Sessions, whom he fired November 7. Instead, Trump was telling confidantes he was happy to leave Whitaker in place while he mulled his choices.Other names that have been floated as possible replacements for Sessions include Rep. John Ratcliffe of Texas, a former federal prosecutor, as well John Michael Luttig, a former US Court of Appeals judge, Justice Department official and current general counsel at Boeing. One former White House official said late last month that Luttig was a strong possibility, though he had not met with the President. A second source close to Luttig told CNN he was considered for the role of FBI director after Comey was fired in spring 2017.The-CNN-Wire 3983

While thousands gathered in Bridgestone Arena in Nashville, Grammy Award winner, Sturgill Simpson played his own street-side concert.Simpson won a Grammy for Best Country Album earlier this year, but has never been nominated for a CMA Award. He's made jabs at the Country Music Association in the past.He played for a small crowd at the entrance of the arena and streamed it live to his Facebook page.Sturgill answered questions from viewers and played a few songs. He said he was only recognized once while wading through the crowds of downtown Nashville. 584

With five months to go until the November election, a unique group of voters could play a pivotal rule in deciding the next president: felons. THE ISSUEA Florida judge recently ruled felons, who have left prison, should not be required to pay fines before they are allowed to vote. Last year, Florida's governor signed a law making it a requirement to vote again. The judge referred to it as a “pay-to-vote system."Florida's governor is appealing the ruling. The issue of what voting rights felons have varies across the country and depends on where the felon resides. Some states, like Maine, allow felons to vote while incarcerated. In the majority of states, felons are automatically allowed to vote after they leave prison. In Iowa, felons aren't allowed to vote at all. Meanwhile in Virginia, their constitution bans felons from voting, but the governor has been using his authority to allow nonviolent felons to vote if they fill out a form.IMPACT ON ELECTIONIt's estimated there are around 1 million potential Florida voters impacted by the legal ruling. Given Florida's swing state status, that is a lot of new voters potentially up for grabs. Florida has 29 electoral college votes. President Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton by just 112,000 votes in 2016. While the ruling is being appealed, it's unclear if it will be taken up by the Supreme Court before November's election. "I think there is certainly a movement to give people second chances, to let them rejoin the electorate," Julie Ebenstein, an ACLU lawyer who helped argue the case, said. Ebenstein believes this could impact other states in encouraging legal challenges. While Democratic leaders, for the most part, have taken steps to allow more felons to vote in recent years, it is unclear if it helps their party when it comes to elections. A Vox study found felons participate in elections at low rates and traditionally do not favor one party or another in large numbers. FELONS REACT"It's about 50-50 down the line inside," said Barbara Barrick, a Virginia felon, about the political affiliation of those who have served time. Barrick is following the Florida case because she believes felons should be treated equally regardless of the state in which they live. Barrick received her voting rights back in 2018 after the governor of Virginia issued a special order. "When I voted for the first time last November, I felt so real. I put my little sticker on. I was prancing around. I actually cried," Barrick said. 2501