安康得了霉菌怎么办(安康子宫旁囊肿) (今日更新中)

The polling industry has a lot on the line heading into Tuesday's midterm election.Critics blamed pollsters when voters were caught off guard by Donald Trump's election in 2016. Old cries of "don't believe the polls" became fevered shouts. And the president has encouraged distrust by calling certain polls "fake" and claiming they are used to "suppress" the vote.Although there is no evidence to suggest that is true, there is persistent and widespread suspicion about polling, according to, you guessed it, a McClatchy-Marist poll. And it exists on both sides, albeit in different forms."I think Democrats may have felt let down by the polls but don't think it was an intentional error. I think many Republicans believe the polling errors of 2016 were intentional," GOP pollster and co-founder of Echelon Insights Kristen Soltis Anderson told CNN.So can the industry regain trust?Since 2016 there's been a whole lot of self-reflection in the polling world. Pollsters have tweaked their techniques; pundits have become more cautious when talking about polls; and news outlets have conducted some fascinating experiments.On Tuesday, all the efforts are being put to the test."Some pollsters would disagree with this, but the way that the public generally views whether or not polling is accurate is whether or not it gets the results of the election right," CNN analyst Harry Enten said on "Reliable Sources.""I'm not necessarily sure that's fair," Enten said, "but I do think that there is more pressure on pollsters this year to get it right given the president's rhetoric and given what happened in 2016."Many, though not all, 2016 polls underestimated support for Trump. This effect was particularly pronounced at the state level, where there were embarrassing "misses," showing Hillary Clinton with safe leads in states Trump actually carried.Most national polls accurately showed Clinton winning the popular vote. But reporters and commentators made lots of mistakes in their interpretations of the polls. Readers and viewers did, too. Many people discounted the margin and other factors and made faulty assumptions that Trump would lose to Clinton.There were other problems, too. Predictive features on websites gained lots of traffic before the election but caused lots of consternation afterward. HuffPost's model infamously showed Clinton with a 98 percent chance of winning. "We blew it," the site admitted afterward.But just as importantly, HuffPost's Natalie Jackson tried to explain why.Other news outlets have also tried to be more transparent and remind voters of what polls cannot convey.In special elections since 2016, Democrats have repeatedly outperformed polls of their races.The top example was the Virginia governors' race. "Ralph Northam was favored by three points. He ended up winning by nine," Enten said.But past outcomes are not an indicator of future results."I think many pollsters and forecasters have tried to be much more intentional about explaining uncertainty and being humble about what data can and can't tell us," Anderson said. "Because I think there was a big sense that in 2016, there was more certainty conveyed than may have been justified by the available data."So political pros and reporters are communicating poll results differently this time. Time magazine's Molly Ball, who has a no-predictions rule for herself, said that even people who do make predictions are adding more caveats: There's "less of the, 'Well, the needle shows this' and more of, 'Here's what it doesn't show, here's what we should always remember can happen about probabilities.'"Early voting has been explosive in the midterms, indicating above-average enthusiasm among both Democrats and Republicans. Pollsters have to make assumptions about turnout when contacting "likely voters," and this is a difficult election to forecast.The 2018 electorate is "a universe that doesn't exist yet," Democratic pollster Margie Omero said. "I mean, people don't know whether they're going to vote, some people."They may tell a pollster that they're sure to vote, but never make it to the ballot box. Or they might change who they're voting for.Conversely, certain subsets of voters may have a big impact on the final results without really showing up in the pre-election polling. If pollsters assume relatively low youth turnout, but lots of young people vote for the first time, that could cause big surprises in certain races.The vast majority of people who are called by pollsters decline to participate, so the researchers have to make a huge number of phone calls, bend over backwards to reach a representative sample of people, and weight their results accordingly.Some polls are higher quality than others. Most news outlets tend to favor live interviewers, as opposed to computerized systems, and a mix of landline and cell phone calls. But some outlets are wading into web-based polling. CNN's polling standards preclude reporting on web polls.This fall The New York Times pulled back the curtain by conducting "live polling" and publishing the results in real time, call by call. Working with Siena College, the surveyors made 2,822,889 calls and completed 96 polls of House and Senate races."We wanted to demystify polling for people," said Nate Cohn of The Times' Upshot blog."From our point of view, it's almost a miracle how accurate polls usually are, given all the challenges," Cohn said in an interview with CNN.He emphasized that polls are "very fuzzy things." And the real-time polling showed this to the public. The researchers sought to interview about 500 people for each race that was examined.In Iowa's fourth congressional district, for example, 14,636 calls resulted in 423 interviews.The results showed the incumbent, far-right congressman Steve King, with 47% support, and his Democratic challenger J.D. Scholten with 42%.The Times characterized this as a "slight edge" for King, with lots of room for error. "The margin of sampling error on the overall lead is 10 points, roughly twice as large as the margin for a single candidate's vote share," the Times explained on its website.Cohn's final pre-election story noted that "even modest late shifts among undecided voters or a slightly unexpected turnout could significantly affect results."That's the kind of language that lots of polling experts are incorporating into their stories and live shots, especially in the wake of the 2016 election."With polling, you never actually get to the truth," Cohn said. "You inch towards it, and you think you end up within plus or minus 5 points of it at the end."As Enten put it, "polls are tools," not meant to be perfect. But that message needs to be reinforced through the news media. 6753

The National Institutes of Health is reportedly planning to conduct a clinical study to determine why people are having severe allergic reactions to Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine.According to the Washington Post, during a press briefing on Monday, Moncef Slaoui, the chief science adviser for Operation Warp Speed, said they are seeking volunteers who've had allergic reactions to the vaccine, so doctors can identify why a rare event known as anaphylaxis is happening.The NIH also plans to study the Moderna vaccine as well, Bloomberg reported.Last week, health authorities in the U.K. said they were investigating after two people had "adverse reactions" to the Pfizer vaccine on the first day of the country's mass vaccination program.In the U.S., two healthcare workers in Alaska reported having an allergic reaction, and on Friday, the FDA announced five people also had an "adverse reaction" to the vaccine. 917

The night sky will come alive this weekend when a green comet streaks by Earth on the heels of the Geminid meteor shower's display of green fireballs.Comet 46P/Wirtanen began brightening in November, but it will make its closest approach to Earth on Sunday and be visible with the naked eye. The comet will come within 7 million miles of Earth -- a proximity that won't happen again for 20 years. That's 30 times the moon's distance from us.The comet should be brightest on December 16, as bright as the star in the constellation of the Little Dipper's handle, according to NASA. But even now, it's currently the brightest comet in the night sky, and the brightest of 2018. 681

The number of people still unaccounted for after the devastating Camp Fire in Northern California has dropped to 11, the Butte County Sheriff's Office said.The latest count is down from a one-time high of more than 1,000 people.The death toll dropped from 88 to 85 after DNA testing revealed the remains of three victims were accidentally separated into different bags during the process of recovery, Butte County Sheriff and Coroner Kory Honea said Monday night.The Camp Fire burned through more than 153,000 acres in Butte County after it broke out November 8. It was contained November 25 after becoming the deadliest and most destructive wildfire in California history.The blaze decimated much of the town of Paradise and destroyed nearly 14,000 homes and more than 4,800 other buildings. 810

The growing list of sexual harassment allegations against well-known powerful men has Congress taking steps to protect against misconduct in its own offices.Both the House and Senate have now agreed to require anti-harassment training for lawmakers and staff. That’s in addition to legislation just introduced that aims to provide more protections and resources for congressional staff members who file complaints."I think we're at a tipping point culturally in this country," said Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif. "I want to make sure Congress turns over a new leaf."The new effort to combat sexual abuse on Capitol Hill responds to staffers who say Congress has long been a breeding ground for misconduct.Aides have reported being sexually harassed by at least two unnamed sitting members of Congress, according to Speier, who recently revealed she was sexually assaulted in the 1970s when she was a Capitol Hill staffer.More than 1,500 former Capitol Hill staffers signed a petition this week urging the House and Senate to update decades-old sexual harassment policies they called “inadequate and in need of reform.”Speier introduced a bill Wednesday that would dramatically overhaul procedures for how sexual harassment claims are handled at the Office of Compliance, which is responsible for carrying out the unique procedures lawmakers established in 1995 to resolve sexual misconduct claims.Unlike most workplaces, employees in Congress who file harassment claims must first go through a months-long process. It includes up to 30 days of counseling, then a month of mediation where workers discuss their complaints with their employers, sometimes the same people accused of wrongdoing. Much of the system is blanketed in secrecy, with victims signing non-disclosure agreements and no reporting of which congressional offices eventually pay out settlements.The Office of Compliance won’t even say how many sexual harassment complaints it receives. The most recent numbers from the office showed only eight claims filed relating to any workplace issue last year out of 15,000 House and Senate employees. Speier said it's a sign employees are not comfortable reporting sexual misconduct."It's really no wonder staffers don't use this system," Speier said.Her bill would shorten how long employees must wait for resolution, allowing them to waive the requirement for counseling and mediation and go straight to court or to an administrative hearing at the Office of Compliance. It also would eliminate the requirement of a non-disclosure agreement up front and identify which lawmaker offices have complaints and settlements.The legislation would set up a victims’ counsel office to represent people who file claims. Right now, lawmakers have their own in-house lawyers able to represent them with staffers left to find their own advocates.Employees who file claims also would be allowed to work remotely, if requested, during the complaint process, rather than having to work in the offices where they allege wrongdoing occurred.It also would require a report every two years looking at sexual harassment on Capitol Hill.The protections would for the first time extend to interns, fellows and congressional pages.Similar legislation is being introduced in the Senate. Republican leaders who control the fate of legislation have not yet commented on Speier’s bill.House Administration Committee Chairman Gregg Harper, R-Miss., held a hearing Tuesday on sexual harassment in Congress. He called it a first step toward making sure staffers are protected from misconduct."We're talking thousands and thousands of staffers that are impacted by this, so we're going to do whatever we've got to do to make sure this doesn't happen," Harper said.On Tuesday, House Speaker Paul Ryan announced that anti-harassment and anti-discrimination training would become mandatory for all House members and staff.The Senate passed its own bill to require similar in-person training last week. 3981

来源：资阳报