成都脉管畸形如何治疗的(成都哪里有治下肢动脉硬化) (今日更新中)

The US Secret Service is investigating the vandalism of a sign at the Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Florida.The West Palm Beach Sheriff's Office told the White House press pool that the Secret Service is looking into red paint that was splattered on the sign outside of the entrance of the club. Crews were spotted cleaning the sign early Sunday morning.A spokesman for the Secret Service said they are "aware of the incident."West Palm Beach is a frequent getaway for President Donald Trump and his family. He was spotted at the golf club this weekend while in town residing at his nearby property, Mar-a-Lago over the Easter holiday. 693

The Trump administration is working Thursday to kill a bipartisan deal on immigration that could be the best chance to get a bill through the Senate.The White House is "actively considering issuing a veto threat" against the bipartisan immigration bill Thursday morning, a senior administration official said. .@PressSec: White House officially “strongly opposes” Rounds-Collins DACA/immigration proposal pic.twitter.com/cupcJydbtt— Phil Mattingly (@Phil_Mattingly) February 15, 2018 501

The top U.S. public health agency stirred confusion by posting — and then taking down — an apparent change in its position on how easily the coronavirus can spread from person to person through the air.But officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say their position has not really changed and that the post last week on the agency’s website was an error that has been taken down.It was “an honest mistake” that happened when a draft update was posted before going through a full editing and approval process, said Dr. Jay Butler, the CDC’s deputy director for infectious diseases.The post suggested that the agency believes the virus can hang in the air and spread over an extended distance. But the agency continues to believe larger and heavier droplets that come from coughing or sneezing are the primary means of transmission, Butler said.Most CDC guidance about social distancing is built around that idea, saying that about 6 feet is a safe buffer between people who are not wearing masks.In interviews, CDC officials have acknowledged growing evidence that the virus can sometimes be transmitted on even smaller, aerosolized particles or droplets that spread over a wider area. Certain case clusters have been tied to events in which the virus appeared to have spread through the air in, for example, a choir practice. But such incidents did not appear to be common.Public health experts urge people to wear masks, which can stop or reduce contact with both larger droplets and aerosolized particles.But for months, agency officials said little about aerosolized particles. So when the CDC quietly posted an update Friday that discussed the particles in more detail, the agency’s position appeared to have changed. The post said the virus can remain suspended in the air and drift more than 6 feet. It also emphasized the importance of indoor ventilation and seemed to describe the coronavirus as the kind of germ that can spread widely through the air.The post caused widespread discussion in public health circles because of its implications. It could mean, for example, that hospitals might have to place infected people in rooms that are specially designed to prevent air from flowing to other parts of the hospital.But the CDC is not advising any changes in how far people stay away from each other, how they are housed at hospitals or other measures, Butler said.The CDC has come under attack for past revisions of guidance during the pandemic, some of which were driven by political pressure by the Trump administration.Butler said there was no external political pressure behind the change in this instance. “This was an internal issue,. And we’re working hard to address it and make sure it doesn’t happen again,” he said.In a statement released Monday, the CDC said the revisions to the “How COVID-19 Spreads” page happened “without appropriate in-house technical review.”“We are reviewing our process and tightening criteria for review of all guidance and updates before they are posted to the CDC website,” the statement said.At least one expert said the episode could further chip away at public confidence in the CDC.“The consistent inconsistency in this administration’s guidance on COVID-19 has severely compromised the nation’s trust in our public health agencies,” said Dr. Howard Koh, a Harvard University public health professor who was a high-ranking official in the Department of Health and Human Services during the Obama administration.“To rectify the latest challenge, the CDC must acknowledge that growing scientific evidence indicates the importance of airborne transmission through aerosols, making mask wearing even more critical as we head into the difficult fall and winter season,” Koh said in a statement.___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. 3964

The U.S. continues to lead the world in deaths linked to COVID-19 with more than 222,000 — and some experts believe that figure is much higher. But according to a new study, at least 130,000 of those deaths could have been avoided.According to a study by the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University, the U.S. could have avoided between 130,000 and 210,000 COVID-19 deaths had the country adopted mitigation policies similar to those used by other "high-income nations."It's clear that the U.S. has disproportionately felt the affects of the pandemic — though it has just 4% of the world's population, it accounts for 20% of COVID-19 cases worldwide. The U.S. death toll stands in stark contrast to countries with similar resources, like South Korea, Japan, Australia, Germany, Canada, and France.To calculate the U.S.'s "avoidable deaths," the study applied the death rates of those countries to the U.S.'s population. Researchers then subtracted that figure from the U.S.'s current death count.By that calculation, researchers concluded that 130,000 lives could have been saved had the U.S. adopted policies similar to that of Canada's, and that as many as 215,000 lives could have been saved had the country adopted policies similar to South Korea.In explaining why U.S. deaths are disproportionately high, the Columbia researchers cited four key mistakes:Insufficient testing capacity: Researchers cited issues the U.S. had early on in the pandemic in developing and acquiring tests, while countries like South Korea were prepared almost immediately to test for the virus on a widespread scale.Delayed response: A previous Columbia University study determined that instituting national social distancing measures just one or two weeks earlier would have saved 36,000 of lives.Lack of a national mask mandate: Top health officials recommended against masks early on in the pandemic, fearing that doing so would lead to a shortage. Even today, masks have become politicized in some circles despite evidence showing that wearing one reduces the spread of droplets that can carry the virus.Failure from federal leadership: The Columbia study cited the Trump administration's "hostility to much of the critical guidance and recommendations put forth by its own health agencies," specifically citing the president's attempts to "downplay" the virus.Read more about the Columbia University study here. 2430

The risk of homelessness looms large for many across the country as people deal with job loss and economic uncertainty brought on by the coronavirus pandemic.The National Alliance to End Homelessness estimates, right now, there are 567,000 people who call the streets their home, a number that has only risen since March.There are shelters, soup kitchens, and myriad charities to help, but the group Foundations for Social Change, a charitable organization based in Vancouver, Canada, suggests one source of help trumps the rest: money.“Sometimes a little bit of a hand up can mean all the difference in whether or not someone is going to stabilize and get into housing or not,” said chief public policy officer for the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless Cathy Alderman.It might seem like an obvious solution, but it is challenged by the preconceived notion that people battling homelessness might squander the money or spend it on harmful habits like alcohol, drugs, or cigarettes.“I think it’s not surprising at all that people who are struggling with the cost of living and forced to sleep outside would use dollars given to them to get inside into a home,” said Alderman.In September, Foundations for Social Change wrapped up nearly two years of research that suggests those in less fortunate circumstances would use money to help secure food and housing, rather than illicit substances.Back in 2018, the group gave 50 people battling homelessness in Vancouver a lump sum of ,700, without restriction, to see what they would spend it on, and they compared the findings to a group of 60 homeless individuals who were not given any lump sum.Foundations for Social Change found that in the first month, the group that received the payment, 70 percent of them were able to access a sustainable food source that they maintained for the rest of the year. They also found stable housing at a rate that outpaced those who had not received the payments by 12 months.The researchers also found that spending on items like drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes decreased by 39 percent.“The key findings were phenomenal and were even well beyond my expectations,” said one of the head researchers, Dr. Jiaying Zhao. “This actually is counter to our common assumptions of how these folks will spend their money and cash, so that was very good to see.”“I would save a third, spend a third on things I know I needed, and then give a third away,” said Benjamin Dunning, who was homeless for nearly five years following the Great Recession in 2008. “There just wasn’t any work available and I was like, 'well, better dig in for the long haul.'"Dunning says following an injury that prevented him from working he was no longer able to afford rent in the Denver suburb where he lived. He says he moved from shelter to shelter, trying to weather the storm before he was able to find a community of other people in a similar situation that offered a little more stability and a consistent roof over his head.“One thing I found out is [the homeless people I was around] were just like my neighbors in the suburbs,” said Dunning. “Most of them were people who had gotten stuck on hard times and trying to figure out how to deal with it.”The study by Foundations for Social Change focused on people who had been homeless for a year or less and who had been screened for a low risk of mental health challenges and substance abuse. So, Dr. Zhao says this is not a silver bullet, but an encouraging sign to help solve an issue that has several layers of complexity. 3546

来源：资阳报