沈阳皮肤癣治疗 费用怎样有效去青春痘沈阳,沈阳扁平疣怎么治啊,沈阳脸部痘坑能修复好吗,沈阳医治脱发专科医院有吗,沈阳肤康医院治带状疱疹,沈阳痤疮很痒怎么办,沈阳治疗扁平疣比较好的医院

How accurate are the coronavirus tests used in the U.S.?Months into the outbreak, no one really knows how well many of the screening tests work, and experts at top medical centers say it is time to do the studies to find out.When the new virus began spreading, the Food and Drug Administration used its emergency powers to OK scores of quickly devised tests, based mainly on a small number of lab studies showing they could successfully detect the virus.That’s very different from the large patient studies that can take weeks or months, which experts say are needed to provide a true sense of testing accuracy.The FDA’s speedy response came after it was initially criticized for delaying the launch of new tests during a crisis and after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stumbled in getting its own test out to states.But with the U.S. outbreak nearly certain to stretch on for months or even years, some experts want the FDA to demand better evidence of the tests’ accuracy so doctors know how many infections might be missed.There have been more than 2 million confirmed coronavirus cases in the U.S. and more than 115,000 deaths, according to data compiled by Johns Hopkins University. Cases in nearly half of U.S. states are rising.In recent weeks, preliminary findings have flagged potential problems with some COVID-19 tests, including one used daily at the White House. Faulty tests could leave many thousands of Americans with the incorrect assumption that they are virus-free, contributing to new flare-ups of the disease as communities reopen.“In the beginning, the FDA was under a lot of pressure to get these tests onto the marketplace,” said Dr. Steven Woloshin of Dartmouth College, who wrote about the issue in the New England Journal of Medicine last week. “But now that there are plenty of tests out there, it’s time for them to raise the bar.”The FDA said in a statement that it has already asked multiple test makers to do follow-up accuracy studies, although it didn’t say for how many of the more than 110 authorized screening tests. The agency also said it is tracking reports of problems. Accuracy has also been an issue with blood tests that look for signs of past infections.No screening test is 100% accurate. So details on accuracy are routinely provided for tests of all types, including seasonal flu, hepatitis, HIV and cancers. For example, rapid flu tests are known to miss 20% or more of all cases, a factor doctors weigh when treating patients who have symptoms but test negative.For now, most COVID-19 tests in the U.S. don’t give data on real-world performance, including how often the tests falsely clear patients of infection or falsely detect the virus. That information is lacking for all but a few of the roughly 80 commercial screening tests available, according to an Associated Press review.The government’s emergency authorization process “requires a lower level of evidence,” the agency said. Makers need only show that a test “may be effective” instead of the usual requirement to demonstrate “safety and effectiveness.” They would have to meet that higher threshold once the U.S. government declares the emergency over.Many of the commercial test makers submitted results from 60 samples, the minimum number required and mostly used lab-produced specimens of the virus. The FDA now recommends the use of nasal swabs or other real samples from people screened for coronavirus.Experts say larger patient studies patients are needed to assess a test’s true performance.Lab testing bears little resemblance to actual — sometimes imperfect — conditions at hospitals, clinics and testing sites noted Dr. Robert Kaplan of Stanford University.“You’re testing people in parking lots, the patients themselves are extremely anxious and often unable to follow instructions,” said Kaplan, a former associate director of the National Institutes of Health.Kaplan and others say those differences could explain why some tests are not performing as expected.Last month, the FDA warned doctors of a potential accuracy problem with Abbott Laboratories’ rapid ID Now test, which delivers results in roughly 15 minutes. The test has been lauded by President Donald Trump and used to screen the president, his staff and visitors to the White House.The FDA alert followed a preliminary report by New York University that found Abbott’s test missed between a third to one-half of infections caught by a rival test in patients screened for the virus.Abbott rejected the findings, saying the researchers did not follow the instructions for using its test. The company pointed to alternate patient studies, including its own, that have found the test successfully detects between 91% and 95% or more of virus cases when compared to other tests.But similar problems with ID NOW’s accuracy have been flagged in preliminary reports by researchers at Stanford University, Loyola University and the Cleveland Clinic.For now, the FDA is requiring Abbott to conduct follow-up studies in several different patient groups.The FDA’s emergency standards “are still high but there is a significant difference in the body of work that what would go into a submission under the normal process,” said Abbott vice president John Hackett. “Our normal process takes years to bring these out.”Requiring bigger studies of all coronavirus tests could provide valuable information, but it could also strain the FDA’s already stretched staff and resources, said Dr. Daniel Schultz, former director of the FDA’s medical device center.Dr. Colin West of the Mayo Clinic worries doctors and patients have put too much confidence in the current crop of tests, when an unknown number of patients with COVID-19 are likely receiving false negative results.Even a modest error rate can have grave consequences during an outbreak like COVID-19. West gives the example of a test that is 95% accurate at detecting the virus and is used on 1 million people. That would still result in 50,000 people being incorrectly told that they don’t have the virus.“The negative test does not mean that I’m off the hook,” West said. “We just need to maintain that level of vigilance until we have a better sense of how good these tests really can be.”___Follow Matthew Perrone on Twitter: @AP_FDAwriter.___Follow AP pandemic coverage at http://apnews.com/VirusOutbreak and https://apnews.com/UnderstandingtheOutbreak.___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. 6604

In a move to advance high-quality enterprise journalism, the Scripps Howard Foundation today announced a million investment into the creation of two centers for investigative journalism.Arizona State University and the University of Maryland will each receive million over three years from the Scripps Howard Foundation to establish a Howard Center for Investigative Journalism at their institutions.The Howard Centers will be multidisciplinary, graduate-level programs focused on training the next generation of reporters through hands-on investigative journalism projects. The Howard Centers’ students will work with news organizations across the country to report stories of national or international importance to the public.The Howard Centers honor the legacy of Roy W. Howard, former chairman of the Scripps-Howard newspaper chain and a pioneering news reporter.“Roy Howard was an entrepreneur whose relentless pursuit of news took him around the world, sourcing his education directly from the lessons of the newsroom,” said Liz Carter, president and CEO of the Scripps Howard Foundation. “That same pursuit led us to establish the Howard Centers – bridging the classroom and the newsroom to ensure tomorrow’s journalists are prepared with the mastery of dogged reporting they need in a world that increasingly demands it.”Arizona State and the University of Maryland were selected as locations for the Howard Centers based on proposals submitted in a competitive process. Both universities have journalism programs that feature a rigorous curriculum and hands-on training for student journalists.“The Centers are envisioned as innovative educational programs,” said Battinto Batts, director of the journalism fund for the Scripps Howard Foundation. “Both Arizona State University and the University of Maryland are well-positioned to challenge their students to become ethical, entrepreneurial and courageous investigative journalists.”The Howard Centers will recruit graduate students and faculty of diverse academic and professional backgrounds. Students attending a Howard Center will be introduced to topics including new media, data mining and the history and ethics of investigative journalism.In addition to the emphasis on multidisciplinary studies within their own curriculum, the Howard Centers also will collaborate on investigative projects to deliver high-impact content to news consumers.“The Howard Centers will create a new cadre of great investigative journalists – steeped in the values and vision of the Scripps Howard Foundation – while generating impactful national investigations on some of the most important challenges facing our country today,” said Christopher Callahan, dean of the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, vice provost of ASU and CEO of Arizona PBS. “We are honored to be selected for this critically important initiative and to preserve and celebrate the extraordinary legacy of Roy W. Howard.”“Investigative journalists shine a light on our society’s problems and protect democracy by holding the powerful accountable,” said Lucy A. Dalglish, dean of the University of Maryland Philip Merrill College of Journalism. “The Howard Center at Merrill College will provide an unmatched opportunity for our students to learn to tell important stories in innovative ways, preparing them to become outstanding professional journalists.”The Howard Centers will launch national searches for directors this fall and will open programming to graduate-level students in 2019.About The Scripps Howard FoundationThe Scripps Howard Foundation supports philanthropic causes important to The E.W. Scripps Company (NASDAQ: SSP) and the communities it serves, with a special emphasis on excellence in journalism. At the crossroads of the classroom and the newsroom, the Foundation is a leader in supporting journalism education, scholarships, internships, minority recruitment and development, literacy and First Amendment causes. The Scripps Howard Awards stand as one of the industry’s top honors for outstanding journalism. The Foundation improves lives and helps build thriving communities. It partners with Scripps brands to create awareness of local issues and supports impactful organizations to drive solutions. 4311

How would you like to make an extra ,000 a week doing easy tasks you already know how to do? Smartphone applications are making things easy for those looking to make money at home.If you love dogs, ‘Wag’ is for you. The app is like Uber for dog walkers. Rocio Irun uses the ‘Wag’ app on her free time walking other people’s dogs.“I love dogs this app was an opportunity for me to make some extra income on the side and spend time with puppies,” Irun said.It’s easy to sign up for the app. Irun said, it’s competitive once you become a walker.“It’s hard because there are a lot of people dog walking, so you will have to compete against those other people and be really fast at accepting a dog walk," Irun said. If walking dogs isn’t your thing, there are other task apps to try. ‘Gigwalk’ will connect you with nearby businesses looking for extra help. ‘IPoll’ will pay you to take surveys. ‘Loot’ will have you taking pictures of your favorite brands and post them all over social media.Then there is ‘Task Rabbit.’ The app will allow you to sign up for a wide range of jobs like, putting together a dresser, yard work, cleaning or mounting a piece of art on a wall for someone.All of these apps notify you when a potential job opens up near by. You then select the one you want. Then, confirm the details with your client. After that, you simply show up and do the task to get paid.  1405

HOUSTON (AP) — A federal judge has rejected a last-ditch Republican effort to invalidate nearly 127,000 votes in Houston. U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen’s ruling Monday concerned ballots cast at drive-thru polling centers that were established during the pandemic. The judge's decision to hear arguments on the brink of Election Day drew concern from voting rights activists, and came after the Texas Supreme Court rejected a nearly identical challenge over the weekend.The lawsuit was brought by conservative Texas activists who have railed against expanded voting access in Harris County. Hanen said the opponents to drive-thru centers — who were represented by former Harris County GOP Chairman Jared Woodfill— had no standing to bring a lawsuit. He added that people had already voted and that conservative activists had months to bring a challenge sooner.But Hanen still expressed doubts about whether Texas law allowed anyone to vote from their car, even in a pandemic.“If I were voting tomorrow, I would not vote in a drive-thru just out of my concern as to whether that’s legal or not,” Hanen said.Another 20,000 or more voters were expected to use drive-thru polling locations Tuesday, said Harris County Clerk Chris Hollins, the county’s top elections official. Several voters who already used the drive-thru centers rushed to join mounting opposition to the lawsuit, including a Houston attorney whose wife was 35 weeks pregnant when she cast her ballot. She gave birth to twins Friday.The county is the nation’s third largest and a crucial battleground in Texas, where President Donald Trump and Republicans are bracing for the closest election in decades on Tuesday. 1689

How a man who was discharged from the US Air Force for assaulting his spouse and child was able to purchase the firearms he used to carry out the deadliest shooting rampage in Texas history is just one of many questions facing investigators as they continue to look for answers on Sunday's church massacre that left 26 people dead.The House Armed Services chair called for oversight after the Air Force did not share information that would have stopped the shooter from buying a gun.   503