沈阳看鹅掌风的费用是多少沈阳肤康皮肤病医院治皮肤科收费贵不,沈阳治风疹团较好的医院是哪家,沈阳市如何去除红色痘印,沈阳怎样治疗脸上起痤疮,沈阳肤康皮肤病医院治疗皮肤科怎样好不好,沈阳治疗掉头发哪家医院比较好,沈阳那些医院有皮肤科医院

After the rapid roll out in the U.K. of Pfizer and BioNtech’s COVID-19 vaccine, Britain’s Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency is warning people who have severe allergies, like those who have to carry around an adrenaline shot, to refrain from getting the vaccine for now.“Two individuals seemed to have a severe allergic reaction,” Dr. William Moss said.Dr. Moss is the executive director of International Vaccine Access Center at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. He says we need to better understand what those two people had an allergic reaction to.“This isn’t kind of completely out of the blue," Dr. Moss said. "These kinds of things are rare events, but they sometimes occur, and it’s usually to some kind of component or chemical in the vaccine that the individual’s immune system is responding to in a very abnormal way, creating this very intense allergic reaction.”Even though it’s rare, Dr. Moss says it’s important to provide clarity on issues like this so people can trust the information they’re getting is reliable and true. Otherwise, there’s room for misinformation to spread. Many myths have already been circulating online about the vaccine.Myths include things like Dr. Anthony Fauci will personally profit from a COVID-19 vaccine, or government food stamps will be denied to those who refuse COVID-19 vaccines, or the mRNA vaccines being developed for COVID-19 will alter human DNA.“The MRNA vaccine, that doesn’t change our DNA in any way," Dr. Moss said. "These are not genetically altering vaccines. That Messenger RNA stays in the cytoplasm. It’s basically just a code for our bodies to make the spike protein of the SARS coronavirus-2 and then induce our immune response.”One internet resource that can help you discern which sources offer actual facts is NewsGuard. The company has a team of journalists who review and rank the credibility of sources to help people know whether or not they can trust the information is true.NewsGuard Health Editor John Gregory says each myth has a tiny grain of truth that is taken out of context and exaggerated. For example, another popular myth is that the COVID-19 vaccine will use microchip surveillance technology created by Bill Gates-funded research.“Bill Gates did fund research into what is not a microchip, but what was supposed to be a detectable tattoo that would help track vaccines in the third world where there’s not robust medical records so you could just scan something, and a doctor would be able to tell ‘ok this child got this vaccine,’" Gregory said. "It’s not a tracking device because you can’t track it unless you’re in direct contact with the person, and it also had nothing to do with the pandemic.”Dr. Moss says the microchip myth sounds like a sci-fi movie."These are vaccines," Dr. Moss said. "These are biological products that are designed to produce an immune response against the SARS-Coronavirus-2 so that individuals who are exposed to the virus either don’t get infected – that would be ideal – or at least are protected from developing severe disease, hospitalization and death.”Living in a society where we’re constantly bombarded with new information right at our fingertips, how are we supposed to know who we can trust?“The best thing people can do is know more about the sources of information that they are absorbing about the vaccine," Gegory said. "What their history and what their agenda may be when it comes to previous disease outbreaks and previous vaccines.”Dr. Moss says even though it’s been done in a quick manner, it’s critical people understand these vaccines have gone through a rigorous scientific process to be approved.“Vaccines are going to be key, a key tool in our toolbox to getting out of this pandemic.” 3771

After November 30, we will unblock the middle seat on our flights. This decision was not made lightly, and we'd like to share how we arrived at it. (1/8)— Southwest Airlines (@SouthwestAir) October 22, 2020 214

According to President Donald Trump, the tragic Texas church shooting that left 26 people dead was "a mental health problem at the highest level."If you ask mental health researchers, such mass shootings are much more complicated than that.On Sunday, 26-year-old Devin Kelley sprayed bullets across the sanctuary of First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, about 30 miles east of San Antonio. The youngest killed at the church was 17 months old; the oldest was 77 years old."We have a lot of mental health problems in our country, as do other countries, but this isn't a guns situation," Trump said during a joint news conference Monday in Tokyo."This is a mental health problem at the highest level," he said. "It's a very, very sad event."Trump's response to the Texas church shooting echoed previous comments he has made on gun violence. In 2015, Trump said he was opposed to tightening gun laws in the United States but was in favor of addressing mental health to prevent shootings.Yet various epidemiological studies over the past two decades show that the vast majority of people with severe mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or severe depression, are no more likely to be violent than anyone else.Rather, people with severe mental illnesses are more than 10 times more likely to be victims of violent crime than the general population. And, only about 3% to 5% of violent acts can be attributed to individuals living with a serious mental illness, according to the US Department of Health and Human Services.But those statistics have "almost nothing to do with mass casualty shootings," said Jeffrey Swanson, a professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University who specializes in gun violence and mental illness.So exactly how are mental health and gun violence intertwined, and what is needed to end the violence?Gun violence and mental illness are public health problems "that intersect at the edges" but have very little overlap, Swanson told CNN last year.There's no doubt that America's systems of care for mental health are overburdened, expensive and inaccessible for many who need them, he said. But when it comes to gun violence among this community, suicide tends to occur at higher rates than homicides, he said."If we back up and think about firearm-related injuries and mortality as a public health problem, it turns out there is a mental health-related story, and it's suicide," he said. "If we had better mental health care and could get people better access and break down barriers to care, then yes, we might reduce gun violence by a lot but it would be from reducing suicides."Otherwise, mental illness is just one "highly unspecific" factor that may contribute to gun violence, along with being young, white and male, or a history of violence, Swanson said.Instead of policies that restrict gun access based solely on mental illness diagnoses or because a person has made contact with the judicial system or health care agencies due to mental illness, the American Psychological Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness and other advocacy groups have called for gun access criteria based on more subtle indicators of potentially dangerous behavior.Those indicators -- such as having past or pending violent misdemeanor convictions or charges, domestic violence restraining orders or multiple DUI convictions -- have been largely informed by the work of Swanson and others.Swanson supports intervention at the point of purchase through comprehensive background checks -- but to make background checks work, criteria for inclusion on the database should be based on other indicators of risk besides mental health history, such as those indicators of aggressive, impulsive or risky behavior."A history of violent behavior is a far better predictor of future violence than mental illness," he said.Calling gun violence a mental health issue is to scapegoat and stigmatize people with mental illness, he said."It's kind of a canard, a convenient explanation that exploits the tremendous fear people have with these horrifying mass shootings," he said. "If people fear those with mental illness they're going to treat them with scorn and support public policies that restrict their liberties."After all, mental illness affects millions of adults across the country.In 2015, there were an estimated 43.4 million adults in the United States with some form of mental illness within the past year, which represented 17.9% of adults nationwide, according to the National Institute of Mental Health.The American Psychological Association recommends prohibiting firearms for high-risk groups, such as domestic violence offenders or persons convicted of violent misdemeanor crimes."Reducing the incidence of gun violence will require interventions through multiple systems, including legal, public health, public safety, community, and health. Increasing the availability of data and funding will help inform and evaluate policies designed to reduce gun violence," according to the association's website.Swanson and his colleagues examined the proportion of people in the United States with impulsive angry behavior who own or carry guns and have a diagnosable mental illness in a paper published in the journal Behavioral Sciences & the Law in 2015.They conducted household surveys with 9,282 people from February 2001 to April 2003, excluding people who carried guns for work, resulting in a response rate of 70.9%.An analysis of the survey results estimated that nearly one in 10 adults has access to firearms and has a problem with anger and impulsive aggressive behavior.These people were more likely to be male, younger and married and to live in outlying areas around metropolitan centers rather than in central cities, Swanson and his colleagues wrote in their paper.They were significantly more likely to meet diagnostic criteria for a wide range of mental disorders, including depression, bipolar and anxiety disorders, PTSD, intermittent explosive disorder, pathological gambling, eating disorder, alcohol and illicit drug use disorders, and a range of personality disorders.What's more, despite evidence of "considerable psychopathology" in many of these respondents, only a very small proportion, 8% to 10%, were ever hospitalized for a mental health problem."Because only a small proportion of persons with this risky combination have ever been involuntarily hospitalized for a mental health problem, most will not be subject to existing mental health-related legal restrictions on firearms resulting from a history of involuntary commitment," Swanson and his colleagues wrote in the paper's abstract.As for Texas gunman Kelley, the state denied him a license to carry a gun, Gov. Greg Abbott said, citing the director of Texas' Department of Public Safety."So how was it that he was able to get a gun? By all the facts that we seem to know, he was not supposed to have access to a gun," Abbott told CNN's Chris Cuomo. "So how did this happen?"On Monday, Trump said his "thoughts and prayers" were with the victims and their families but did not suggest plans to take any legislative or other policy action to address the shooting. 7228

A week ago, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said on behalf of the Trump administration that talks of direct payments to Americans were dead as part of another round of economic stimulus.But now, it appears, there is some backtracking as Congress and the White House work to come to some agreement over the details of another round of stimulus.According to the Associated Press, Mnuchin has reached out to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi proposing 0 direct payments to Americans as part of the stimulus package. The amount is half of what was given to most Americans during the spring in the wake of mass economic shutdowns tied to the onset of the coronavirus pandemic.Last week, both President Donald Trump and President-elect Joe Biden offered their support of a 0 billion stimulus plan hatched between a bipartisan group of moderate senators. Trump said last week he would sign the bill if it passes through Congress. However for Americans hoping to see a second stimulus check, this bill comes short on that aspect.The bill would provide 0 in additional unemployment benefits for up to 18 weeks. The legislation also would replenish funds for the Paycheck Protection Program and for small businesses to help make payroll as a number of companies are being forced to close to help combat the spread of the coronavirus. The current proposal calls for 8 billion to go toward support for small businesses.There would also be 0 billion earmarked for state and local governments, which have seen a drop in tax revenue due to the pandemic. There is in additional billion allocated toward the transportation industry, most notably for airlines, which have seen an over 50% reduction in business since March.While Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said last week that a compromise is within reach, he said Tuesday that he opposes funds for state and local governments. He proposed Tuesday dropping funds for state and local governments in exchange for dropping litigation protection against businesses. Democrats have opposed pandemic-related litigation protection for businesses.“My view and I think it’s the view shared by literally everybody on both sides of the aisle, we can’t leave without doing a COVID bill,” McConnell said earlier in the day. “The country needs it. We have an agreement that we need to do this. You’ve been following the discussions back and forth about how to put the package together, it remains my view that we ought to pass what we can agree on and I think that’s a pretty broad area that includes PPP, vaccine delivery, additional assistance to healthcare providers and a variety of other things that are not controversial.Following Pelosi’s conversation with Mnuchin, she and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a joint statement expressing concern that Trump’s proposal would disrupt the progress made in reaching a compromise.“While it is progress that Leader McConnell has signed off on a 6 billion offer that is based off of the bipartisan framework, the President’s proposal must not be allowed to obstruct the bipartisan Congressional talks that are underway,” the two Democratic leaders said in a statement. “Members of the House and Senate have been engaged in good-faith negotiations and continue to make progress. The bipartisan talks are the best hope for a bipartisan solution.“The President’s proposal starts by cutting the unemployment insurance proposal being discussed by bipartisan Members of the House and Senate from 0 billion to billion. That is unacceptable.”As Trump has pushed for direct payments while Schumer and Pelosi offer their skepticism of Trump's proposal, the idea of direct payments has earned more public support from Congressional Democrats than Republicans. It seems as of now winning over McConnell and Senate Republicans with another round of stimulus checks might be more of a challenge for the Trump administration than winning over House Democrats. 3963

A woman in Texas was sentenced Wednesday to a five-year prison term for voting illegally in the 2016 presidential election while on supervised release for a tax fraud conviction.When she voted in the 2016 election, Crystal Mason had already served almost three years in prison for her fraud conviction but had not yet completed her sentence and was still serving a three-year supervised release period, according to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.Convicted felons lose their voting rights in Texas until they complete their full sentences, including parole and probation.Mason reportedly told the court, however, that she was not aware of that prohibition and had not been informed that she was ineligible to vote until her sentence was complete."She voted in good faith," Mason's defense attorney J. Warren St. John said in an interview. "I don't think she should be going to prison for that." Her attorney has already filed an appeal. "I think Texas law is extreme in terms of sentencing people to prison for voting violations," he said.Mason signed an affidavit in order to cast a provisional ballot, which stated that it is a violation of the law to vote if you are a convicted felon, but Mason did not see that part of the ballot, St. John said."Ms. Mason was never asked if she was a convicted felon by the election judge nor did she indicate that she was a convicted felon," her attorney said. "Ms. Mason voted in good faith that she could legally vote because she was never notified by any government agency that it was against the law to vote."Prosecutors argued that Mason either intended to vote illegally or should have been aware that she was not eligible to vote, according to The Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Matt Smid, a prosecutor with the Tarrant County District Attorney's Office, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.The Star-Telegram reported at the time of her indictment that Mason believed she was being targeted for her vote -- which she said she cast for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.During the 2016 campaign, Donald Trump regularly said that the election was "rigged" against him, and after he won the presidential election, he claimed without evidence that massive voter fraud had cost him the popular vote. 2260