南昌综合穿刺虚拟训练平台系统鞍山高级难产示教训练模型,天津咀嚼肌模型,贵阳四部触诊、肛查、阴道检查训练模型,湖北脑水平切模型5片,一体化关节镜训练模拟器厂家直销,山东简易型全身心肺复苏训练模拟人,天水颅顶层次解剖模型

The pandemic has added extra stress to our lives, but that's not stopping some of us from getting more sleep.New research from the University of Colorado Boulder and the University of Washington looked at how stay-at-home orders and social distancing guidelines have impacted college students' sleeping habits.They found that on average, students have been sleeping 30 minutes more per weekday and 24 minutes more per weekend day. They've also been keeping more consistent sleep schedules.This is similar to what a study of people ages 18 to 65 in Europe found during this same time.So, the big question now is whether these habits will continue now that stay at home orders are lifted.“One of the things we recognize is that when people who weren't getting enough sleep start to actually get better sleep because they can and they realize ‘wow that makes a difference in my life,’ a number of people choose behaviorally to go ahead and continue to get that better sleep,” said Ken Wright, integrative physiology professor at CU Boulder.As for the question about whether the quality of our sleep has improved, the study in Europe did look at that. It found on average, people have been seeing slight reductions in the quality of their sleep, but there are things you can do to help with this.“When they looked at the group as a whole, they found that those people who got exercise and got more sunlight during the COVID stay-at-home, they found that they actually had less reductions in their sleep quality,” said Wright.One negative result of the stay-at-home orders on our sleep in both studies – people have been going to bed later, both during the week and on weekends. Researchers say it will probably be healthier for us if we can start going to bed earlier now. 1776

The list of recalled hand sanitizers is growing. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has named dozens that contain methanol, which can cause blindness or hospitalizations if absorbed through skin.A consumer watchdog tells us these products are not FDA approved. That's because in March, the agency allowed companies that never made hand sanitizer to make it in order to meet demand. They just had to agree to follow the rules.“So, guess what happened? Some of them didn't follow the rules, either intentionally or unintentionally, and so then, they started getting reports from the poison control centers of people getting sick from methanol in hand sanitizer instead of ethanol,” said Teresa Murray with U.S. PIRG.Murray says many of the recalled products have been made in Mexico. But as part of the temporary guidelines, companies don't have to disclose where the sanitizers were manufactured. So, it's hard for consumers to tell which products might be dangerous.Murray says if you can't tell where the product was made, don't buy it and don't use it if it's already in your home. To be safe, stick with brand names you recognize for now.Murray has found most stores and online retailers have pulled products on the FDA list, but you should still be careful depending on where you shop.“I would caution anyone from buying anything that's on an end-cap clearance aisle, or anything that's from a super discount store,” said Murray. “There may be a reason why one of the mainstream retailers is no longer selling it.”Murray says it's always important to keep hand sanitizers out of reach for kids and pets, but now, even more so.If ingested, methanol can cause even more health problems.Click here to learn more from the FDA. 1738

The New York attorney general is trying to break up the National Rifle Association over allegations of mismanagement and the abuse of member money.Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor who specializes in the Second Amendment, says this is just the start. The legal battle could go for another year or two.If the NRA dissolves at that point, it would have a huge impact on American politics, but that doesn't mean the end of the gun debate.“What happens is the resources of the NRA would be distributed in a way that is designed to match the donors' intent,” said Winkler. “And that means that money would go to gun rights organizations and would go towards fighting against gun control in most, most circumstances.”Winkler says the NRA dissolving isn't the only potential outcome. The attorney general is also seeking less drastic repercussions, like removing certain in-house lawyers or board members. That includes Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president.We don't yet know exactly what evidence there is. Winkler says the AG’s case has at least one advantage, the NRA’s former public relations firm, Ackerman McQueen, is cooperating.“And so, the attorney general is going to have on her side an insider who's seen everything that's happened in the NRA for the last three decades,” said Winkler. “I think the NRA is in big trouble.”He says the lawsuit could also impact the November election by energizing pro-gun voters looking to support the NRA and the Republicans.Winkler says it's also likely to mean less NRA spending compared to 2016. 1552

The Human Rights Campaign on Sunday called for the Trump administration not to go forward with a rollback of protections for transgender people, following a report in The New York Times on a draft proposal."Setting a destructive precedent, the Trump-Pence administration intends to erase LGBTQ people from federal civil rights protections and eviscerate enforcement of non-discrimination laws," the group's president, Chad Griffin, said in a statement.HRC is among the nation's most prominent LGBTQ rights groups, and its statement Sunday called on Congress to pass legislation enshrining protections it says are at threat should the Trump administration go forward with the reported plan.The Times report said the Department of Health and Human Services is working to define sex under Title IX as solely male or female at birth, with no room for change. The proposal could formally be presented to the Justice Department by the end of the year, sources told the Times."Sex means a person's status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth," the proposal says, according to The Times. 1137

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