济南早谢如何治疗呢(济南主治前列腺) (今日更新中)

The conversation around wearing different protective gear is expanding. In particular, face shields.Teachers recently asked the nation’s top infectious disease expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci, about it and he said, “if you can get one, it’s not a bad idea.”Fauci went on to say that a shield shouldn't necessarily be worn in place of a mask, but more parents are considering the option for kids.“For some of the kids, a mask just isn't going to work. And in those cases, a face shield can be considered, but I think it needs to be understood that that’s not the default,” said Dr. Preeti Malani with the Infectious Diseases Society of America.Infectious disease experts say there just isn't enough data yet on how much protection a face shield provides.One study found it did significantly reduce the number of inhaled droplets, but cloth masks are also about protecting others. Shields were not as sure to do that as well.“If you're wearing a shield, the respiratory secretions that might be coming from your mouth or nose are not going to be as well contained,” said Malani.In the health care setting, face shields are used primarily to prevent splashing in the eyes.Malani offered this advice about finding the right shield.“It’s important that it’s long enough to really protect the whole face and that it wraps around fully and that it fits well up at the forehead,” said Malani.Companies, including Apple, Nike, General Motors, and John Deere have all started producing face shields.In a JAMA Network open viewpoint, it was pointed out that face shields have some advantages over masks. They can be reused indefinitely, they are easier to clean, they are comfortable, and they help prevent touching of the face. 1719

The Cambridge Analytica?scandal has thrust Facebook privacy settings into the national conversation after the political firm used the personal data of about 50 million people without their consent.Now, Mozilla is helping Firefox users keep their Facebook data secure so they won't be exploited in the future.The company has introduced a Firefox extension that it says will make it much harder for Facebook to track which websites you browse.Facebook has developed a network of trackers that tell the social media site which of its users are visiting certain webpages, like online retailers. Facebook will then use that information to serve its users ads based on what products they've been viewing.Mozilla says its Facebook Container extension will make it much more difficult to track which websites you visit, and keep your browsing information private.Mozilla admits the extension isn't perfect. In a blog post, the company said that the extension would not have prevented user information from being abused in the Cambridge Analytica scandal. It also says that Facebook Container would not work well on sites which require you to use Facebook information to log in.But Mozilla says the simple step of downloading the extension is giving power back to internet users. "Troves of data are being collected on your behavior on the internet, and so giving users a choice to limit what they share in a way that is under their control is important," the company wrote.To download Facebook container, first download the free Mozilla Firefox browser if you're not already using it. Then, all you need to do is click this link and add the extension.Alex Hider is a writer for the E.W. Scripps National Desk. Follow him on Twitter @alexhider. 1763

The coronavirus is shaking up America’s liquor laws.At least 33 states and the District of Columbia are temporarily allowing cocktails to-go during the pandemic. Only two — Florida and Mississippi — allowed them on a limited basis before coronavirus struck, according to the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States.Struggling restaurants say it’s a lifeline, letting them rehire bartenders, pay rent and reestablish relationships with customers. But others want states to slow down, saying the decades-old laws help ensure public safety.Julia Momose closed Kumiko, her Japanese-style cocktail bar in Chicago, on March 16. The next day, Illinois allowed bars and restaurants to start selling unopened bottles of beer, wine and liquor, but mixed drinks were excluded.Momose spent the next three months collecting petition signatures and pressing lawmakers to allow carryout cocktails. It worked. On June 17, she poured her first to-go drink: a Seaflower, made with gin, vermouth, Japanese citrus fruit and fermented chili paste. A carryout bottle, which serves two, costs .Momose has been able to hire back four of her furloughed employees. A group she co-founded, Cocktails for Hope, is now helping restaurants buy glass bottles in bulk for carryout.“Part of getting cocktails to go approved was embracing the fact that this isn’t going to fix everything, but it is going to fix something,” Momose said. “All these little things that we do will keep us open and keep our staff employed.”U.S. liquor laws — many of which date to the end of Prohibition in 1933 —are a confusing jumble that vary by state, city and county.Carryout cocktail regulations — which were passed starting in March — only deepen that confusion. Lawmakers approved carryout cocktails in some states; governors approved them in others. Nevada passed no statewide measure, but individual cities like Las Vegas and Reno allow them. In Pennsylvania, only restaurants and bars that lost 25% of average monthly total sales can sell cocktails to go.Most carryout cocktail regulations require customers to buy food with their mixed drinks. Lids or seals are generally required, but some states say drinks also need to be transported in the trunk. Marbet Lewis, a founding partner at Spiritus Law in Miami who specializes in the alcohol industry, says IDs should be checked — online or in person — by restaurants and bars as well as by delivery drivers.Some states, like Arizona, allow third party delivery companies like DoorDash to deliver cocktails; Kansas only allows delivery within a 50-foot radius.The laws also have different sunset dates. Alabama is only allowing carryout cocktails through Sept. 15, while Colorado and Massachusetts have extended them into next year. Michigan is allowing them through 2025.Last month, Iowa became the first state to permanently allow carryout and delivery of cocktails. Lawmakers in Ohio and Oklahoma are considering a similar measure, and the governors of Texas and Florida have expressed support for the change.There is overwhelming public support for making cocktails to go permanent, says Mike Whatley, vice president of state and local affairs for the National Restaurant Association. Between 75% and 80% of respondents have said they support carryout cocktails in numerous state polls, Whatley said.U.S. restaurants and bars have lost an estimated 5 billion since March due to lockdowns and social distancing requirements, the association said. In a May survey of 3,800 restaurants, the association found that 78% of operators who were selling alcohol to go had brought back laid-off employees, compared to 62% of operators overall.But some are urging states not to be too hasty. Mothers Against Drunk Driving worries that permanent carryout cocktails will lead to an increase in drunken driving unless laws make clear that the drinks can’t be consumed until the buyer is in a safe location.The U.S. government hasn’t released preliminary drunk driving data for 2020. But Jonathan Adkins, the executive director of the Governors Highway Safety Association, said there’s no anecdotal evidence that drunk driving has spiked during the pandemic.Patrick Maroney, a former liquor control officer in Colorado who is now a consultant, said carryout beer and wine — which was allowed in around 15 states prior to the pandemic — are different from cocktails because the containers are sealed by the manufacturer and the alcohol content is lower. Cocktails are mixed at the bar, so the alcohol content can vary and they may not be properly sealed, he said.Maroney said states need to make sure police and health officials are consulted before changing laws that have worked for decades. He noted that California reported a spike in reports of alcohol delivery to minors in April.“Are law enforcement officials worried about an ‘open air’ type atmosphere?” he said. “Is the law restricted to at-home consumption? How do they enforce it?”Maroney received funding from the Center for Alcohol Policy — which is funded by beer wholesalers — for a recent research paper raising concerns about carryout cocktails.Even before the coronavirus hit, there was a push to modernize alcohol laws to reflect the growing popularity of food delivery, Lewis said. She thinks lawmakers will have a hard time reinstating bans on carryout cocktails once the pandemic eases.“Once you get the genie out of the bottle and there hasn’t been a problem, how do you get it back in?” she said.Still, restaurant and bar owners say they’re not worried that patrons will get so used to carryout that they’ll stop going out even after the coronavirus has passed.“I think that people are social. People enjoy the bar experience and like being waited on,” said Dave Kwiatkowski, who owns the Sugar House cocktail bar in Detroit, which closed March 15 but was able to reopen July 10 for carryout service.Kwiatkowski normally employs a staff of 16. For now, it’s just him at the door and a bartender making drinks.“It’s enough to pay the electricity and the insurance, and it’s nice to give at least a couple of people some jobs,” he said.Kwiatkowski does wonder how he’ll handle carryout demand once the pandemic has ended and there’s a crowd in the bar on a Saturday night. But that will be a good problem to have, he said. He wants carryout cocktails to be permanently legalized.“I think this is probably going to change how we do business forever,” he said. 6446

The government of Puerto Rico has quietly admitted that the death toll from Hurricane Maria -- a subject of great controversy -- may be far higher than its official estimate of 64.In a report to Congress dated Wednesday, the US commonwealth's government says documents show that 1,427 more deaths occurred in the four months after the storm than "normal," compared with deaths that occurred the previous four years.The 1,427 figure also appeared in a draft of the report -- "Transformation and Innovation in the Wake of Devastation" -- which was published and opened for public comment July 9. The figure was first "revealed" by the Puerto Rico government, according to the final report, on June 13, one day after officials were forced by a judge to release death records that CNN and the Centro de Periodismo Investigativo in Puerto Rico had sued to make public.Officials stopped short of updating the official death toll for the September 20 storm."The official number is being reviewed as part of a study under way by George Washington University," the report says. Officials hired that university to review the toll after news reports, including those from CNN, called it into question.The George Washington University study "will have certainty" about the number of people the government believes died in Hurricane Maria and its aftermath, Pedro Cerame, a spokesman for the Puerto Rican government in Washington, told CNN. Officials initially said that report would be released in May. Now they expect it to publish this month."We understand that the number is higher," Carlos Mercader, executive director of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration, told CNN in an interview. "We didn't commission the study to prove there were 64 (deaths). We wanted a scientific and epidemiological study that would give us light, not only on the number -- we know the number is higher -- but the reasons why this happened."The 1,427 figure is "an estimate," Cerame said, and it may include deaths that weren't related to the storm.It's an estimate that follows many others like it.In November, CNN surveyed 112 funeral homes -- about half the total -- across the island, finding that funeral home directors and staff had identified at least 499 deaths they believed to be related to Hurricane Maria and its chaotic aftermath, which included months without power for many of the island's 3.3 million residents. In December, the New York Times estimated the "excess death" toll from the storm to be 1,052, based on comparisons with previous years.In May, a team that included researchers from Harvard University published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine estimating that 793 to 8,498 people died in Maria's wake, a range that some academics have criticized as overly broad. The study's midpoint estimate -- 4,645 deaths -- became a rallying cry for activists upset by what they see as a lack of accountability for the scale of the catastrophe by officials in Puerto Rico and the United States.The Harvard estimate was based on surveys of 3,299 households in Puerto Rico, in which residents were asked about deaths in their homes after Hurricane Maria.Mercader, the Puerto Rico official, criticized that study in an interview with CNN on Thursday. "We all know that's impossible, that that couldn't happen," he said of the estimate that 4,645 people may have died after Maria. "We have the data. You all know that is an exaggeration."Then last week, a research letter published in the medical journal JAMA estimated that between 1,006 and 1,272 people died in relation to the storm -- with a midpoint estimate of 1,139.An accurate death toll is important, according to officials and academics, because it can help Puerto Rico and other governments better prepare for future storms, which are expected to become worse in the era of climate change. The official count also matters a great deal to the families of the deceased. Not only are they eligible for certain federal aid if the deaths are officially counted, but some relatives of the dead simply want their loved ones to be remembered."They were not numbers; they were people," Lisa De Jesús, whose friend Reinaldo Ruiz Cintron died while working in hurricane cleanup, told CNN in June. "And the government thinks that just p

The FDA continued on Monday to warn the public about using methanol-based hand sanitizers that the agency calls “dangerous.”The FDA has published a “Do Not Use” list of products. As of Monday afternoon, 87 products are on the do not use list. Adding to the confusion for consumers, many of the products do not have methanol on the label.Methanol can be toxic when absorbed through the skin as well as life-threatening when ingested, the FDA said. Retailers are being encouraged to recall these products.Methanol exposure can result in nausea, vomiting, headache, blurred vision, permanent blindness, seizures, coma, permanent damage to the nervous system or death, the FDA warns."Practicing good hand hygiene, which includes using alcohol-based hand sanitizer if soap and water are not readily available, is an important public health tool for all Americans to employ. Consumers must also be vigilant about which hand sanitizers they use, and for their health and safety we urge consumers to immediately stop using all hand sanitizers on the FDA's list of dangerous hand sanitizer products," said FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, M.D. "We remain extremely concerned about the potential serious risks of alcohol-based hand sanitizers containing methanol. Producing, importing and distributing toxic hand sanitizers poses a serious threat to the public and will not be tolerated. The FDA will take additional action as necessary and will continue to provide the latest information on this issue for the health and safety of consumers."The FDA’s warnings come following a hand sanitizer shortage in the consumer and commercial markets. Amid the shortage companies that do not ordinarily produce hand sanitizers began bottling products before obtaining FDA approval. 1771

来源：资阳报