济南男人如何保护好前列腺(济南中医看前列腺) (今日更新中)

The suspect in the deadly terror attack in New York wasn't only a driver for Uber. He also worked for its rival Lyft.Lyft said late Wednesday that Sayfullo Saipov drove for its ride-hailing app in the past but that it deactivated his account as soon as he was identified as a suspect in the attack.Saipov, a 29-year-old from Uzbekistan who was living in New Jersey, has been charged with federal terrorism offenses in connection with Tuesday's attack in Manhattan in which eight people were killed.Uber said Tuesday that Saipov started driving for it in New Jersey just over six months ago, making more than 1,400 trips. It also banned him from its platform after the attack.Lyft didn't provide details on how long Saipov drove for its app or how many trips he made. It's not unusual for drivers to work for both companies.Saipov's case is drawing renewed attention to the background checks that ride-hailing companies carry out on their drivers.Records show Saipov received multiple traffic citations in the past, including failure to equip a motor vehicle carrier with or maintain a required brake system.Both Uber and Lyft said they hadn't come across any complaints about Saipov's safety as a driver for them.New Jersey rules for ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft require the companies to conduct criminal background checks, which are usually outsourced to specialist firms. Convictions for crimes like reckless driving automatically disqualify a driver.Uber applies different criteria for background checks depending on state regulations. In general, drivers cannot have more than three minor moving violations, such as speeding tickets, in the past three years.Lyft's website says potential drivers are screened for "driving incidents" but doesn't specify what would disqualify them.Both Uber and Lyft say they are in contact with law enforcement authorities over the New York attack."Our thoughts are with those affected by this tragic act," Lyft said. 1999

The United States’ Gross Domestic Product is expected to have a modest comeback in 2021 while unemployment will be slower to recover for years to come, according to a government projection from the Congressional Budget Office.The nonpartisan government agency that provides policy guidance for members of Congress said that unemployment is projected to remain above pre-pandemic levels through 2030.Thursday’s estimates from the CBO indicate that real GDP in 2021 will jump 4% in 2021 from 2020 after taking a projected 5.8% drop in 2020. The CBO then projects that real GDP will increase 2.9%. In years following, the GDP is expected to level off at 2.2%.But after unemployment dropped to 3.5% in 2019,, the unemployment rate is expected to be 7.6% in 2021, followed by 6.9% in 2022 and 5.9% in 2023 and 2024. Data released Thursday pegged the US unemployment rate at 11.1% in June.The CBO stresses there is uncertainty in its forecast given the pandemic.“The severity and duration of the pandemic are subject to significant uncertainty,” the CBO said. “In particular, several important epidemiological characteristics of the coronavirus remain unclear: Much still needs to be learned about its transmissibility and lethality and about the immunity conferred on people who have recovered from it. Moreover, the severity and duration of the pandemic will be affected by how various mitigation measures reduce the spread of the virus and by when vaccines and additional treatments become available—outcomes that remain highly uncertain.” 1544

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

The U.S. regulators who will decide the fate of COVID-19 vaccines are taking an unusual step: Asking outside scientists if their standards are high enough.The Food and Drug Administration may have to decide by year’s end whether to allow use of the first vaccines against the virus. Thursday, a federal advisory committee pulls back the curtain on that decision process, debating whether the guidelines FDA has set for vaccine developers are rigorous enough.“We will not cut corners, and we will only use science and data to make that determination,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn pledged at a meeting of the Milken Institute Wednesday.Exactly how much data his agency needs to be sure a vaccine is safe and effective is a key question for the advisers. An even bigger one: If the FDA allows emergency use of a vaccine before final testing is finished, will that destroy chances of ever learning just how well that shot -- and maybe competitors still being studied -- really work?“We can’t lose sight of the fact that it is in our societal interest to see these trials to completion,” said Dr. Luciana Borio, a former FDA acting chief scientist who will be watching the advisers’ debate.Plus, multiple vaccines are being studied -- shots made with different technologies that each have pros and cons.“The first vaccine is not necessarily the best vaccine,” cautioned Dr. M. Miles Braun, a former FDA scientist now with Georgetown University School of Medicine. If the trials aren’t allowed to finish, it may be difficult or impossible to ever know for sure.It’s a critical moment in FDA’s 114-year history. The government has spent billions to race a vaccine through a research process that usually takes years, and FDA faces unprecedented pressure from the Trump administration, fueling public skepticism that politics could overrule science.Interest is so high, FDA is airing the meeting on YouTube. Here are some key issues the committee will discuss:HOW MUCH EVIDENCE IS NEEDED?FDA is requiring manufacturers to do studies of at least 30,000 people to prove if a vaccine protects and how safe it is. Those studies must include adequate numbers of people at highest risk from COVID-19 -- older adults, minorities and anyone with underlying health problems.FDA has made clear that any vaccine must be at least 50% effective. And while the studies are designed to run for two years, companies may get enough evidence the shots are protective -- in at least some people -- to stop the trials early and seek what’s called an “emergency use authorization” for wider vaccinations.Despite White House objections, the FDA told vaccine makers earlier this month not to seek that speedier review until they’ve tracked at least half their trial participants for two months. With other vaccines, that’s about the amount of time when major side effects crop up.That’s not long enough, said the head of the non-profit ECRI Institute, which reviews medical technology for hospitals and insurers. In comments submitted to the advisory committee, ECRI’s Dr. Marcus Schabacker said FDA should require six months of follow-up.“Doing any less would simply risk too much, and the consequences may be severe,” he wrote. “A weak vaccine that loses public trust could poison the well for epidemic control for many years.”WOULD EMERGENCY USE DERAIL FULL ANSWERS ABOUT VACCINES?Normally when a study ends because of evidence that a vaccine is working, the participants who got dummy shots are offered the real thing.But if FDA allows emergency use of a COVID-19 vaccine, that’s not the same as having full proof the shot works, Borio cautioned.And if the participants in the placebo group are immediately offered the real shot, researchers may not be able to get answers about all the high-risk groups in the study — or tell how long the vaccine’s protection lasts, a process expected to take many more months.But Pfizer Inc., which with Germany’s BioNTech is developing one of the leading candidates, told FDA that if it’s granted emergency use authorization, it “would have an ethical obligation” to alert study participants who got a placebo and allow them vaccine access. The company wants FDA to look into “other scientifically and statistically sound methods” to determine long-term safety and effectiveness.Pfizer’s stance is likely to face pushback. The Infectious Diseases Society of America states that FDA’s panelists “should insist” that vaccine developers “present a compelling case” for how they will complete their trials if FDA grants early authorization of their vaccine.Clearing a vaccine based on premature or faulty data “could cause more harm” by “further eroding public confidence in all vaccines,” the group said.It’s an unprecedented dilemma. The FDA has previously allowed emergency use of only one vaccine, a decades-old shot that in 2005 was authorized to prevent anthrax poisoning.This time around, multiple COVID-19 vaccines are in the pipeline. Pfizer competitor Johnson & Johnson cautioned that early FDA clearance of one vaccine could “jeopardize integrity” of other ongoing trials if patients decide to drop out to seek the first cleared shot instead.The company asked regulators to explain what options are available to ensure completion of all ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials.WHAT ABOUT LONG-TERM SAFETY MONITORING?Even a study of 30,000 people cannot spot a side effect that only strikes 1 in 100,000. So the government is planning extra scrutiny of every COVID-19 vaccine to hit the market.At first there will be limited doses given to just certain high-risk people -- and those early recipients are to get text messages daily for the first week after vaccination, and then weekly out to six weeks, asking how they’re feeling.FDA also will be checking databases of electronic health records and insurance claims, looking for any red flags.“There’s a kind of tracking that has to take place here on a massive basis that hasn’t taken place before,” said Dr. Jesse Goodman of Georgetown University, a former director of the FDA’s vaccine and biologics center.___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. 6274

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a challenge to a controversial Arkansas abortion law blocking medication-induced abortions.The law, passed in 2015, says that any physician who "gives, sells, dispenses, administers, or otherwise provides or proscribes the abortion-inducing drug" shall have to have a contract with a physician who has admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.The order, issued without comment, clears the way for the law to go into effect in mid-July if no other legal action is taken. Planned Parenthood is expected to make another challenge to the law in US district court."The Arkansas restriction, which was enacted supposedly to protect women's health, is medically unnecessary," lawyers for Planned Parenthood argued in court papers. They say it is unconstitutional because it places an undue burden on a patient's right to choose abortion.Medication abortion — available only early in a pregnancy — involves the combination of two pills called mifepristone and misoprostol.Lawyers for Arkansas say the law is a "commonsense requirement" that "merely requires medication abortion providers to have a contractual relationship (to ensure follow-up treatment if needed) with a physician that has admitting privileges.The-CNN-Wire 1263

来源：资阳报