昆明人流什么地方好(昆明人流医院有哪几家) (今日更新中)

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 government is looking into getting rid of Transportation Security Administration (TSA) security at dozens of smaller airports across the country.According to reports, the TSA is considering getting rid of security screenings at more than 150 small and medium-sized airports that operate commercial flights, with no more than 60 passengers.The TSA estimates the move would save 5 million, which could then be used to enhance security at busier, larger airports. 475

The coronavirus pandemic has had a significant impact on pets.More than 4 million dogs, cats and other animals in the U.S. could be living in poverty with owners in the next 6 months, according to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA).If the national unemployment rate stays around 10%, more than 24 million pets could be in poverty. That's a 21% increase compared to February, before the pandemic.Pet food and veterinary care can be expensive. The ASPCA says a lack of affordable vet care and limited access to spay and neuter service are reasons driving people to give up their pets.RedRover is helping people afford care. They're seeing a 24% increase in urgent care grant applications compared to last year. The average amount of money they give out is 0.“It’s a very small amount of money, but what we've found is it really is that stopgap between helping them start service with start care with a veterinarian so you know just having a little bit to get going,” said Nicole Forsyth, President and CEO of RedRover.Your pet has to have a diagnosis before you can apply for a grant at RedRover.org. If you don't qualify, they'll help connect you with other resources.“When they talk to our case managers on the phone, the sense of relief and the sense also that it's OK for them to spend this money on their pets,” said Forsyth. “I think sometimes they're hearing messages from their friends and family like you know, ‘it's just an animal,’ you know, ‘why would you spend that kind of money.’ And so, having someone to talk to who understands.”The Humane Society has more resources on its website to find pet financial aid and discounted vet care close by. 1702

The Cinemark Theater in Towson, Maryland was packed with people who came for what they call the biggest movie of the year, and then they were turned away."I arrived at the theater and they were telling me all of the 'Black Panther' shows were canceled," Miya Henry said.Not what moviegoers who've been waiting months for Marvel's highly anticipated "Black Panther" film wanted to hear."We've been all excited, I took off of work tonight so I'm a little disappointed," Brandie Garland said.Several showings were turned away because of what moviegoers say was a malfunction with the film."There was a long refund line so everyone who purchased a ticket in support of the movie are now getting their money back," Garland said. "Originally when we got to the box office they were saying they were having some difficulties, but they said it wouldn't be an issue they were pretty sure the movie was going to show."But there was an issue according to dozens of tweets we found where Cinemark openly apologized for the inconvenience.We’re very sorry for this inconvenience. Was a theatre manager able to assist with a refund? If not please let us know more at https://t.co/tfn4khl2Bc or call at 1-800-246-3627 so we can further assist. Thank you and we do apologize again.— Cinemark Theatres (@Cinemark) February 16, 2018 1341

The Food and Drug Administration released updated safety standards Tuesday for makers of COVID-19 vaccines despite efforts by the White House to block them, clearing the way for requirements that are widely expected to prevent the introduction of a vaccine before Election Day.In the new guidelines posted on its website, the FDA said vaccine makers should follow trial participants for at least two months to rule out any major side effects before seeking emergency approval. That standard had been a sticking point between the FDA and White House officials, who said it could unreasonably delay the availability of COVID-19 vaccines.President Donald Trump has repeatedly insisted a vaccine could be authorized before Nov. 3, even though top government scientists working on the effort have said that timeline is very unlikely. On Monday Trump said vaccines are coming “momentarily,” in a video recorded after he returned to the White House.Former FDA officials have warned that public perception that a vaccine was being rushed out for political reasons could derail efforts to vaccinate millions of Americans.A senior administration official confirmed Monday that the White House had blocked FDA’s plans to formally publish the safety guidelines based on the two-month data requirement, arguing there was “no clinical or medical reason” for it.But on Tuesday, the FDA posted the guidance on its website, making clear that regulators plan to impose the safety standards for any vaccine seeking an expedited path to market.FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn said in a statement that he hoped the guidelines would help “the public understand our science-based decision-making process that assures vaccine quality, safety and efficacy.”The requirements are aimed at companies seeking rapid approval through the FDA’s emergency authorization pathway. That accelerated process, reserved for health emergencies, allows medical products onto the market based on a lower bar than traditional FDA approval. But FDA has made clear only vaccines that are shown to be safe and effective will be authorized for coronavirus.Former FDA acting commissioner Dr. Stephen Ostroff said the requirements seem reasonable given the agency is in largely “uncharted territory” in terms of considering emergency use of a vaccine. The agency has only previously cleared one vaccine through the method — a decades-old shot that was authorized to prevent anthrax poisoning in 2005.“There really is no margin for error here,” Ostroff said. “Even when you’re talking about limited use of a vaccine there has to be some level of assurance that there isn’t a risk here that would far outweigh the benefit.”Dr. Peter Marks, the head of FDA’s vaccine division, said Tuesday that the two-month follow-up requirement was chosen to be “something reasonably aggressive, but not too conservative — right in the middle.” He spoke at a symposium organized by Johns Hopkins University.Initial doses of vaccines for emergency use would likely be reserved for medical workers and people with health conditions that make them particularly vulnerable to coronavirus. Full FDA approval for the general population will require significantly more data and is not expected until mid-2021.The White House attempt to block the guidance followed a string of instances in which the Trump administration has undercut its own medical experts working to combat the pandemic. FDA’s Hahn has been attempting to shore up public confidence in the vaccine review process for weeks, vowing that career scientists, not politicians, will decide if the shots are safe and effective.Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla has stoked excitement by saying that he expects data on whether the company’s candidate works to be ready in late October. But a number of variables would still have to align for the company to submit, and the FDA to review and greenlight, a vaccine application before Nov. 3. Pfizer’s competitors Moderna, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson are working on longer research timelines.Vaccine development typically takes years, but the U.S. government has invested billions in efforts to accelerate the process and help multiple drugmakers prepare multiple candidates. All the doses will be purchased by the federal government for use vaccinating the U.S. population.Beyond exposing the rift between the White House and FDA, the delay in releasing the guidelines may have had limited practical effect.FDA scientists have been discussing the guidelines publicly for weeks and have made clear that the recommendations have already been shared with each of the vaccine developers.Former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said Tuesday that drugmakers depend on the FDA’s science-based endorsement to vouch for the safety and effectiveness of their products.“I can’t imagine a circumstance where a sponsor would challenge or seek to undermine the FDA’s role here,” Gottlieb said at the COVID-19 symposium. “This is precisely the moment when we need an objective, neutral arbiter.”Last week, Gottlieb and six other former FDA commissioners blasted the Trump administration for “undermining the credibility” of the agency in a op-ed calling for the release of the then-stalled vaccine guidelines.“Scientists should make decisions based on data, unfettered by political pressure or the intrusions of ideology or vested interests,” the officials wrote.___AP Medical Writer Lauran Neergaard contributed to this report.___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. 5644

来源：资阳报