上海孟超肿瘤医院简介上海甲状腺结节可以吃柿子吗女性,上海国医馆预约电话,上海红土豆汁真的能治肿瘤吗,上海双侧肺纹理增多严重吗,上海看三叉神经瘤最好的医生,上海多发性肺部微小结节要不要紧,上海右脚底麻木是什么原因造成的怎么治疗

The Netflix series "13 Reasons Why" increased the suicide risk of suicidal teens treated in a psychiatric emergency department, according to a University of Michigan study.Upon release, the show received backlash for its depiction of suicide, as some critics said it glorified those who took their own lives. In addition, another study showed that the show was tied to a rise in online searches about suicide.“This show has been a real phenomenon, especially among teenagers,” Victor Hong, M.D., medical director of psychiatric emergency services at Michigan Medicine, said in a release. “Its depiction of teen suicide has raised great concern among parents, health providers and educators.” Half of the 87 youths, mostly teens ages 13 to 17, who participated in the survey between 2017 and 2018 had watched at least one episode of the show. Among the 43 who watched it, about half said it heightened their suicide risk.“Our study doesn’t confirm that the show is increasing suicide risk, but it confirms that we should definitely be concerned about its impact on impressionable and vulnerable youth,” Hong said.According to the study, very few parents of those in the sample had watched the series themselves and some were not even aware that their child had watched it. “The data from our sample of teens demonstrated that kids who were at high risk of suicide did not reach out to adults,” Hong said. “They mostly watched the show alone or talked to friends, but they weren’t talking to parents, teachers or school counselors.For more information on the study, click here. 1613

The gunman who killed 26 people at a Texas church had sent threatening texts to his mother-in-law -- who attended the church he targeted, authorities said Monday.Devin Patrick Kelley had domestic problems and texted his mother-in-law as recently as Sunday morning, not long before he carried out the largest mass shooting in Texas history."We know that he expressed anger towards his mother-in-law, who attends this church," said Freeman Martin of Texas' Department of Public Safety. 491

The race for the White House has reached its final week, and millions of Americans have already gone to the polls to cast a ballot in the 2020 presidential election.On Wednesday, a number of national and state polls were released. In general, Joe Biden is leading Donald Trump in national polls, but battleground polls show a tightening race. A CNN poll of likely voters released Wednesday afternoon showed Biden leading Trump 54-42 in the popular vote, which is slightly tighter than the 57-41 advantage the CNN poll had for Biden in early October.Another poll, one conducted by the Economist/YouGov, showed Biden leading by 11%. Emerson released its poll on Wednesday showing Biden with a 5% edge. But one poll, the Rasmussen poll, shows Trump actually ahead nationally by 1%. Polls by Rasmussen have generally been more favorable than other national polls.One national poll released on Tuesday, conducted by CNBC, had Biden up 51-40.State pollingNo matter the margin of the popular vote, the number that matters the most is reaching 270 Electoral College votes. And in that respect, Biden is leading in the polls, but his leads in battleground states is much more fragile than his standing in the national polls.In Wisconsin, a poll released on Wednesday by Marquette gave Biden a 48-43 edge. An ABC News/Washington Post poll of Wisconsin gave Biden a much larger lead of 17%, which is a bit of an outlier from other polls of the state.In Michigan, Biden held a 51-44 lead in the ABC News/Washington Post poll while he led Trump in the New York Times/Sienna poll 49-41 on Wednesday.In North Carolina, the race was a statistical tie with Biden’s advantage well within the margin of error in Wednesday’s Civitas/Harper poll.In Georgia, Biden leads 50-46 in the Monmouth poll.In recent days, polling in Arizona, Florida and Iowa have generally been within the margin of error. Biden has held a very narrow lead in Pennsylvania.Comparing 2020 to 2016The landscape of the race six days out is somewhat similar to the 2016 race.One key difference is Clinton’s lead in national polls was generally smaller than Biden’s lead. The final CNN poll, which was released two weeks before the election, gave Clinton a 5% edge. The final CNBC poll gave Clinton a lead of 9%. But other reputable polls, such as the CBS News Poll, were more narrow. The CBS News poll gave Clinton just a 3% edge. Clinton ended up winning the popular vote by 2%.Battleground state polls generally were off by a margin of 5%, which is normal in a presidential election. What made things abnormal was those polling errors were just enough to flip the election for Trump in a number of states.In Michigan, a Detroit Free Press poll released a week before the election showed Clinton up by 4 percent. She ended up losing by .2 percent.In Pennsylvania, polls generally gave Clinton a modest lead. Her lead in the final CNN poll was 5 percent a week before the election. She ended up losing by 1 percent.Wisconsin was another state Trump won by about .5%. He trailed Clinton in the Marquette poll by 6% in the final days before the election. Compared to 2016, his deficit in the Marquette poll is slimmer in 2016 than it is currently.On the flip side, polling in Nevada did not suggest a Clinton win. A CNN poll had Trump up 51-46 just days before the election. Clinton won the state by 2%.What is conclusive in pollingWhile predicting a winner in the presidential election might be a challenge based on polls, they can give an insight on what voters are thinking.One clear difference in the polls is based on gender. Wednesday’s CNN poll gave Biden a 61-37 lead among women, while Trump won with men 48-47. The poll also showed Biden leading among independents 58-36.While voters were more inclined to say Biden would do a better job handling the coronavirus, health care, racial inequality in the US and crime and safety, a slim majority, 51-46, said that Trump would do a better job with the economy. 3972

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

The police officer was patrolling a local children's hospital in Argentina when she heard the sound of a crying baby. She knew it was a call she needed to answer.Officer Celeste Jaqueline Ayala had recently became a mother herself. She could tell from the wails the infant needed food. So, she sat down on a chair outside the hospital ward -- and breastfed him.The move took Ayala's colleague by surprise. He snapped a photo and posted it on Facebook, where it has now been shared more than 100,000 times."I want to make public this great gesture of love that you displayed today with this baby," Marcos Heredia said on the post.The incidentThe incident took place at a hospital in the city of Berisso on August 14, which, coincidentally, is "National Day of the Female Officer" in Argentina.However, the photo began doing the social rounds this week.Heredia told CNN he didn't know why the hospital staff didn't feed the baby themselves.CNN reached out to the hospital and Ayala but didn't hear back.The Buenos Aires Provincial Police told CNN that Ayala spoke with hospital management before she breastfed the baby. The infant had recently been taken away from his mother, but police didn't say why.The responseBecause of her action, Ayala has now been promoted from officer to sergeant."We wanted to thank (Ayala) in person for that gesture of spontaneous love that managed to calm the baby's cry," Cristian Ritondo, the minister of security of the Buenos Aires province, tweeted. "An officer we're proud of. An officer we want."The-CNN-Wire 1552