济南尿酸625算严重吗(山东老专家产的治疗痛风) (今日更新中)

The State of Utah sent face masks showing a handgun and controversial political image to a Salt Lake City family.The free masks are part of the “A Mask For Every Utahn” campaign, where federal COVID-19 money purchased more than two million masks to stop the spread of the virus.“I was just shocked,” said Chrstine Passey-Spencer outside her Rose Park home.Two masks delivered to the family show an American flag with a handgun printed across them with “Don't Tread on Me” written below a coiled rattlesnake.“I think the thing that bothered me most is that I knew my tax dollars paid for this and this is very politically charged speech,” Passey-Spencer said.The “Don't Tread on Me” image stems from the Revolutionary War but has become controversial in recent years. The Gadsden Flag has been used by the Tea Party, anti-gun control activists and white supremacists.In 2016, it was deemed to have “racially-tinged” messaging in some contexts by the federal government.More recently, the image has been used by people believing COVID-19 health restrictions take away their constitutional rights.“We hope this is an isolated incident that we just missed these couple of masks,” said Governor’s Office of Economic Development’s Ben Hart, who oversees the state’s mask program.Since April, the state purchased millions of masks from local and international manufacturers.Hart admits about 100 of the “Don't Tread on Me” masks were included in a shipment last month. Hart says the staff deemed them “inappropriate” and attempted to set all of them aside.“We will not be using taxpayer dollars to pay for these masks. We will be working with the manufacturer and ensuring we do not pay for them,” said Hart.The governor’s office replaced the masks for Passey-Spencer on Tuesday.KSTU's Hailey Higgins first reported this story. 1828

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that the Trump administration can end census field operations early, in a blow to efforts to make sure minorities and hard-to-enumerate communities are properly counted in the crucial once-a-decade tally.The decision was not a total loss for plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the administration’s decision to end the count early. They managed to get nearly two extra weeks of counting people as the case made its way through the courts.However, the ruling increased the chances of the Trump administration retaining control of the process that decides how many congressional seats each state gets — and by extension how much voting power each state has.The Supreme Court justices’ ruling came as the nation’s largest association of statisticians, and even the U.S. Census Bureau’s own census takers and partners, have been raising questions about the quality of the data being gathered — numbers that are used to determine how much federal funding and how many congressional seats are allotted to states.After the Supreme Court’s decision, the Census Bureau said field operations would end on Thursday.At issue was a request by the Trump administration that the Supreme Court suspend a lower court’s order extending the 2020 census through the end of October following delays caused by the pandemic. The Trump administration argued that the head count needed to end immediately to give the bureau time to meet a year-end deadline. Congress requires the bureau to turn in by Dec. 31 the figures used to decide the states’ congressional seats — a process known as apportionment.By sticking to the deadline, the Trump administration would end up controlling the numbers used for the apportionment, no matter who wins next month’s presidential election.In a statement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the Supreme Court’s decision “regrettable and disappointing,” and said the administration’s actions “threaten to politically and financially exclude many in America’s most vulnerable communities from our democracy.”Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the high court’s decision, saying “respondents will suffer substantial injury if the Bureau is permitted to sacrifice accuracy for expediency.”The Supreme Court ruling came in response to a lawsuit by a coalition of local governments and civil rights groups, arguing that minorities and others in hard-to-count communities would be missed if the census ended early. They said the schedule was cut short to accommodate a July order from President Donald Trump that would exclude people in the country illegally from being counted in the numbers used for apportionment.Opponents of the order said it followed the strategy of the late Republican redistricting guru, Thomas Hofeller, who had advocated using voting-age citizens instead of the total population when it came to drawing legislative seats since that would favor Republicans and non-Hispanic whites.Last month, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California sided with the plaintiffs and issued an injunction suspending a Sept. 30 deadline for finishing the 2020 census and a Dec. 31 deadline for submitting the apportionment numbers. That caused the deadlines to revert back to a previous Census Bureau plan that had field operations ending Oct. 31 and the reporting of apportionment figures at the end of April 2021.When the Census Bureau, and the Commerce Department, which oversees the statistical agency, picked an Oct. 5 end date, Koh struck that down too, accusing officials of “lurching from one hasty, unexplained plan to the next ... and undermining the credibility of the Census Bureau and the 2020 Census.”An appellate court panel upheld Koh’s order allowing the census to continue through October but struck down the part that suspended the Dec. 31 deadline for turning in apportionment numbers. The panel of three appellate judges said that just because the year-end deadline is impossible to meet doesn’t mean the court should require the Census Bureau to miss it.The plaintiffs said the ruling against them was not a total loss, as millions more people were counted during the extra two weeks.“Every day has mattered, and the Supreme Court’s order staying the preliminary injunction does not erase the tremendous progress that has been made as a result of the district court’s rulings,” said Melissa Sherry, one of the attorneys for the coalition.Besides deciding how many congressional seats each state gets, the census helps determine how .5 trillion in federal funding is distributed each year.San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said that his city lost 0 million in federal funding over the decade following the 2010 census, and he feared it would lose more this time around. The California city was one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.“A census count delayed is justice denied,” Liccardo said.With plans for the count hampered by the pandemic, the Census Bureau in April had proposed extending the deadline for finishing the count from the end of July to the end of October, and pushing the apportionment deadline from Dec. 31 to next April. The proposal to extend the apportionment deadline passed the Democratic-controlled House, but the Republican-controlled Senate didn’t take up the request. Then, in late July and early August, bureau officials shortened the count schedule by a month so that it would finish at the end of September.The Senate Republicans’ inaction coincided with Trump’s order directing the Census Bureau to have the apportionment count exclude people who are in the country illegally. The order was later ruled unlawful by a panel of three district judges in New York, but the Trump administration appealed that case to the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court decision comes as a report by the the American Statistical Association has found that a shortened schedule, dropped quality control procedures, pending lawsuits and the outside politicization of some parts of the 2020 census have raised questions about the quality of the nation’s head count that need to be answered if the final numbers are going to be trusted.The Census Bureau says it has counted 99.9% of households nationwide, though some regions of the country such as parts of Mississippi and hurricane-battered Louisiana fall well below that.As the Census Bureau winds down field operations over the next several days, there will be a push to get communities in those two states counted, said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, one of the litigants in the lawsuit.“That said, the Supreme Court’s order will result in irreversible damage to the 2020 Census,” Clarke said.___Follow Mike Schneider on Twitter at https://twitter.com/MikeSchneiderAP 6792

The University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation has been issuing frequent projections since March in an attempt to model the spread and impact of the coronavirus across the world.The models have been used by the CDC and White House coronavirus task force in an effort to better understand the potential number of deaths the coronavirus could cause.On Friday, the model added a new variable, one that could cause a steep decline of coronavirus deaths throughout the US. The IHME’s newest model, which predicts the number of coronavirus deaths in the US through the end of March, is now weighing the potential impact of vaccines on the virus.For those hoping for an immediate drop in hospitalizations and deaths caused by the coronavirus as soon as vaccinations begin later this month might be disappointed. The IHME's model shows the initial batch of vaccinations will have a relatively muted effect on deaths and hospitalizations initially. While by April 1, much of the general US population will likely not be fully vaccinated, many in the high-risk category should expect to vaccinated by then. How fast they get vaccinated will play a role in determining the number of coronavirus deaths in the US.As of Friday evening, there have been over 278,000 coronavirus-related deaths reported throughout the US, per Johns Hopkins University data. Without any vaccines reaching Americans, the IHME’s model projects a total of 548,000 would die from the coronavirus through April 1, meaning 270,000 deaths between now and then.If COVID-19 vaccines are distributed at expected levels, 9,000 lives would be saved by April 1, reducing the number of deaths between now and then to 261,000. But a rapid vaccine rollout – one that would vaccinate the high-risk population and begin to vaccinate the general population by the spring -- would result in 250,000 deaths between now and April 1.“Mass scale-up of vaccination in 2021 means we have a path back to normal life, but there are still a few rough months ahead,” said Dr. Christopher Murray, IHME director. “We must be vigilant in protecting ourselves at least through April, when, as our projections indicate, vaccines will begin to have an impact.”In the meantime, Murray says universal mask wearing and social distancing will save more lives than a potential vaccine in the next four months.“Especially in the Northern Hemisphere, it’s crucial for governments to impose or re-impose mandates that limit gatherings and require masks. Where the winter surge is driving spikes in infections, there will be many people who can still become infected and possibly die before the vaccine is fully rolled out,” said Murray.To see the IHME’s state-by-state projections for deaths, hospitalizations and cases, clickhere. 2790

The White House on Monday backed down from its threats to revoke Jim Acosta's press pass."Having received a formal reply from your counsel to our letter of November 16, we have made a final determination in this process: your hard pass is restored," the White House said in a new letter to Acosta. "Should you refuse to follow these rules in the future, we will take action in accordance with the rules set forth above. The President is aware of this decision and concurs."The letter detailed several new rules for reporter conduct at presidential press conferences, including "a single question" from each journalist. Follow-ups will only be permitted "at the discretion of the President or other White House officials."The decision reverses a Friday letter by the White House that said Acosta's press pass could be revoked again right after a temporary restraining order granted by a federal judge expires. That letter -- signed by two of the defendants in the suit, press secretary Sarah Sanders and deputy chief of staff for communications Bill Shine -- cited Acosta's conduct at President Trump's November 7 press conference, where he asked multiple follow-up questions and didn't give up the microphone right away."You failed to abide" by "basic, widely understood practices," the letter to Acosta claimed.CNN won the temporary restraining order earlier on Friday, forcing the White House to restore Acosta's press access for 14 days. Judge Timothy J. Kelly ruled on Fifth Amendment grounds, saying Acosta's right to due process had been violated. He did not rule on CNN's argument that the revocation of Acosta's press pass was a violation of his and the network's First Amendment rights.Many journalists have challenged the administration's actions against Acosta, pointing out that aggressive questioning is a tradition that dates back decades.But Trump appeared eager to advance an argument about White House press corps "decorum," no matter how hypocritical.Since the judge criticized the government for not following due process before banning Acosta on November 7, the letter looked like an effort to establish a paper trail that could empower the administration to boot Acosta again at the end of the month.The letter gave Acosta less than 48 hours to contest the "preliminary decision" and said a "final determination" would be made by Monday at 3 p.m.CNN's lawyers had signaled a willingness to settle after prevailing in court on Friday. Ted Boutrous, an attorney representing CNN and Acosta, said they would welcome "a resolution that makes the most sense so everyone can get out of court and get back to their work."But in a new court filing on Monday morning, CNN's lawyers said the defendants "did not respond to this offer to cooperate." Instead, the letter from Shine and Sanders was an "attempt to provide retroactive due process," the filing alleged.So CNN and Acosta asked the judge to set a schedule of deadlines for motions and hearings that would give the network the chance to win a preliminary injunction, a longer form of court-ordered protection to Acosta's press pass.They were seeking a hearing "for the week of November 26, 2018, or as soon thereafter as possible," according to the court filing.A preliminary injunction could be in effect for much longer than the temporary restraining order, thereby protecting Acosta's access to the White House.In a response Monday morning, government lawyers called the CNN motion a "self-styled 'emergency'" and sought to portray the White House's moves as a lawful next step."Far from constituting an 'emergency,' the White House's initiation of a process to consider suspending Mr. Acosta's hard pass is something this Court's Order anticipated," they said.The DOJ lawyers continued to say that the White House had made "no final determination" on Acosta's access, and asked the court to extend its own deadline, set last week, for a status report due at 3 p.m. Monday, in light of the White House's separate self-imposed deadline for the Acosta decision.At lunchtime, Kelly granted the government's request and extended the status report deadline to 6 p.m. Monday.The case was assigned to Judge Kelly when CNN filed suit last Tuesday. Kelly was appointed to the bench by Trump last year, and confirmed with bipartisan support in the Senate. He heard oral arguments on Wednesday and granted CNN's request for a temporary restraining order on Friday."We are disappointed with the district court's decision," the Justice Department said in response at the time. "The President has broad authority to regulate access to the White House, including to ensure fair and orderly White House events and press conferences. We look forward to continuing to defend the White House's lawful actions."Trump seemed to shrug off the loss, telling Fox's Chris Wallace in an interview that "it's not a big deal."He said the White House would "create rules and regulations for conduct" so that the administration can revoke press passes in the future."If he misbehaves," Trump said, apparently referring to Acosta, "we'll throw him out or we'll stop the news conference.""This is a high-risk confrontation for both sides," Mike Allen of Axios wrote in a Monday item about Trump's new targeting of Acosta. "It turns out that press access to the White House is grounded very much in tradition rather than in plain-letter law. So a court fight could result in a precedent that curtails freedom to cover the most powerful official in the world from the literal front row."The-CNN-Wire 5546

The Santa Ana Zoo is providing shelter for about 150 animals from Orange County Zoo in Irvine Regional Park that were evacuated on Oct. 26 because of the Silverado and Blue Ridge wildfires. #CityofSantaAna @SantaAnaZoo @SantaAnaParks #silveradocanyonfire #BlueRidgeFire pic.twitter.com/qb0ZDQ83ck— City of Santa Ana (@CityofSantaAna) October 27, 2020 358

来源：资阳报