北京百合能治痛风(山东痛风专科医院有哪些检查) (今日更新中)

Who gets to be first in line for a COVID-19 vaccine? U.S. health authorities hope by late next month to have some draft guidance on how to ration initial doses, but it’s a vexing decision.“Not everybody’s going to like the answer,” Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, recently told one of the advisory groups the government asked to help decide. “There will be many people who feel that they should have been at the top of the list.”Traditionally, first in line for a scarce vaccine are health workers and the people most vulnerable to the targeted infection.But Collins tossed new ideas into the mix: Consider geography and give priority to people where an outbreak is hitting hardest.And don’t forget volunteers in the final stage of vaccine testing who get dummy shots, the comparison group needed to tell if the real shots truly work.“We owe them ... some special priority,” Collins said.Huge studies this summer aim to prove which of several experimental COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective. Moderna Inc. and Pfizer Inc. began tests last week that eventually will include 30,000 volunteers each; in the next few months, equally large calls for volunteers will go out to test shots made by AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson and Novavax. And some vaccines made in China are in smaller late-stage studies in other countries.For all the promises of the U.S. stockpiling millions of doses, the hard truth: Even if a vaccine is declared safe and effective by year’s end, there won’t be enough for everyone who wants it right away -- especially as most potential vaccines require two doses.It’s a global dilemma. The World Health Organization is grappling with the same who-goes-first question as it tries to ensure vaccines are fairly distributed to poor countries -- decisions made even harder as wealthy nations corner the market for the first doses.In the U.S., the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a group established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is supposed to recommend who to vaccinate and when -- advice that the government almost always follows.But a COVID-19 vaccine decision is so tricky that this time around, ethicists and vaccine experts from the National Academy of Medicine, chartered by Congress to advise the government, are being asked to weigh in, too.Setting priorities will require “creative, moral common sense,” said Bill Foege, who devised the vaccination strategy that led to global eradication of smallpox. Foege is co-leading the academy’s deliberations, calling it “both this opportunity and this burden.”With vaccine misinformation abounding and fears that politics might intrude, CDC Director Robert Redfield said the public must see vaccine allocation as “equitable, fair and transparent.”How to decide? The CDC’s opening suggestion: First vaccinate 12 million of the most critical health, national security and other essential workers. Next would be 110 million people at high risk from the coronavirus -- those over 65 who live in long-term care facilities, or those of any age who are in poor health -- or who also are deemed essential workers. The general population would come later.CDC’s vaccine advisers wanted to know who’s really essential. “I wouldn’t consider myself a critical health care worker,” admitted Dr. Peter Szilagyi, a pediatrician at the University of California, Los Angeles.Indeed, the risks for health workers today are far different than in the pandemic’s early days. Now, health workers in COVID-19 treatment units often are the best protected; others may be more at risk, committee members noted.Beyond the health and security fields, does “essential” mean poultry plant workers or schoolteachers? And what if the vaccine doesn’t work as well among vulnerable populations as among younger, healthier people? It’s a real worry, given that older people’s immune systems don’t rev up as well to flu vaccine.With Black, Latino and Native American populations disproportionately hit by the coronavirus, failing to address that diversity means “whatever comes out of our group will be looked at very suspiciously,” said ACIP chairman Dr. Jose Romero, Arkansas’ interim health secretary.Consider the urban poor who live in crowded conditions, have less access to health care and can’t work from home like more privileged Americans, added Dr. Sharon Frey of St. Louis University.And it may be worth vaccinating entire families rather than trying to single out just one high-risk person in a household, said Dr. Henry Bernstein of Northwell Health.Whoever gets to go first, a mass vaccination campaign while people are supposed to be keeping their distance is a tall order. During the 2009 swine flu pandemic, families waited in long lines in parking lots and at health departments when their turn came up, crowding that authorities know they must avoid this time around.Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration’s effort to speed vaccine manufacturing and distribution, is working out how to rapidly transport the right number of doses to wherever vaccinations are set to occur.Drive-through vaccinations, pop-up clinics and other innovative ideas are all on the table, said CDC’s Dr. Nancy Messonnier.As soon as a vaccine is declared effective, “we want to be able the next day, frankly, to start these programs,” Messonnier said. “It’s a long road.”___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. 5581

When a hidden camera snapped a picture of Cross River gorillas including several infants in Nigeria this summer, conservationists were thrilled.This subspecies of gorilla is one of the most endangered, with only an estimated 300 individual animals believed to exist. They live along the border of Nigeria and Cameroon, in western Africa.The Wildlife Conservation Society captured images of the Cross River gorillas in Nigeria’s Mbe Mountains in May and June. Their camera traps have only captured images of Cross River gorillas a handful of times since being set up in 2012. They said this was the first time they had seen multiple infants in the same group. 666

While answering a question about how she would rule in potential Supreme Court cases involving LGBTQ+ people's rights during her confirmation hearing Tuesday, Judge Amy Coney Barrett used the term "sexual preference" — a term classified as "offensive" by GLAAD.Barrett used the term while denouncing discrimination against gay and lesbian people, during questioning by Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, D-California."Senator, I have no agenda, and I do want to be clear: I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference," Barrett said. "Like racism, I think discrimination is abhorrent."Later in the day, Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, followed up with Barrett about the term."Sexual preference is an offensive and outdated term. It is used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice. It is not. Sexual orientation is a key part of a person's identity," Hirono said.In response, Barrett apologized, saying "I certainly didn't mean and would never mean to use a term that would cause any offense in the LGBTQ community. So if I did, I greatly apologize for that."The term "sexual preference" is generally deemed to be outdated. On its website, GLAAD lists the term on its website as "one to avoid" as it implies that sexuality is a "choice" that can be "cured."Instead, GLAAD says the preferred term to use is "sexual orientation," saying it is the "accurate description" of "an individual's enduring physical, romantic and/or emotional attraction" to another person.Prior to Barrett's initial comment, Feinstein asked how she would rule in potential cases regarding LGBTQ+ rights given the judge's relationship with Justice Antonin Scalia, who dissented in the case that gave gay people the right to marry in 2015.While Barrett gave credit to Scalia, her former mentor, in her opening statements, she stated multiple times during Tuesday's questioning that she would be her own judge."You'll be getting Justice Barrett, not Justice Scalia," if confirmed, Barrett said Tuesday. 2114

What color is your county and state?The Harvard Global Health Institute released an interactive map on Wednesday that shows the risk of contracting the coronavirus based on daily new cases per 100,000 people.Based on Harvard's guidelines, three US states need to implement stay-at-home orders, while an additional 13 should consider them. The map has four colors – green, yellow, orange and red – to demonstrate the risk by county and state. The map shows three states – Arizona, Florida and Mississippi – in the red for where infections are high. Just two states – Hawaii and Vermont—are in the green. While Hawaii requires face coverings in public setting such as retailers despite being one of only two states without community spread, the three states in red have not implemented mandatory face coverings in public. "We've left it to the locals to make decisions about whether they want to use coercive measures or impose any type of criminal penalties. We're not going to do that statewide," Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said on Tuesday.According to Harvard Global Health Institute, when areas are shaded red, stay-at-home orders become necessary. So far, Arizona, Florida and Mississippi have not reinstituted stay-at-home orders despite being in the red. Arizona and Florida did announce that most bars can no longer serve alcohol on site.“The public needs clear and consistent information about COVID risk levels in different jurisdictions for personal decision-making, and policy-makers need clear and consistent visibility that permits differentiating policy across jurisdictions”, said Danielle Allen, director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University. “We also collectively need to keep focused on what should be our main target: a path to near zero case incidence.”Thirteen states are in the orange, meaning those states should consider either implementing stay-at-home orders or conduct rigorous tracing programs, Harvard said..“Local leaders need and deserve a unified approach for suppressing COVID-19, with common metrics so that they can begin to anticipate and get ahead of the virus, rather than reacting to uncontrolled community spread”, says Beth Cameron, Vice President for Global Biological Policy and Programs at the Nuclear Threat Initiative and a member of the COVID-Local.org team. “Unless and until there is a whole of government response, with measurable progress communicated similarly and regularly across every state and locality, U.S. leaders will be left to react to the chaos of the virus - rather than being able to more effectively target interventions to suppress it. “COVID RISK LEVEL: GREEN- Less than one case per 100,000 people- On track for containment- Monitor with viral testing and contact tracing programCOVID RISK LEVEL: YELLOW- 1-9 cases per 100,000 people- Community spread- Rigorous test and trace programs advisedCOVID RISK LEVEL: ORANGE- 10-24 cases per 100,000 people- Accelerated spread- Stay-at-home orders and/or rigorous test and trace programs advisedCOVID RISK LEVEL: RED- 25 or more cases per 100,000 people- Tipping point- Stay-at-home orders necessaryClick here to view the map. 3170

Will you accept President-elect Biden's offer to serve as his chief medical adviser? -@SavannahGuthrieAbsolutely, I said yes right on the spot. -Dr. Anthony Fauci pic.twitter.com/lHr3z1v3vo— TODAY (@TODAYshow) December 4, 2020 234

来源：资阳报