宜宾美容祛斑医院(宜宾单眼皮与双眼皮区别) (今日更新中)

The excitement of two COVID-19 vaccines with more than 90 percent efficacy is undeniable.In November, both Pfizer and Moderna announced its scientists had developed vaccines with efficacy at or near 95 percent, but scientists are warning these vaccines are not the "silver bullet" to ending the pandemic.“We don’t want to give the public the impression that there’s an emergency use authorization and these vaccines become available in a small amount in December and we can go back to our pre-pandemic behavior,” said William Moss, executive director of the International Vaccine Access Center at Johns Hopkins.In June, the FDA released its vaccine guidelines, saying it would consider emergency use authorization for any vaccine testing with at least 50 percent effectiveness, so there is a reason for celebration, according to Moss, but only after certain questions about the vaccine are answered.Dr. Anthony Fauci has said the initial vaccines will prevent symptoms in those who become infected, rather than kill the virus itself. Moss says that means immunized people might be able to spread COVID-19 to others.He also wonders how long immunization will last. One year? Three years? Will booster doses be needed? They're all careful considerations that will only emerge once one is put into play, according to Moss.“It’s obviously tragic that the [COVID] cases are occurring that quickly, but it does help a vaccine trial because otherwise you just have to wait that much longer for samples to come in,” said Moss.The vaccine process has innovated how scientists and researchers approach these types of situations, however, according to Moss.In traditional vaccines, a small dose of the virus is injected into the body so the immune system can create antibodies. In the COVID-19 vaccine, though, both Moderna and Pfizer have used what is called messenger RNA (mRNA) where the virus’ genetic code is injected into the body so it can instruct cells on what antibodies to produce. Scientists say this way is faster, safer, and can create a stronger immune response as people are not exposed to the virus.“I suspect that if this all goes well and these vaccines are safe and continue to demonstrate 90 to 95 percent efficacy, we’re going to see other vaccines of a similar type,” said Moss. 2298

The Don Cesar is a world-famous hotel, where guests expect to have a safe and enjoyable experience, but Stacey Wagers’ birthday dinner there turned into a nightmare. We allege that Don Cesar’s restaurant served her a dangerous chemical that caused extreme pain and injury. As a young woman and mother, she will possibly experience pain and discomfort for the rest of her life. We believe this was entirely preventable had the restaurant not acted recklessly, and we will fight to hold them accountable and make sure it never happens to another guest. 558

The destructive storm surge has receded, and the clean up has begun from Hurricane Laura in Texas and Louisiana. But officials along this shattered stretch of Louisiana coast are warning returning residents they will face weeks without power or water amid the hot, stifling days of late summer. Hundreds of thousands of people in two of the hardest-hit states are reported to be without power following the severe storm.The U.S. toll from the Category 4 hurricane stood at 16 deaths, with more than half of those killed by carbon monoxide poisoning from the unsafe operation of generators. President Donald Trump landed in Louisiana Saturday afternoon to tour the damage in Louisiana and will head to Texas next. 720

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a key report Tuesday that said a COVID-19 vaccine made by Moderna is safe and effective — the latest in a series of rubber stamp approvals that could allow the vaccine to be distributed by the end of the month.The FDA report on Tuesday upheld the clinical trials, which have shown the vaccine to be 95% effective with no severe side-effects. The FDA report says that the data is "consistent with the recommendations set forth in FDA’s Guidance on Emergency Use Authorization for Vaccines to Prevent COVID-19.""FDA has determined that the Sponsor has provided adequate information to ensure the vaccine’s quality and consistency for authorization of the product under an EUA,” the report reads.The next step in approval for the Moderna vaccine will come on Thursday when the FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee will meet and vote on whether to approve the Moderna vaccine for Emergency Use Authorization.The vaccine would then need approval from the FDA as a whole, and then a recommendation from the CDC before health care professionals can begin injections.The release of the FDA report comes a day after the first Americans received initial doses of a COVID-19 vaccine made by Pfizer.Should Moderna's vaccine follow the same approval schedule as the Pfizer vaccine, health care professionals should begin injections by Monday.The U.S. purchased 100 million doses of the Moderna vaccine earlier this year, and Moderna will have millions of doses ready to ship as soon as it receives Emergency Use Authorization.Late last week, the federal government purchased an additional 100 million doses of the vaccine, meaning it expects to have 200 million doses by spring 2021.The decision to purchase more doses of Moderna's vaccine came days after the New York Times reported that the U.S. government chose not to purchase more doses of the Pfizer vaccine when it had the chance earlier this year. 1977

The first hearing in CNN and Jim Acosta's federal lawsuit against President Trump and several top White House aides lasted for two hours of tough questioning of both sides.At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Timothy J. Kelly said he would announce his decision Thursday afternoon.CNN and Acosta are alleging that the White House's suspension of his press pass violates the First and Fifth Amendments.The hearing started around 3:40 p.m., Kelly began by probing CNN's arguments for the better part of an hour. Then he turned to questioning a lawyer representing the government.Lawyers for the network and Acosta asked for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction that would restore his press pass right away, arguing that time is of the essence because his rights are violated every day his pass is suspended.Kelly opened the hearing by quizzing CNN attorney Theodore Boutrous on the network's First Amendment claim and asking how the President's history of attacks on CNN should be viewed in the context of the lawsuit.Boutrous rattled off examples of Trump's missives against CNN, including his claim that the network is an "enemy of the people."Kelly expressed skepticism that this proves the Acosta ban is "content-based discrimination," as CNN is alleging.Kelly said there is some evidence that Acosta's conduct -- not his content -- led the White House to suspend his press pass.But Boutrous disputed that and said there "never will there be more evidence of facial discrimination and animus against an individual reporter" than in this case.Kelly said "we've all seen the clip" of the White House press conference where Trump and Acosta had a combative exchange last week. Kelly said that Acosta "continued speaking after his time expired" and "wouldn't give up his microphone" -- points that the Trump administration made in its briefs earlier Wednesday.Under questioning from the judge, Boutrous cited Trump's words to Acosta from the press conference, and said, "'Rudeness' is really a code word for 'I don't like you being an aggressive reporter.'"Kelly peppered CNN's attorney with hypotheticals as he tried to determine what a lawful move by the White House, responding to Acosta's actions, would look like."Could they let him keep the pass but tell him he couldn't come to presidential press conferences?" Kelly asked.Boutrous contended that even a partial response like that would be a violation of Acosta's First Amendment rights.Boutrous called the White House's move to revoke Acosta's hard pass "the definition of arbitrariness and capriciousness.""What are the standards?" Boutrous asked. "Rudeness is not a standard. If it were no one could have gone to the press conference."Boutrous separately brought up evidence that hadn't been available when CNN filed its suit: A fundraising email that the Trump campaign sent Wednesday.The email touted the decision to revoke Acosta's credentials and attacked CNN for what it called its "liberal bias." Boutrous said that by grouping that all together in the same breath, the email made it clear that it was Acosta's coverage and not his conduct at a press conference that triggered the revocation of his press pass.Kelly asked CNN's lawyers to state the company's position regarding the original White House accusation that Acosta placed his hands a White House intern as she tried to grab his microphone away."It's absolutely false," Boutrous said.Boutrous also pointed out that Trump administration never mentioned that accusation against Acosta in the 28-page brief that Justice Department lawyers filed with the court earlier on Wednesday."They've abandoned that" claim, Boutrous said.In his first question in a back and forth with the government, Kelly asked Justice Department attorney James Burnham to clear up the government's shifting rationale for revoking Acosta's pass."Why don't you set me straight," Kelly said. "Let me know what was the reason and address this issue of whether the government's reason has changed over time.""There doesn't need to be a reason because there's no First Amendment protection and the President has broad discretion," Burnham said.Still, Burnham called the White House's stated reasonings "pretty consistent throughout," and walked through a series of statements that the administration has made — from Trump's first comments at the press conference to Sanders' tweets announcing the revocation to the official statement put out Tuesday after CNN filed its suit.Burnham said Sanders' claim that Acosta had inappropriately touched a White House intern was not a part of their legal argument."We're not relying on that here and I don't think the White House is relying on that here," Burnham said.Burnham said that it would be perfectly legal for the White House to revoke a journalist's credentials if it didn't agree with their reporting.He made the assertion under questioning from Kelly, who asked him to state the administration's position in this hypothetical situation.The judge asked if the White House could essentially tell any individual journalist, "we don't like your reporting, so we're pulling your hard pass." Burnham replied, "as a matter of law... yes."Pressed again by the judge on Sanders' claim that Acosta had inappropriately touched the intern, Burnham said "we don't have a position" on that."The one consistent explanation," Burnham said, "is disorder at the press conference."Burnham contended that revoking Acosta's hard pass was not "viewpoint discrimination" — part of a legal threshold for a First Amendment claim."A single journalist's attempt to monopolize a press conference is not a viewpoint and revoking a hard pass in response to that is not viewpoint discrimination," Burnham said.Kelly tried to press for details about how Acosta's pass came to be revoked, asking Burnham who made the actual decision.Burnham said he didn't have any information beyond what had been filed in court documents: that the revocation was first announced by Sanders on November 7 and then "ratified" by Trump the next day."Do you have any information to suggest that it was anyone other than Ms. Sanders that made the decision?" Kelly asked."No, not that I'm offering today. I'm not denying it but I don't know anything beyond what's been filed," Burnham said.Later, Burnham argued that revoking Acosta's press pass does not infringe on his First Amendment rights because he can still call White House staffers for interviews or "catch them on their way out" of the building."I think the harm to the network is very small," Burnham said."Their cameras are still in there," he added.Burnham said CNN had made an "odd First Amendment injury" claim and suggested that Acosta could do his job "just as effectively" watching the President's appearances piped into a studio on CNN."The President never has to speak to Mr. Acosta again," Burnham said. "The President never has to give an interview to Mr. Acosta. And the President never has to call on Mr. Acosta at a press conference.""To be in a room where he has no right to speak... this seems to me like an odd First Amendment injury that we're talking about," Burnham said.Boutrous, the CNN attorney, fired back on rebuttal."That's not how reporters break stories. It's simply a fundamental misconception of journalism," Boutrous said, adding how unscheduled gaggles and source meetings throughout the White House amounted to "invaluable access."In a legal filing by the Justice Department on Wednesday, the White House asserted that it has "broad discretion" to pick and choose which journalists are given a permanent pass to cover it.That position is a sharp break with decades of tradition. Historically both Republican and Democratic administrations have had a permissive approach to press access, providing credentials both to big news organizations like CNN and obscure and fringe outlets.Acosta's suspension -— which took effect one week ago — is an unprecedented step. Journalism advocates say it could have a chilling effect on news coverage.CNN and Acosta's lawsuit was filed on Tuesday morning, nearly one week after Acosta was banned.Before the hearing began, CNN's lawyers said the case hinges on Acosta and CNN's First Amendment rights; the shifting rationales behind the ban; and the administration's failure to follow the federal regulations that pertain to press passes, an alleged violation of Fifth Amendment rights. The lawsuit asserts that this ban is really about Trump's dislike of Acosta.The "reasonable inference from defendants' conduct is that they have revoked Acosta's credentials as a form of content- and viewpoint-based discrimination and in retaliation for plaintiffs' exercise of protected First Amendment activity," CNN's lawsuit alleges.In addition to the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that CNN is seeking at the hearing, CNN and Acosta are also seeking what's known as "permanent relief." The lawsuit asks the judge to determine that Trump's action was "unconstitutional, in violation of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." This could protect other reporters against similar actions in the future."If the press is not free to cover the news because its reporter is unjustly denied access, it is not free," former White House correspondent Sam Donaldson said in a declaration supporting CNN that was filed with the court on Tuesday. "And if denying access to a reporter an organization has chosen to represent it -- in effect asserting the president's right to take that choice away from a news organization and make it himself -- is permitted, then the press is not free."Ted Olson, a Republican heavyweight who successfully argued for George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore, is representing CNN, along with Boutrous — himself another prominent attorney — and the network's chief counsel, David Vigilante.Olson said Tuesday that while it was Acosta whose press pass was suspended this time, "this could happen to any journalist by any politician."He spoke forcefully against Trump's action. "The White House cannot get away with this," Olson said.Most of the country's major news organizations have sided with CNN through statements and plan to file friend-of-the-court briefs. 10291

来源：资阳报