People around the world are currently isolating themselves or in a formal quarantine to prevent the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. But for decades, astronauts have been quarantined to ensure that they were virus-free and ready to fly (or, in the case of Apollo, to make sure they didn’t bring home any “moon bugs.”)
This quarantine period “ensures that they aren’t sick or incubating an illness when they get to the space station,” NASA spokesperson Brandi Dean told Space.com.
New C.D.C. data shows that nearly 40 percent of patients sick enough to be hospitalized were age 20 to 54. But the risk of dying was significantly higher in older people.
While getting shots or blood work isn’t anyone’s idea of fun, roughly 10 to 20 percent of American adults suffer from trypanophobia, the extreme fear of hypodermic needles and injections. This phobia can prevent people from partaking in routine medical exams, receiving life-saving vaccines or even properly managing their blood-glucose levels (should they suffer from diabetes). However, a pair of novel injection systems offers the promise of putting those critical medicines into our bodies without ever breaking the skin.
The mission of healthy life extension, or healthy longevity promotion, raises a broad variety of questions and tasks, relating to science and technology, individual and communal ethics, and public policy, especially health and science policy. Despite the wide variety, the related questions may be classified into three groups. The first group of questions concerns the feasibility of the accomplishment of life extension. Is it theoretically and technologically possible? What are our grounds for optimism? What are the means to ensure that the life extension will be healthy life extension? The second group concerns the desirability of the accomplishment of life extension for the individual and the society, provided it will become some day possible through scientific intervention.
How will then life extension affect the perception of personhood? How will it affect the availability of resources for the population? Yet, the third and final group can be termed normative. What actions should we take? Assuming that life extension is scientifically possible and socially desirable, and that its implications are either demonstrably positive or, in case of a negative forecast, they are amenable – what practical implications should these determinations have for public policy, in particular health policy and research policy, in a democratic society? Should we pursue the goal of life extension? If yes, then how? How can we make it an individual and social priority? Given the rapid population aging and the increasing incidence and burden of age-related diseases, on the pessimistic side, and the rapid development of medical technologies, on the optimistic side, these become vital questions of social responsibility. And indeed, these questions are often asked by almost any person thinking about the possibility of human life extension, its meaning for oneself, for the people in one’s close circle, for the entire global community. Many of these questions are rather standard, and the answers to them are also often quite standard. Below some of those frequently asked questions and frequently given answers are given, with specific reference to the possibility and desirability of healthy human life extension, and the normative actions that can be undertaken, by the individual and the society, to achieve this goal.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said he supports direct payments of $1,000 per adult and $500 per child to Americans within three weeks if Congress backs the plan.
“The president is determined that we are going to support” those affected, Mnuchin said in a Fox Business interview Thursday morning.
Cash handouts to all American households are gaining support in Congress as the best way to shore up an economy brought to a near-standstill by the coronavirus response.
On Jan. 24, the Lancet, an independent medical journal, published a study showing Wuhan’s first patient was not connected to the seafood market. A joint research team representing China’s Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Huanan Agricultural College and the Chinese Institute for Brain Research have also said the seafood market is not the source of COVID-19.
