Connect with us

News

Snowpiercer Season 2 Episode 9 Not Released, What to Expect?

Published

on

Snowpiercer Season 2 Episode 9

Snowpiercer Season 2 Episode 9 Not Released, What to Expect?.

Episode 9 of Snowpiercer Season 2 has not been released yet. It is because the makers of the series have decided to combine the last two episodes.

All fans are impatiently waiting to watch episode 9 of Snowpiercer Season 2. Episode 8 of Snowpiercer Season 2 was ended with big suspense. So, the excitement of Episode 9 is increased among the people.

In the upcoming episode, we will see the result of a fight for the soul of Snowpiercer. To know the result, you will have to wait for two weeks because the web series Snowpiercer will combine the last two episodes of Snowpiercer Season 2 and will make a big finale episode that will reveal all the secrets and suspense.

Snowpiercer Season 2 Episode 9 Not Released

There is an official announcement that Episdoe 9 of Snowpiercer Season 2 will not be aired this week. Even no new episode will be aired until 29th March 2021.

The final two-hour episode of Snowpiercer Season 2 will be released on 29th March 2021. It will be released at 09:00 PM. If we talk about the recap of Snowpiercer Season 2, Episode 8, then in that, Sam Roche has performed a voice-over episode and told about the next coming war.

It seems that the end is near. Layton and Ruth will get united to defeat Wilford. In the entire season, they both hated each other, and in the last, they unite together.

It will be the best scene of the series. It will also be interesting to see the war and how Layton and Ruth defeat the evil. The last fight will be bigger and breathtaking. It is because it will decide that who will win the soul of Snowpiercer. Let’s see what happened next. Let’s watch the trailer of Snowpiercer Season 2.

Do not forget to add a bookmark to this website and visit it daily to get the latest updates and news. Stay tuned for the next update.

Continue Reading

News

David Dastmalchian boards cast of Keira Knightley-led ‘Boston Strangler’ movie- The New Indian Express

Published

on

By PTI

LOS ANGELES: David Dastmalchian, the star of “The Suicide Squad” and “Dune”, has joined the cast of upcoming drama movie “Boston Strangler”.

The project, which comes from 20th Century Studios and will feature Keira Knightley in the lead, will be written and directed by Matt Ruskin of “Crown Heights” fame.

The film is inspired by the infamous Boston Strangler murders that happened between June 1962 and January 1964.

13 women were murdered during that period by a serial killer.

The film will follow the true story of Loretta McLaughlin (Knightley), the first reporter to connect the murders and break the story of the Strangler.

She and fellow reporter Jean Cole challenged the sexism of the early 1960s to report on the city”s most notorious serial killer and worked tirelessly to keep women informed.

Loretta pursued the story at great personal risk and uncovered corruption that cast doubt on the true identity of the Boston Strangler.

The film’s cast also includes Carrie Coon, Alessandro Nivola and Chris Cooper.

“Boston Strangler” will be produced by veteran filmmaker Ridley Scott along with Kevin Walsh through their Scott Free banner.

Tom Ackerley and Josey McNamara of LuckyChap Entertainment are also backing the film.

The film will start production later this month.

Continue Reading

News

Severe Covid infection doubles chances of dying in following year – study | Coronavirus

Published

on

Patients who survive severe Covid are more than twice as likely to die over the following year than those who remain uninfected or experience milder virus symptoms, a study says.

The research, published in Frontiers in Medicine, suggests that serious coronavirus infections may significantly damage long-term health, showing the importance of vaccination.

The increased risk of dying was greater for patients under 65, and only 20% of the severe Covid-19 patients who died did so because of typical Covid complications, such as respiratory failure.

“We conducted a previous study that showed that patients with severe Covid-19 who recovered were at significantly greater risk of being hospitalised in the subsequent six months,” said ProfArch Mainous of the University of Florida, the lead author of the study. “This new study extended that to investigate mortality risk over the next 12 months.”

The researchers tracked the electronic health records of 13,638 patients who underwent a PCR test for Covid within the University of Florida health system, with 178 patients experiencing severe virus symptoms, 246 mild or moderate Covid-19 and the rest testing negative. All patients included in the study recovered from the disease, and the researchers tracked their outcomes.

The study found that patients who were very unwell with coronavirus had a significantly greater chance of dying over the next year, a trend that was particularly notable among those aged under 65. As these deaths frequently occurred long after the initial infection had passed, they may never have been linked to Covid-19 by the patients’ families or doctors, the study found.

Most of the deaths that occurred in severe Covid-19 survivors were not linked with common complications from the disease – 80% of such deaths occurred for a wide variety of reasons that are not typically associated with the virus.

This suggests that the patients had experienced an overall decline in their health that left them vulnerable. “Since we now know that there is a substantial risk of dying from what would likely be considered to be an unrecognised complication of Covid-19, we need to be even more vigilant in decreasing severe episodes of Covid-19,” said Mainous.

“Taking your chances and hoping for successful treatment in the hospital doesn’t convey the full picture of the impact of Covid-19. Our recommendation at this point is to use preventive measures, such as vaccination, to prevent severe episodes of Covid-19.”

Covid-19 can cause severe symptoms and death for vulnerable people, particularly those with underlying health conditions. Some people also experience long Covid, signs and symptoms that last for a few weeks or months after infection. Symptoms such as fatigue and shortness of breath can linger for months after the infection has passed.

Continue Reading

News

Biden’s Vaccine Mandates Are Losing in Court

Published

on

President Joe Biden delivers remarks on the coronavirus response and vaccinations during a speech at the White House, August 23, 2021. (Leah Millis/Reuters)

Joe Biden’s effort to use the federal government to mandate the COVID vaccine is not faring very well in the courts. In early November, the Fifth Circuit halted the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s vaccine mandate almost as soon as it was announced. After hearing briefing and argument, it extended the stay. Now, we have a battery of additional decisions from the federal district courts.

Today, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Kentucky, Gregory van Tatenhove (a George W. Bush appointee), issued an injunction blocking the vaccine mandate for employees of federal-government contractors and subcontractors. The injunction applies throughout three states (Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee), the state governments of which were plaintiffs in the case. The court, citing the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in the OSHA case, was unconvinced that the Biden administration had the authority to do this:

While the statute grants to the president great discretion, it strains credulity that Congress intended…a procurement statute to be the basis for promulgating a public health measure such as mandatory vaccination. If a vaccination mandate has a close enough nexus to economy and efficiency in federal procurement, then the statute could be used to enact virtually any measure at the president’s whim under the guise of economy and efficiency…Although Congress used its power to delegate procurement authority to the president to promote economy and efficiency federal contracting, this power has its limits…If OSHA promulgating a vaccine mandate runs afoul of the nondelegation doctrine, the Court has serious concerns about the FPASA, which is a procurement statute, being used to promulgate a vaccine mandate for all federal contractors and subcontractors. [Bold added.]

Yesterday and today, federal judges in Louisiana and Missouri entered injunctions against vaccine mandates for the staff of 21 types of Medicare and Medicaid health-care providers, enacted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and planned to go into effect next Monday. Monday’s ruling was by Judge Matthew Schlep of the Eastern District of Missouri (a Trump appointee), and applies to ten states (Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming), all of which were plaintiffs in the case. Judge Schlep, too, cited the lack of statutory authorization:

While the Court agrees Congress has authorized the Secretary of Health and Human Services…general authority to enact regulations for the “administration” of Medicare and Medicaid and the “health and safety” of recipients, the nature and breadth of the CMS mandate requires clear authorization from Congress—and Congress has provided none…Courts have long required Congress to speak clearly when providing agency authorization if it (1) intends for an agency to exercise powers of vast economic and political significance; (2) if the authority would significantly alter the balance between federal and state power; or (3) if an administrative interpretation of a statute invokes the outer limits of Congress’ power. Any one of those fundamental principles would require clear congressional authorization for this mandate, but here, all three are present… [E]ven if Congress has the power to mandate the vaccine and the authority to delegate such a mandate to CMS—topics on which the Court does not opine today—the lack of congressional intent for this monumental policy decision speaks volumes. [Bold added.]

He also noted the long delay in issuing a mandate, which — as in the case of OSHA’s mandate — undercuts the Biden administration’s claim of urgency and its basis for acting in high-handed fashion without full consideration of comments from affected parties:

[T]wo vaccines were authorized under Emergency Use Authorization (“EUA”) more than ten months before the CMS mandate took effect, and one vaccine was fully licensed by the FDA well over two months before…[S]ince the onset of COVID, CMS has issued five…mandates, such as the one here; the most recent on May 13, 2021…One could query how an “emergency” could prompt such a slow response; such delay hardly suggests a situation so dire that CMS may dispense with notice and comment requirements…and the important purposes they serve.

The COVID pandemic is an event beyond CMS’s control, yet it was completely within its control to act earlier than it did…CMS looked only at evidence from interested parties in favor of the mandate, while completely ignoring evidence from interested parties in opposition…In fact, CMS foreclosed these parties’ ability to provide information regarding the mandate’s effects on the healthcare industry, while simultaneously dismissing those concerns based on “insufficient evidence.”…But facts do not cease to exist simply because they are ignored, and stating that a factor was considered is not a substitute for considering it. [Bold added; quotations and citations omitted.]

He further observed that “the failure to take and respond to comments feeds into the very vaccine hesitancy CMS acknowledges is so daunting” and found it irrational that “CMS rejected mandate alternatives in those with natural immunity by a previous coronavirus infection.” Should judges be flyspecking the reasoning of administrative agencies? Maybe if they stuck to ordering things they clearly had the power to order, that would be a fairer question.

Finally, today, Judge Terry Doughty of the Western District of Louisiana (a Trump appointee) enjoined the CMS mandate in the other 40 states. The nationwide scope of his injunction is more debatable, although fourteen states (Louisiana, Montana, Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio) were before the court as plaintiffs, and the ruling is clearly properly tailored to the parties to the case. Judge Doughty is in the Fifth Circuit, so he felt himself bound by the similarity of the CMS mandate to the OSHA mandate. He was similarly critical of the process:

It took CMS longer to prepare the interim final rule without notice than it would have taken to comply with the notice and comment requirement. Notice and comment would have allowed others to comment upon the need for such drastic action before its implementation.

He was also unpersuaded that CMS had the authority to issue such far-reaching rules without anything resembling a specific authorization from Congress:

None of these statutes give the Government Defendants the “superpowers” they claim. Not only do the statutes not specify such superpowers, but principles of separation of powers weigh heavily against such powerful authority being transferred to a government agency by general authority…if the Government Defendants have the power and authority they claim (to mandate vaccines for 10.3 million workers), these government agencies would have almost “unfiltered power” over any healthcare provider, supplier, and employees that are covered by the CMS Mandate. If CMS has the authority by a general authorization statute to mandate vaccines, they have authority to do almost anything they believe necessary, holding the hammer of termination of the Medicare/Medicaid Provider Agreement over healthcare facilities and suppliers. [Bold added.]

We have a government of enumerated powers. Congress is supposed to make laws that are to be executed in enumerated ways. Assuming that it has such an extraordinary power as mandating that Americans take a vaccine, it should either pass a law to exercise that power, or at least pass a law that unambiguously delegates to the executive branch the decision when to exercise it. What we have seen instead is the Biden administration scouring the books for any law – no matter how general or how unrelated to the topic – that seems vague enough to cover the situation. We will see in the end how the Supreme Court resolves these issues, as it inevitably will. But we still have only one legislative branch, and it is not run by the president.

Continue Reading

Trending