Indians will pay $50,000 more for US investor visa from April

Jun 13: Requiring the wearing of masks to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus in areas at the epicenter of the global pandemic may have prevented tens of thousands of infections, a new study suggests.

Mask-wearing is even more important for preventing the virus' spread and the sometimes deadly COVID-19 illness it causes than social distancing and stay-at-home orders, researchers said, in the study published in PNAS: The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA.

Infection trends shifted dramatically when mask-wearing rules were implemented on April 6 in northern Italy and April 17 in New York City - at the time among the hardest hit areas of the world by the health crisis - the study found.

"This protective measure alone significantly reduced the number of infections, that is, by over 78,000 in Italy from April 6 to May 9 and over 66,000 in New York City from April 17 to May 9," researchers calculated.

When mask-wearing went into effect in New York, the daily new infection rate fell by about 3% per day, researchers said. In the rest of the country, daily new infections continued to increase.

Direct contact precautions - social distancing, quarantine and isolation, and hand sanitizing - were all in place before mask-wearing rules went into effect in Italy and New York City. But they only help minimize virus transmission by direct contact, while face covering helps prevent airborne transmission, the researchers say.

"The unique function of face covering to block atomization and inhalation of virus-bearing aerosols accounts for the significantly reduced infections," they said. That would indicate "that airborne transmission of COVID-19 represents the dominant route for infection."

The U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention on Friday urged organizers of large gatherings that involve "shouting, chanting or singing to strongly encourage the use of cloth face coverings to lower the risk of spreading the coronavirus."

New Delhi, Jan 10: The Supreme Court while hearing petitions challenging restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir on Friday stated that the right to access the internet is a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.

"It is no doubt that freedom of speech is an essential tool in a democratic setup. The freedom of Internet access is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution," a two-judge bench headed by Justice N V Ramana stated while reading out the judgment.

The top court said that Kashmir has seen a lot of violence and that it will try to maintain a balance between human rights and freedoms with the issue of security.

It also directed the Jammu and Kashmir administration to review the restrictive orders imposed in the region within a week. “The citizens should be provided highest security and liberty,” the apex court added.

The top court made observations and issued directions while pronouncing the verdict on a number of petitions challenging the restrictions and internet blockade imposed in Jammu and Kashmir after the abrogation of Article 370 in August last year.

The Supreme Court had on November 27 reserved the judgment on a batch of petitions challenging restrictions imposed on communication, media and telephone services in Jammu and Kashmir pursuant to revocation of Article 370.

The court heard the petitions filed by various petitioners including Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad and Kashmir Times editor Anuradha Bhasin.

The petitions were filed after the central government scrapped Article 370 in August and bifurcated Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories -- Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Following this, phone lines and the internet were blocked in the region.

The government had, however, contended that it has progressively eased restrictions.

Jehanabad, Jan 27: The police here carried out a raid at the ancestral house of anti-CAA activist Sharjeel Imam, who has been slapped with a sedition case in the national capital for alleged inflammatory speeches he gave at Shaheen Bagh and the Jamia Milia Islamia, a senior official said on Monday.

According to Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad, Manish Kumar, Imams house in Kako police station area was raided late on Sunday night following "help sought by central agencies" which are investigating the cases lodged against the JNU research scholar.

Imam was not found at his house but two of his relatives and their driver were detained for interrogation and let off thereafter, the SP said.

A graduate in computer science from IIT-Mumbai, Sharjeel Imam had shifted to Delhi for pursuing research at the Centre for Historical Studies, JNU.

He was slapped with a sedition case after his alleged speeches went viral on the social media wherein he was heard speaking about Assam's possible secession from the country in the wake of the Citienship (Amendment) Act (CAA).

Earlier, he had been booked on similar charges at a police station in Aligarh for a speech he delivered on the AMU campus.

Besides, a case under the stringent anti-terror law UAPA has been registered against him at Assam.

Imams late father Akbar Imam was a local JD(U) leader who had unsuccessfully contested an assembly election in his lifetime.

Reacting to the developments, his distraught mother Afshan Rahim told the media, "My son is innocent. He is a bright young man and not a thief or a pickpocket. I swear in the name of God that I do not know about his whereabouts. But I can guarantee that upon learning about the cases, he will appear before the investigating agencies and fully cooperate in the probe."

She said that it has been a long time since she met her son though she had a telephonic conversation with him a few weeks ago.

"He was obviously disturbed by the CAA and fears of the National Register of Citiznes (NRC) about being implemented across the country which, he said, would affect not just Muslims but all poor people," she said.

In fact, after 15 days of Shaheen Bagh protest, he had asked the agitators there to withdraw and watch the situation for a month, and then decide on the further course of action, she said. "But they refused to relent. He was calling for a 'chakkajam' (road blockade). He is just a kid and not capable of instigating people for secession," she added.