World's largest dinosaur footprint discovered in Mongolia's Gobi Desert!

New Delhi, Jan 25: The Patiala House court on Saturday started hearing a plea filed by the Nirbhaya convicts that alleged that the Tihar Jail administration have "not presented the papers on time".

The Public Prosecutor informed the court that Tihar Jail authorities have already supplied the relevant documents. He further informed that these are mere delaying tactics adopted by the convicts.

Advocate A.P. Singh, lawyer for three of the four death row convicts in the Nirbhaya gang-rape case had moved an application before the court seeking directions to the Tihar Jail authorities to supply him the relevant documents in order to exercise the remaining legal remedies available with the death row convicts -- Vinay Pawan and Akshay.

The Public Prosecutor also told the court that he spoke to the jail authorities over the phone and a report in this regard will be filed shortly as the jail officials were on their way to the court.

The judge demanded from the convicts lawyer to show what he has filed.

The convicts lawyer, A.P. Singh, said that he received some documents, but has still not been supplied with the personal diary of one of the convict -- Vinay Kumar Sharma and also the medical documents.

Judge then asked the lawyer to wait for until the report arrives form the Tihar Jail.

On this, the convicts lawyer said he was not questioning the intention of the jail. "I know the jail has been changed. It isn't there fault, too," he said.

The Public Prosecutor refuted the allegation saying that the defence counsel was trying to defeat the speed of law.

"We have supplied all the documents to the counsel. We have supplied all the documents except the painting and some other documents. We have nothing apart from that," public prosecutor said.

Singh, in his plea filed before the Patiala House Court sought urgent orders of the court in order to file a mercy petition of Vinay Sharma and in relation to requests for documents for convicts Vinay Sharma, Pawan Kumar Gupta and Akshay Kumar Singh.

He further said that the convicts undertook several steps to obtain relevant information necessary for filing the mercy petitions. In regular interval, the convicts requested the concerned authority to supply documents pertaining to their medical records from 2012 to 2015 and 2019-2020, records of cellular confinement, records of the amount earned in prison through labour, records of educational and reformative activities like Tihar Olympics and Painting, etc.

The Supreme court had recently dismissed the curative petition for the other two convicts -- Vinay Kumar Sharma (26) and Mukesh Singh (32).

The court had recently issued death warrant against the convicts and fixed 6 a.m. on February 1 as the date and time of execution of the death penalty.

The 23-year-old victim in the case was brutally gang raped and tortured on December 16, 2012, which later led to her death. All the six accused were arrested and charged with sexual assault and murder. One of the accused was a minor and appeared before a juvenile justice court, while another accused committed suicide in Tihar Jail.

Four of the convicts were sentenced to death by a trial court in September 2013, and the verdict was confirmed by the Delhi High Court in March 2014 and subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court in May 2017, which also dismissed their review petitions.

A Juvenile involved in the crime was convicted by a juvenile justice board and released from a reformation home after serving a three-year term.

Hearing in a different case, Chief Justice of India S.A. Bobde on Thursday said a condemned person cannot fight the death penalty endlessly and it was important for the capital punishment to reach its finality.

The death penalty, he noted, cannot be questioned at every turn by the convict.

Paris, Apr 17: Even as virologists zero in on the virus that causes COVID-19, a very basic question remains unanswered: do those who recover from the disease have immunity?

There is no clear answer to this question, experts say, even if many have assumed that contracting the potentially deadly disease confers immunity, at least for a while.

"Being immunised means that you have developed an immune response against a virus such that you can repulse it," explained Eric Vivier, a professor of immunology in the public hospital system in Marseilles.

"Our immune systems remember, which normally prevents you from being infected by the same virus later on."

For some viral diseases such a measles, overcoming the sickness confers immunity for life.

But for RNA-based viruses such as Sars-Cov-2 -- the scientific name for the bug that causes the COVID-19 disease -- it takes about three weeks to build up a sufficient quantity of antibodies, and even then they may provide protection for only a few months, Vivier told AFP.

At least that is the theory. In reality, the new coronavirus has thrown up one surprise after another, to the point where virologists and epidemiologists are sure of very little.

"We do not have the answers to that -- it's an unknown," Michael Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organization's Emergencies Programme said in a press conference this week when asked how long a recovered COVID-19 patient would have immunity.

"We would expect that to be a reasonable period of protection, but it is very difficult to say with a new virus -- we can only extrapolate from other coronaviruses, and even that data is quite limited."

For SARS, which killed about 800 people across the world in 2002 and 2003, recovered patients remained protected "for about three years, on average," Francois Balloux director of the Genetics Institute at University College London, said.

"One can certainly get reinfected, but after how much time? We'll only know retroactively."

A recent study from China that has not gone through peer review reported on rhesus monkeys that recovered from Sars-Cov-2 and did not get reinfected when exposed once again to the virus.

"But that doesn't really reveal anything," said Pasteur Institute researcher Frederic Tangy, noting that the experiment unfolded over only a month.

Indeed,several cases from South Korea -- one of the first countries hit by the new coronavirus -- found that patients who recovered from COVID-19 later tested positive for the virus.

But there are several ways to explain that outcome, scientists cautioned.

While it is not impossible that these individuals became infected a second time, there is little evidence this is what happened.

More likely, said Balloux, is that the virus never completely disappeared in the first place and remains -- dormant and asymptomatic -- as a "chronic infection", like herpes.

As tests for live virus and antibodies have not yet been perfected, it is also possible that these patients at some point tested "false negative" when in fact they had not rid themselves of the pathogen.

"That suggests that people remain infected for a long time -- several weeks," Balloux added. "That is not ideal."

Another pre-publication study that looked at 175 recovered patients in Shanghai showed different concentrations of protective antibodies 10 to 15 days after the onset of symptoms.

"But whether that antibody response actually means immunity is a separate question," commented Maria Van Kerhove, Technical Lead of the WHO Emergencies Programme.

"That's something we really need to better understand -- what does that antibody response look like in terms of immunity."

Indeed, a host of questions remain.

"We are at the stage of asking whether someone who has overcome COVID-19 is really that protected," said Jean-Francois Delfraissy, president of France's official science advisory board.

For Tangy, an even grimmer reality cannot be excluded.

"It is possible that the antibodies that someone develops against the virus could actually increase the risk of the disease becoming worse," he said, noting that the most serious symptoms come later, after the patient had formed antibodies.

For the moment, it is also unclear whose antibodies are more potent in beating back the disease: someone who nearly died, or someone with only light symptoms or even no symptoms at all. And does age make a difference?

Faced with all these uncertainties, some experts have doubts about the wisdom of persuing a "herd immunity" strategy such that the virus -- unable to find new victims -- peters out by itself when a majority of the population is immune.

"The only real solution for now is a vaccine," Archie Clements, a professor at Curtin University in Perth Australia, told AFP.

At the same time, laboratories are developing a slew of antibody tests to see what proportion of the population in different countries and regions have been contaminated.

Such an approach has been favoured in Britain and Finland, while in Germany some experts have floated the idea of an "immunity passport" that would allow people to go back to work.

"It's too premature at this point," said Saad Omer, a professor of infectious diseases at the Yale School of Medicine.

"We should be able to get clearer data very quickly -- in a couple of months -- when there will be reliable antibody tests with sensitivity and specificity."

One concern is "false positives" caused by the tests detecting antibodies unrelated to COVID-19.

The idea of immunity passports or certificates also raises ethical questions, researchers say.

"People who absolutely need to work -- to feed their families, for example -- could try to get infected," Balloux.

Consumer watchdog Which? has claimed that more than one billion Android phones and tablets are vulnerable to hackers as they no longer supported by security updates.

According to the research report, the most at-risk phones are any that run Android 4 or older and those smartphones running Android 7.0 which can not be updated are also at risk.

Based on data from Google analysed by Which?, two in five android device users around the world are no longer receiving the important updates. Currently, those devices are unlikely to have issues, but the lack of security leaves them open to attack.

"It is very concerning that expensive Android devices have such a short shelf life before they lose security support, leaving millions of users at risk of serious consequences if they fall victim to hackers," Kate Bevan editor Which? said in a statement.

"Google and phone manufacturers need to be upfront about security updates with clear information about how long they will last and what customers should do when they run out. The government must also push ahead with planned legislation to ensure manufacturers are far more transparent about security updates for smart devices and their impact on consumers," Kate added.

Android phone released around 2012 or earlier, including popular models like the Samsung Galaxy S3 and Sony Xperia S, are particularly at risk to hackers.

Which? has made suggestions to Android users on what to consider if they have an older phone that may be at risk.

Any Android device which is more than two years old, check whether it can be updated to a newer version of the operating system. If it is on an earlier version than Android 7.0 Nougat, try to update via Settings> System>Advanced System update.

In case a user is not able tto update the phone, the device could be at risk of being hacked if it is running a version of Android 4 or lower.

A user also need to be careful about downloading apps outside the Google Play store and should also install a mobile anti-virus via an app.