昌吉看妇科的医院哪好(昌吉男的割包皮多少钱啊) (今日更新中)

The coronavirus is shaking up America’s liquor laws.At least 33 states and the District of Columbia are temporarily allowing cocktails to-go during the pandemic. Only two — Florida and Mississippi — allowed them on a limited basis before coronavirus struck, according to the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States.Struggling restaurants say it’s a lifeline, letting them rehire bartenders, pay rent and reestablish relationships with customers. But others want states to slow down, saying the decades-old laws help ensure public safety.Julia Momose closed Kumiko, her Japanese-style cocktail bar in Chicago, on March 16. The next day, Illinois allowed bars and restaurants to start selling unopened bottles of beer, wine and liquor, but mixed drinks were excluded.Momose spent the next three months collecting petition signatures and pressing lawmakers to allow carryout cocktails. It worked. On June 17, she poured her first to-go drink: a Seaflower, made with gin, vermouth, Japanese citrus fruit and fermented chili paste. A carryout bottle, which serves two, costs .Momose has been able to hire back four of her furloughed employees. A group she co-founded, Cocktails for Hope, is now helping restaurants buy glass bottles in bulk for carryout.“Part of getting cocktails to go approved was embracing the fact that this isn’t going to fix everything, but it is going to fix something,” Momose said. “All these little things that we do will keep us open and keep our staff employed.”U.S. liquor laws — many of which date to the end of Prohibition in 1933 —are a confusing jumble that vary by state, city and county.Carryout cocktail regulations — which were passed starting in March — only deepen that confusion. Lawmakers approved carryout cocktails in some states; governors approved them in others. Nevada passed no statewide measure, but individual cities like Las Vegas and Reno allow them. In Pennsylvania, only restaurants and bars that lost 25% of average monthly total sales can sell cocktails to go.Most carryout cocktail regulations require customers to buy food with their mixed drinks. Lids or seals are generally required, but some states say drinks also need to be transported in the trunk. Marbet Lewis, a founding partner at Spiritus Law in Miami who specializes in the alcohol industry, says IDs should be checked — online or in person — by restaurants and bars as well as by delivery drivers.Some states, like Arizona, allow third party delivery companies like DoorDash to deliver cocktails; Kansas only allows delivery within a 50-foot radius.The laws also have different sunset dates. Alabama is only allowing carryout cocktails through Sept. 15, while Colorado and Massachusetts have extended them into next year. Michigan is allowing them through 2025.Last month, Iowa became the first state to permanently allow carryout and delivery of cocktails. Lawmakers in Ohio and Oklahoma are considering a similar measure, and the governors of Texas and Florida have expressed support for the change.There is overwhelming public support for making cocktails to go permanent, says Mike Whatley, vice president of state and local affairs for the National Restaurant Association. Between 75% and 80% of respondents have said they support carryout cocktails in numerous state polls, Whatley said.U.S. restaurants and bars have lost an estimated 5 billion since March due to lockdowns and social distancing requirements, the association said. In a May survey of 3,800 restaurants, the association found that 78% of operators who were selling alcohol to go had brought back laid-off employees, compared to 62% of operators overall.But some are urging states not to be too hasty. Mothers Against Drunk Driving worries that permanent carryout cocktails will lead to an increase in drunken driving unless laws make clear that the drinks can’t be consumed until the buyer is in a safe location.The U.S. government hasn’t released preliminary drunk driving data for 2020. But Jonathan Adkins, the executive director of the Governors Highway Safety Association, said there’s no anecdotal evidence that drunk driving has spiked during the pandemic.Patrick Maroney, a former liquor control officer in Colorado who is now a consultant, said carryout beer and wine — which was allowed in around 15 states prior to the pandemic — are different from cocktails because the containers are sealed by the manufacturer and the alcohol content is lower. Cocktails are mixed at the bar, so the alcohol content can vary and they may not be properly sealed, he said.Maroney said states need to make sure police and health officials are consulted before changing laws that have worked for decades. He noted that California reported a spike in reports of alcohol delivery to minors in April.“Are law enforcement officials worried about an ‘open air’ type atmosphere?” he said. “Is the law restricted to at-home consumption? How do they enforce it?”Maroney received funding from the Center for Alcohol Policy — which is funded by beer wholesalers — for a recent research paper raising concerns about carryout cocktails.Even before the coronavirus hit, there was a push to modernize alcohol laws to reflect the growing popularity of food delivery, Lewis said. She thinks lawmakers will have a hard time reinstating bans on carryout cocktails once the pandemic eases.“Once you get the genie out of the bottle and there hasn’t been a problem, how do you get it back in?” she said.Still, restaurant and bar owners say they’re not worried that patrons will get so used to carryout that they’ll stop going out even after the coronavirus has passed.“I think that people are social. People enjoy the bar experience and like being waited on,” said Dave Kwiatkowski, who owns the Sugar House cocktail bar in Detroit, which closed March 15 but was able to reopen July 10 for carryout service.Kwiatkowski normally employs a staff of 16. For now, it’s just him at the door and a bartender making drinks.“It’s enough to pay the electricity and the insurance, and it’s nice to give at least a couple of people some jobs,” he said.Kwiatkowski does wonder how he’ll handle carryout demand once the pandemic has ended and there’s a crowd in the bar on a Saturday night. But that will be a good problem to have, he said. He wants carryout cocktails to be permanently legalized.“I think this is probably going to change how we do business forever,” he said. 6446

The Defense Department has temporarily grounded all of its 245 F-35 fighter jets for inspection of a potentially faulty engine part in the wake of last month's crash in South Carolina.Initial data from the ongoing investigation into the September 28 crash indicates a fuel tube may have been faulty. In response, all US military F-35s will be inspected as well as F-35s operated by US allies."If suspect fuel tubes are installed, the part will be removed and replaced. If known good fuel tubes are already installed, then those aircraft will be returned to flight status," the Defense Department said in a statement.Inspections are expected to be completed within the next two days, the statement said, and a defense official told CNN some aircraft have already been returned to flight status.The initial assessment is the faulty tube may be on older models of the aircraft, but all are being inspected. 911

The government of Puerto Rico has quietly admitted that the death toll from Hurricane Maria -- a subject of great controversy -- may be far higher than its official estimate of 64.In a report to Congress dated Wednesday, the US commonwealth's government says documents show that 1,427 more deaths occurred in the four months after the storm than "normal," compared with deaths that occurred the previous four years.The 1,427 figure also appeared in a draft of the report -- "Transformation and Innovation in the Wake of Devastation" -- which was published and opened for public comment July 9. The figure was first "revealed" by the Puerto Rico government, according to the final report, on June 13, one day after officials were forced by a judge to release death records that CNN and the Centro de Periodismo Investigativo in Puerto Rico had sued to make public.Officials stopped short of updating the official death toll for the September 20 storm."The official number is being reviewed as part of a study under way by George Washington University," the report says. Officials hired that university to review the toll after news reports, including those from CNN, called it into question.The George Washington University study "will have certainty" about the number of people the government believes died in Hurricane Maria and its aftermath, Pedro Cerame, a spokesman for the Puerto Rican government in Washington, told CNN. Officials initially said that report would be released in May. Now they expect it to publish this month."We understand that the number is higher," Carlos Mercader, executive director of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration, told CNN in an interview. "We didn't commission the study to prove there were 64 (deaths). We wanted a scientific and epidemiological study that would give us light, not only on the number -- we know the number is higher -- but the reasons why this happened."The 1,427 figure is "an estimate," Cerame said, and it may include deaths that weren't related to the storm.It's an estimate that follows many others like it.In November, CNN surveyed 112 funeral homes -- about half the total -- across the island, finding that funeral home directors and staff had identified at least 499 deaths they believed to be related to Hurricane Maria and its chaotic aftermath, which included months without power for many of the island's 3.3 million residents. In December, the New York Times estimated the "excess death" toll from the storm to be 1,052, based on comparisons with previous years.In May, a team that included researchers from Harvard University published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine estimating that 793 to 8,498 people died in Maria's wake, a range that some academics have criticized as overly broad. The study's midpoint estimate -- 4,645 deaths -- became a rallying cry for activists upset by what they see as a lack of accountability for the scale of the catastrophe by officials in Puerto Rico and the United States.The Harvard estimate was based on surveys of 3,299 households in Puerto Rico, in which residents were asked about deaths in their homes after Hurricane Maria.Mercader, the Puerto Rico official, criticized that study in an interview with CNN on Thursday. "We all know that's impossible, that that couldn't happen," he said of the estimate that 4,645 people may have died after Maria. "We have the data. You all know that is an exaggeration."Then last week, a research letter published in the medical journal JAMA estimated that between 1,006 and 1,272 people died in relation to the storm -- with a midpoint estimate of 1,139.An accurate death toll is important, according to officials and academics, because it can help Puerto Rico and other governments better prepare for future storms, which are expected to become worse in the era of climate change. The official count also matters a great deal to the families of the deceased. Not only are they eligible for certain federal aid if the deaths are officially counted, but some relatives of the dead simply want their loved ones to be remembered."They were not numbers; they were people," Lisa De Jesús, whose friend Reinaldo Ruiz Cintron died while working in hurricane cleanup, told CNN in June. "And the government thinks that just p

The Federal Reserve is warning that an escalating trade war would pose a big threat to the economy.But for now, it's sticking with its plan to raise interest rates — whether President Donald Trump likes it or not.In minutes of its most recent meeting, released Wednesday, central bankers warned that a "major escalation" of trade disputes could speed inflation and cause businesses to pull back on investment.Such an escalation could also reduce household spending and disrupt companies' supply chains, participants noted.Some business leaders reported that recent tariff increases have already begun to cause higher prices. Others have reduced or delay investment spending because of uncertainty about future trade policy.Still, some Federal Open Market Committee members noted that most businesses concerned about trade disputes hadn't cut back their spending or hiring, but "might do so if trade tensions were not resolved soon."In the meantime, the central bank is standing by its plan for higher rates as the economy strengthens, according to the minutes.The Fed is expected to raise rates twice more this year, starting in September.The Fed meeting, held July 31 and August 1, was the first after Trump began lashing out at Fed Chairman Jerome Powell for hiking rates. The president told CNBC in July that was "not thrilled" with the Fed's actions.He used similar language on Monday in an interview with Reuters, arguing the central bank should be doing more to help the economy."I should be given some help by the Fed," said the president, who himself appointed Powell to lead the central bank.Presidents have historically avoided commenting on Fed policies. The central bank is designed to be independent from political interference.The Fed's minutes made no mention of Trump's criticism as a factor in its decision-making.Since Trump took office, the Fed has raised rates five times, including twice this year under Powell. The Fed has been carefully and gradually raising rates over the past several years to keep inflation in check and prevent the economy from overheating.After two further rate hikes in 2018, it has penciled in three more rate hikes in 2019.Fed Chairman Jerome Powell told the "Marketplace" radio show in July that he was "deeply committed" to maintaining Fed independence."We do our work in a strictly nonpolitical way, based on detailed analysis, which we put on the record transparently, and we don't take political considerations into account," Powell said in the interview.Powell is expected to speak on Friday at an annual economic symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. 2611

The coronavirus pandemic may have started earlier than previously thought, according to scientists from the CDC.A study from government scientists published November 30 appears to confirm what some health experts have suggested, patients infected with COVID-19 were in the US before the beginning of 2020.“The findings of this report suggest that SARS-CoV-2 infections may have been present in the U.S. in December 2019, earlier than previously recognized. These findings also highlight the value of blood donations as a source for conducting SARS-CoV-2 surveillance studies,” the report states.The first officially documented case of COVID-19 in the US was reported on January 19, a person who had returned to the US after traveling from China.The World Health Organization was alerted to the novel coronavirus by officials in Wuhan, China on December 31, 2019. The CDC researchers say further reports have identified a patient in Wuhan with COVID-19 symptoms as early as December 1, 2019.The study looked at more than 7,000 routine blood donation samples taken by the American Red Cross from people in nine states between December 13, 2019 and January 17, 2020.They found COVID-19 antibodies in 106 samples, mostly from the states of California, Oregon and Washington, from blood collected between December 13-16, 2019. Other samples that indicated COVID-19 antibodies were from Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin taken in early January 2020.“The presence of these serum antibodies indicate that isolated SARS-CoV-2 infections may have occurred in the western portion of the United States earlier than previously recognized or that a small portion of the population may have pre-existing antibodies that bind SARS-CoV-2,” the report states.Scientists acknowledge that patients presenting with what is now known as COVID-19 symptoms before mid-January would likely not have had clinical samples taken or kept because of how new the virus was. Therefore, the CDC used the existing repository collected by the American Red Cross during their routine blood donation process.“These specimens were previously archived for potential future studies to identify emerging transfusion-transmissible infections but were re-purposed for the present study,” researchers stated.Researchers caution that these results are subject to limitations. Although they detected antibodies, that does not mean they are “true positive” COVID-19 tests. In order to get a true positive, a different test would need to be a run. 2545

来源：资阳报