济南什么样叫包茎(济南中药治疗阳痿早泄) (今日更新中)

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) — If you’re still holding on to a mail-in ballot, return it using a method other than the U.S. Postal Service at this point.That’s the recommendation from many election experts after a ruling this week by the U.S. Supreme Court.In California, mail-in ballots have to be postmarked on or before November 3, but they can be received by county officials up to 17 days late and still count. That’s one of the most generous buffers of any state.But in about 30 states, the deadline for receipt is November 3. Ballots that arrive after will be tossed out, even ballots that were postmarked well before Election Day.The latest Supreme Court ruling dealt with a case out of Wisconsin, which had an Election Day deadline for ballot receipt set by state lawmakers.A lower federal court sided with the Democratic National Committee and ruled the deadline for receipt should be extended because of the pandemic. An analysis by the Wall Street Journal found it took an average of 10 days for a piece of first class mail to reach its destination in Wisconsin.But the Supreme Court ruled Monday 5-3 that state lawmakers should have the final say on this question, not the federal courts.“That could have tremendous implications across the country because it suggests that the Supreme Court is going to defer to even strict rules that could have the effect of limiting the counting of certain ballots,” said legal analyst Dan Eaton.Wisconsin is one of about 30 states with this deadline that ballots have to be received by Election Day, along with Pennsylvania and Michigan; two states with similar cases still pending.Voters in those states are being urged to drop off ballots at official collection sites, not at the post office, or vote in person.“This ruling does put pressure on people to make sure that their ballot is received in time,” Eaton said.Eaton said concurrence opinions by Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch offer clues about how the high court could rule in other election-legal fights, particularly when Amy Coney Barrett joins the court. He said it could have an impact on states with a lot of late voters and close races, not just in the presidential contest.“Remember that control of the Senate is very much in play and so this could matter in close Senate races,” Eaton said, citing races in Iowa, Colorado and North Carolina. 2365

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) -- In one San Diego neighborhood alone, around a half dozen residents have reported seeing rattlesnakes dangerously close to their front doors.The Department of Fish and Wildlife says avoid tall grasses and heavy brush if you can. And if your kids are playing in snake country — ditch sandals for a pair of boots.RELATED: Warm temps brings rattlesnake sightings across San Diego 408

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) — It’s decision time for the San Diego Padres, who are trying to choose the right candidate to replace fired manager Andy Green.Widespread reports, confirmed by 10News, indicate the Padres have narrowed their search to two very different candidates.The first is 38-year-old Jayce Tingler, who has worked in a variety of coaching and front office roles with the Texas Rangers, but has no Major League managerial experience.RELATED: Padres' Yates wins Baseball Digest's top reliever awardThe second is 67-year-old Ron Washington, who managed the Texas Rangers to back-to-back World Series appearances in 2010 and 2011, before stepping down in 2014. He's currently the 3rd base coach for the Atlanta Braves.The Padres have previously stated a preference for an experienced manager, which could give Washington the edge. But the decision largely rests on the shoulders of general manager A.J. Preller, who is said to be high on Tingler’s ability to communicate with players in English and Spanish along with his understanding of baseball analytics.The timing of the decision remains unknown but both candidates were in San Diego this past week for second interviews with club officials.RELATED: Padres to unveil new 2020 uniforms in NovemberThe team fire Green days before the conclusion of the regular season. Green manned a 274-366 record during his four seasons with the team.Following Green's dismissal, Preller said "the biggest thing I know is we’re better than what we’ve shown," during a media conference. He added that he felt the team needed a "different voice, different direction" moving into the 2020 season."It's a big decision. You don't want to be sitting here in this spot again," Preller told media on hiring a new manager. "It'll be a good process. It'll be detailed." 1808

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) -- Many drivers around San Diego say they’re worried about being cited after seeing what some people call “smog checkpoints.”Motorists recently came across one of the mobile smog checks on Nimitz in Point Loma. A roadside team was inspecting cars to gather data in hopes of improving air quality.The mobile unit is set up to look like a DUI checkpoint, but stopping is voluntary. "I look ahead, and I see lights. It's obviously police action, and I'm thinking maybe there's a car accident,” said Nanci Washburn.Washburn said the activity created traffic backup, making her late for a meeting. "Here is a CHP car. Two officers, there's a whole blue tented area here with chairs. Once I got past that, here is a lift to put a car on."Washburn says the first thought that went through her head was that authorities were targeting older vehicles due to emission problems.10News spoke to the California Highway Patrol and the agency behind the smog checks, the Bureau of Automotive Repair. Those agencies say it’s not a checkpoint and no one is being impounded, rather, it’s a voluntary survey to help the state meet air quality standards.The agencies involved claim drivers aren’t penalized for not participating. "There's no fines and no penalties if they pass or fail, it's just informational. And we use this information to help us manage and evaluate the California Smog Check Program,” said Michael Lafferty.Essentially, the state is policing their program, officials claim. The checks are done in zip codes with poor air quality. 1556

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) — It’s a term we’ve heard a lot during the pandemic: emergency use authorization.From ventilators to diagnostic tests to experimental drugs like remdesivir, the Food and Drug Administration has issued at least 616 emergency use authorizations, or EUAs, since the pandemic began.“That’s such a powerful term: emergency use authorization,” said President Donald Trump on Aug. 23 when announcing an EUA for convalescent plasma.Top officials at the FDA are now floating the idea of using an EUA to speed up distribution of a vaccine against COVID-19, writing that it “may be appropriate” under certain circumstances. Critics contend it would be a dangerous move.The mechanism was put into law back in 2004, and EUAs have been used in several health emergencies since, including the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.An EUA allows the FDA to temporarily authorize a drug or device for use during an emergency under certain conditions. There must be no formally approved alternatives to the product, and the available evidence must suggest the potential benefits outweigh the potential risks.“Because in some emergencies, we just cannot wait for all the evidence needed for full FDA approval,” the agency says in a video explaining the rationale for an EUA.While EUAs are relatively common for diagnostic tests and experimental drugs, there has only been one EUA issued for a vaccine. In 2005, the FDA authorized a vaccine intended to protect U.S. soldiers from an anthrax chemical attack. It was the first time the FDA ever used the EUA process. In that case, the product, Anthrax Vaccine Absorbed, had been formally licensed in 1970 as safe and effective against anthrax on the skin, but was not formally approved to counteract inhaled anthrax.In a letter to pharmaceutical companies, the FDA said it “may be appropriate” to issue an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine “once studies have demonstrated the safety and effectiveness” of the product, but before other steps in the traditional submission process, like detailed information on how the vaccine was made and tested.“It is extremely rigorous,” Dr. Christian Ramers of Family Health Centers of San Diego said of the typical FDA approval process. “People have to submit thousands of pages of documents. They have to open their books, essentially, and show all of the detail on how these things have been tested.”An EUA could allow for the release of a vaccine before the election, something President Trump has suggested but other members of his administration have said is unlikely.The prospect of an EUA for a vaccine alarms consumer advocates like Dr. Sidney Wolfe of Public Citizen, who sent a letter to the agency urging it to avoid the expedited process.“The amount of information on how effective it is, the amount of information on how safe it is is less than would be required for full approval,” Wolfe said. “And full approval could arguably come in three or four months.”Wolfe thinks an EUA could backfire.“The loss of confidence by people will contribute to a much decreased willingness to be vaccinated,” he said, citing a survey during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic that showed people were reluctant to volunteer for inoculation if the vaccine only had emergency authorization.Critics say there’s already shaky public confidence after reports of political pressure from the president in the EUAs for convalescent plasma and for hydroxychloroquine.In the latter case, the FDA revoked the EUA for the anti-malaria drug June 15 after more studies showed it wasn’t effective and could have serious side effects.Dr. Ramers at Family Health Centers of San Diego says there is a big ethical difference between authorizing an experimental drug with limited data and authorizing a vaccine.Fundamentally, doctors give drugs to patients who are already sick, and they're more willing to try something untested in a last-ditch effort. “In somebody who has been through two or three or four rounds of [chemotherapy] and nothing has worked, the risks and benefits are tilted in a different way,” he said.“But a vaccine is a really special situation because we’re giving it to healthy people. We’re giving it to the general population before they become ill. So historically, the safety threshold for a vaccine has been way, way, way higher,” Ramers added. 4302

来源：资阳报