濮阳东方男科好吗濮阳东方男科收费比较低,濮阳东方口碑非常好,濮阳市东方医院收费查询,濮阳东方医院割包皮评价,濮阳东方医院做人流收费比较低,濮阳东方医院治疗早泄口碑比较好,濮阳东方妇科医院在什么位置

The Food and Drug Administration is investigating an outbreak of Listeria that has killed at least one person.The FDA, CDC and public health officials are looking into ten cases of Listeria monocytogenes infections reported in Florida, Massachusetts and New York. One person has died, the only available information is that the person lived in Florida.Genome sequencing of the Listeria bacteria isolated from those infected shows the ten people in this outbreak are more likely to share a common source of infection, according to the FDA. Samples were taken from patients between August 6 and October 3.In interviews with nine of the infected people, they all reported eating Italian-style meats recently, like salami, mortadella, or prosciutto, according to the FDA.Public health investigators have not found a common type of deli meat or common supplier among the patients at this time.The patients in this outbreak range in age from 40-to-89 years old, and all of them needed to be hospitalized.Listeria can cause different symptoms, depending on the person and part of the body affected, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Symptoms include headache, stiff neck, confusion, loss of balance, fever and muscle aches. 1251

The Environmental Protection Agency announced on Monday that some Lysol products could kill COVID-19 on surfaces in just two minutes.In a press release, the agency said that Lysol Disinfectant Spray and Lysol Disinfectant Max Cover Mist could effectively kill the coronavirus.“EPA is committed to identifying new tools and providing accurate and up-to-date information to help the American public protect themselves and their families from the novel coronavirus,” said EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler in the release. “EPA's review of products tested against this virus marks an important milestone in President Trump’s all of the government approach to fighting the spread of COVID-19."The agency said the Lysol products were the first products that had been reviewed by its laboratory testing data and approved label claims. 834

The demand for mail-in ballots is surging. Election workers need training. And polling booths might have to be outfitted with protective shields during the COVID-19 pandemic.As officials prepare for the Nov. 3 election, one certainty is clear: It’s coming with a big price tag.“Election officials don’t have nearly the resources to make the preparations and changes they need to make to run an election in a pandemic,” said Wendy Weiser, head of the democracy program at the Brennan Center for Justice. “We are seeing this all over the place.”The pandemic has sent state and local officials scrambling to prepare for an election like few others, an extraordinary endeavor during a presidential contest, as virus cases continue to rise across much of the U.S.COVID-related worries are bringing demands for steps to make sure elections that are just four months away are safe. But long-promised federal aid to help cash-starved states cope is stalled on Capitol Hill.The money would help pay for transforming the age-old voting process into a pandemic-ready system. Central to that is the costs for printing mail-in ballots and postage. There are also costs to ensure in-person voting is safe with personal protective equipment, or PPE, for poll workers, who tend to be older and more at risk of getting sick from the virus, and training for new workers. Pricey machines are needed to quickly count the vote.Complicating matters is President Donald Trump’s aversion to mail-in balloting. With worrisome regularity, he derides the process as rigged, even though there’s no evidence of fraud and his own reelection team is adapting to the new reality of widespread mail-in voting.“As cases of coronavirus in this country rise, it’s vital that all voters be able to cast their ballots from home, to cast their ballots by mail,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.A huge COVID response bill passed by the House in May contains a whopping .6 billion to help states with their elections, but the Senate won’t turn to the measure until late July. Republicans fought a 0 million installment of election aid this March before agreeing to it.But key Senate Republicans seem likely to support more election funding, despite Trump’s opposition, and are even offering to lower a requirement that states put up “matching” funds to qualify for the federal cash.“I’m prepared not only to look at more money for the states to use as they see fit for elections this year, but also to even consider whatever kind of matching requirement we have,” said Roy Blunt, R-Mo., chairman of the Senate panel with responsibility for the issue. “We can continue to work toward an election that produces a result that people have confidence in and done in a way that everybody that wants to vote, gets to vote.”The pandemic erupted this spring in the middle of state primaries, forcing many officials to delay their elections by days, weeks and even months. They had to deal with a wave of poll worker cancellations, polling place changes and an explosion of absentee ballots.Voting rights groups are particularly concerned with the consolidations of polling places that contributed to long lines in Milwaukee, Atlanta and Las Vegas. They fear a repeat in November.As negotiations on the next COVID relief bill begin on Capitol Hill, the final figure for elections is sure to end up much less than the .6 billion envisioned by the House. That figure followed the recommendations of the Brennan Center to prepare for an influx of absentee ballots while providing more early voting options and protecting neighborhood polling places.Even before the pandemic, election offices typically work under tight budgets. Iowa Secretary of State Paul D. Pate, who serves as president of the National Association of Secretaries of State, said the group has been calling on the federal government to provide a steady source of funds, particularly to help address ongoing costs of protecting the nation’s election systems from cyberthreats.For Georgia’s primary last month, election officials spent .1 million of the roughly .9 million the state has received in federal funds. The money was used to send absentee ballot applications to 6.9 million active registered voters and print absentee ballots for county election offices. Some of it also was used to purchase PPE and secure drop-off boxes for counties.Meanwhile, the state elections division has seen a ,000 reduction for the current budget year as Georgia — like the rest of the nation — deals with a decline in revenues due to the pandemic.The state’s remaining federal funds will be used to help cover the costs of developing an online system for voters to request absentee ballots, a less expensive option than sending ballot applications to every voter, and exploring whether installing plexiglass dividers around voting machines could allow more voters in a polling place at one time.In Colorado, which is already a universal vote-by-mail state, the Denver election office has had to reduce its budget by 7.5%, which amounts to nearly 0,000. Jocelyn Bucaro, Denver’s elections director, said the federal funds sent earlier this year helped with purchasing PPE and other pandemic-related supplies.Iowa similarly spent its federal dollars on mail-in ballots and pandemic supplies, Pate said.Vote-by-mail veterans and vendors of the equipment, software, ballots and envelopes that will be needed in November say the window to buy them is quickly closing.“Right now, what I’m seeing in most places is just this kind of indecision. What are we supposed to be planning? Vote by mail or in-person or combination?” said Jeff Ellington, president of Runbeck Election Services, which prints ballots and the special envelopes used to mail them and also supplies high-volume envelope sorters.“Decisions just need to be made so people can start to put a plan into place,” he said.BlueCrest, a Pitney Bowes spinoff, sells high-volume sorting machines that handle up to 50,000 ballot envelopes per hour. That’s the kind of crunch big counties can expect to face on Nov. 3 in states including Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, where Rick Becerra, a vice president at the company, said he’s been talking to officials. The machines average 5,000 each.“I tell them the time is now,” he said.___Cassidy reported from Atlanta. Associated Press writer Frank Bajak in Boston contributed to this report. 6414

The Detroit Lions have issued a statement in response to reports coach Matt Patricia was indicted on sex assault in a case that was ultimately dismissed.Court records for Cameron County, Texas show Patricia and Gregory Dietrich were indicted in August 1996 on sex assault charges.The case was dismissed in January 1997.The Lions have released the following statements from Matt Patricia and from Lions' owner Martha Firestone Ford, Bob Quinn and Rod Wood.Matt Patricia: 482

The decision to reintroduce gray wolves in Colorado will be decided by the people, and both sides of the issue say the decision will impact the entire country.“Only in 2020, the weird year that we are having would Colorado be voting to introduce a species that’s already here in Colorado,” said Shawn Martini, the vice president of advocacy for the Colorado Farm Bureau.“The western part of Colorado is primarily owned, and majority-owned, by the people as public lands,” said Rob Edward, who is part of the Rocky Mountain Wolf Project. “We all have interests on what happens on our public lands.”For centuries, the gray wolf roamed North America in large populations. But in the 1900s, the wolves were nearly hunted out of existence.The wild wolves haven’t lived in Colorado since 1940, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service classified the animal as an endangered species in 1978.“They are the missing link in the Rocky Mountain chain,” Edward said. “From the high arctic to New Mexico, we can re-establish a population of wolves again by reintroducing wolves to western Colorado. The presence of wolves on those wild landscapes is important for the long-term health of those landscapes.”With Proposition 114 in Colorado, the people will be able to vote in November on whether this will become a reality. This is something that has never happened in the nation’s history.“Wolves are already all over the place,” Martini said. “They’ve come down from Wyoming and Montana through a natural process. We’re asking voters to say no to this ballot initiative, because it makes something a natural process into a political one.”Having people vote on this is something Martini is strongly against.“So, this the first time a species would be introduced into a state via a ballot measure,” Martini said. “The reason it’s never been done before because it’s a really bad idea to make a scientific process a political one. The Colorado Parks and Wildlife and biologists should be the ones making this decision, not voters who don’t always have access to the info and are not biologists and who don’t do this for a living.”The main reason wolf advocates like Edwards want to re-introduce wolves to the area is that they believe it could improve the ecosystem. In 1995, the gray wolf was reintroduced into the greater Yellowstone ecosystem to help manage the high population of elk. But that decision wasn’t voted on by the people.Biologists came up with a plan and brought it to Congress. After years of public comment, the secretary of the interior finally signed off on the project.“Colorado is not Yellowstone,” Martini said. “Yellowstone is subject to a ton of environmental regulations, so the people managing the area don’t have the same tools as Colorado does.”Regardless of what side people are on this issue, both sides agree that this a historic ballot measure that could change the course of the country ecologically and politically. 2941