吉林工业吸尘器厂家(温州大功率工业吸尘器) (今日更新中)

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) — Coaster service through San Diego County will be unavailable for two weekends this month.To give crews time to complete infrastructure improvements along the rail corridor, North County Transit District announced Coaster service from Oct. 19-20 and 26-27 would be shut down.On Fridays before the closures, southbound Amtrak R2R trains A792 and A796 will make their trips to Santa Fe Depot, but Amtrak train A590 will stop at Oceanside Transit Center.During the service shut down, Amtrak Pacific Surfliner and Metrolink will not provide service to Oceanside Transit Center. Trips on connecting buses will need an Amtrak reservation. Amtrak bus services will also need an Amtrak reservation. Rail 2 Rail passes are not eligible.Bus service connecting Coaster stations will not be available, but some passengers may have BREEZE Route 101 or MTS connections available.While no passenger rail service will operate on the corridor during these times, other vehicles and equipment will be in use. Pedestrians and drivers should still look out for equipment in the area.Service will resume on the Mondays after the closures but may experience delays up to 15 minutes. 1186

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) -- Becky Buckingham is a nurse in the intensive care unit at Kaiser in San Diego. She has cared for patients who have tested positive for COVID19. “I would be lying if I didn’t say it's concerning and every nurse is fearful in going into these patients’ rooms,” Buckingham. “I think every nurse is eventually going to be impacted by these patients and have to take care of a patient under investigation, ruling out if they have it or not, or if they are actually positive.”She said nurses have a wide range of emotions when it comes to the current health crisis.“A lot of nurses that are extremely concerned because maybe they’re pregnant or they have babies at home or they take care of their elderly parents,” Buckingham said. “There’s also been nurses that are like, bring it on. I’ll take what I have to take. This is what I’m here for.” The supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) has been something causing concern among health care workers.Kaiser’s nurses’ union, the United Nurses Associations of California, recently sent a letter to the California Hospital Association, encouraging the state’s hospitals to immediately postpone all elective procedures and nonemergency surgeries, show hospital caregivers greater transparency in the status of PPE supplies, and partner with nurses to “get the right equipment in the right hands at the right time.”In response, the California Hospital Association said they support canceling all but essential elective surgeries and agreed to transparency with health care workers regarding PPEs, “especially as [they] know demand is great and supply is short.”Buckingham believes her hospital has enough PPEs for now, but the future is uncertain.“Kaiser has been more transparent this week with how they are obtaining more PPE, so I know that they have gone overseas and obtained more PPE that we will be getting in May. I really think it depends on if we flatten the curve and how much impact we put on the hospital system,” Buckingham said. 2017

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) -- As drugmakers race to develop a vaccine against the coronavirus, several legal questions are emerging: could the government require people to get it? Could people who refuse to roll up their sleeves get banned from stores or lose their jobs?The short answer is yes, according to Dov Fox, a law professor and the director of the Center for Health Law Policy and Bioethics at the University of San Diego.“States can compel vaccinations in more or less intrusive ways,” he said in an interview. “They can limit access to schools or services or jobs if people don’t get vaccinated. They could force them to pay a fine or even lock them up in jail.”Fox noted authorities in the United States have never attempted to jail people for refusing to vaccinate, but other countries like France have adopted the aggressive tactic.The legal precedent dates back to 1905. In a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the court ruled Massachusetts had the authority to fine people who refused vaccinations for smallpox.That case formed the legal basis for vaccine requirements at schools, and has been upheld in subsequent decisions.“Courts have found that when medical necessity requires it, the public health outweighs the individual rights and liberties at stake,” Fox said.In 2019, New York City passed an ordinance that fined people who refused a measles vaccination.That said, recent protests over face coverings show there could be significant backlash to a vaccine mandate, Fox said. Just because states have the power to do it, doesn’t mean it’s the best public policy, he added.Although states would have the authority to mandate vaccinations, there’s more doubt about whether Congress could enact a federal requirement.The most likely federal vaccination requirement would come in the form of a tax penalty, but Fox said given the current composition of the Supreme Court, a federal vaccine requirement would likely be found unconstitutional.Opponents of a federal mandate would cite the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision on the Affordable Care Act, Fox said. In that case, the justices ruled that Congress could not use its powers to regulate interstate commerce to require people to buy health insurance, even though the ACA’s individual mandate was ultimately upheld on separate grounds.That means the U.S. could have a patchwork of different vaccine requirements in different states.States that explore a vaccine requirement should only do so if the vaccine is widely and readily available, Fox said.“Otherwise you create an underclass of people who are less safe and without access to the basic means of society,” he said.States would need to allow exemptions for people with legitimate medical risks, like pregnancy, but not exemptions on religious or philosophical grounds, he said.“Religious exemptions are not constitutionally required by the First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause, provided that the vaccine mandates don’t single out religion; they’re not motivated by a desire to interfere with it,” he said.In the workplace, private employers would have a lot of flexibility to require vaccinations and fire workers who refuse them for anything but legitimate medical concerns.As long as employers show there are significant costs associated with having unvaccinated workers, they would not need to offer religious exemptions to employees, Fox said.Under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, employers are not required to accommodate religious employees if doing so would pose more than a “de minimis,” or minimal cost. 3561

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) — California drivers will want to be aware of several new traffic laws, including stipulations around unattended kids in cars and moving over for emergency vehicles, that will be enforced in 2021.Assembly Bill 2717, which goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2021, will exempt a person from civil or criminal liability for trespassing or damaging a vehicle when rescuing a child 6 years old or younger who is in immediate danger from heat, cold, lack of ventilation, or another dangerous circumstance.California had already exempted good Samaritans from liability when rescuing an animal or pet in the same circumstances. Also starting Jan. 1, Assembly Bill 2285 extends penalties for not moving over or slowing down for emergency vehicles with flashing lights on freeways to local streets and roads. Emergency vehicles will also now include tow trucks and Caltrans vehicles, in addition to law enforcement and emergency vehicles.If a driver violates the "move over, slow down" law, CHP officers can issue a ticket.Assembly Bill 47, which was signed into law in 2019, will go into effect on July 1, 2021. The law makes the act of using a cell phone "in a handheld manner while driving" for a second time within 36 months of a prior conviction for the same offense punishable by a point being added to the driver's record. This applies to violations of talking or texting while driving, except when hands-free, and to any use of the devices while driving by a person under 18 years old. 1505

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) - By a unanimous vote, the San Diego City Council voted Monday to hike pedicab fees, making it nearly twice as costly to be a pedicab driver.      Police say the increase for annual operator fees from 2 to 9 is needed because of extra enforcement, including aggressive inspections and undercover operations targeting price gouging.Ali Horuz, who manages four different pedicab companies, says the higher fees will be a hardship, especially for drivers getting into the business.  He says right now, the local market is short about 50 drivers."It's going to be harder to find qualified drivers. We're competing against Uber and Lyft. It's definitely going to affect the market, where we are going to see fewer pedicab drivers," said Horuz.While the number of drivers is shrinking, the regulations may be increasing.  Citing complaints from the community, Councilman Chris Ward wants the city to set a uniform rate structure, while banning loud horns, flashing lights and amplified music. Horuz says the lights and loud horns are needed safety precautions, while overly loud music is a product of a few bad drivers.A council committee will look at the proposal Wednesday. 1240

来源：资阳报