Current track

Title

Artist

Current show

Rick Dees

6:00 pm 11:00 pm

Current show

Rick Dees

6:00 pm 11:00 pm


ABC News

Page: 7

The mayor of a Chicago suburb where a police officer fatally shot a Black man and wounded a Black woman as the couple were inside a vehicle says police video of that shooting is expected to be released once relatives view that video

ByThe Associated Press

October 26, 2020, 1:30 PM
• 3 min read

Share to FacebookShare to TwitterEmail this article
Police video of a suburban Chicago police officer’s fatal shooting of a Black man and the wounding of a Black woman as the couple were inside a vehicle is expected to be released once relatives view that video, the mayor of the city where the shooting occurred said.
Waukegan Mayor Sam Cunningham said during a Sunday prayer vigil for Marcellis Stinnette, 19, who died in last Tuesday’s shooting, that the city intends to publicly release the bodycam and dashcam video recordings, but only after Stinnette’s family views them first.

“Let’s be clear, this situation requires their approval before we move on,” Cunningham said.
He also urged the public to let justice take its due course in the case, which on Friday led to the firing of the officer who shot the couple. Cunningham called for the community to “respect the process” in the city about 40 miles (64 kilometers) north of Chicago.
Activists and relatives of Stinnette and Tafara Williams, 20, who was wounded in the shooting and remains hospitalized, have demanded the release of the police video, which authorities say has been turned over to investigators. On Saturday, Williams spoke from her hospital bed to a crowd at a rally in Waukegan, saying she “won’t sleep until Marcellis gets justice.”
Activist Chris Blanks said last week that the video is particularly important because the police version of events and the version Williams’ mother has shared appear to contradict each other. Clifftina Johnson has said her daughter told her that she and Stinnette — who was Williams’ boyfriend — had done nothing to provoke the officer.
Waukegan police have said Williams was driving and Stinnette was a passenger in a vehicle that fled a traffic stop conducted by a white officer late Tuesday and that the vehicle was later spotted by another officer, who is Hispanic. Police said that as the second officer approached, the vehicle started moving in reverse and the officer — fearing for his safety — opened fire. No weapon was found in the vehicle.
The officer who shot the couple, who have a child, was fired late Friday by Waukegan Police Chief Wayne Walles. He said in a brief statement that the male officer, a five-year department veteran, had committed “multiple policy and procedure violations.”
Walles offered his condolences to Stinnette and Williams’ families during Sunday’s vigil, which attracted a large crowd, the (Arlington Heights) Daily Herald reported.
“There is power in prayer, and the more of us that are together and praying, and praying for each other and everybody involved in this terrible incident, will help us heal and move forward,” he said.

Williams’ sister, Sasha Williams, said at Sunday’s vigil that her sister is working to recover her strength so she can return to caring for her children.
“We shouldn’t have to say, ‘Don’t shoot us,’” Williams said. “We shouldn’t have to come outside and fear for our lives. We shouldn’t be afraid of the police.”
Lake County State’s Attorney Mike Nerheim also attended Sunday’s vigil. He said Friday that he had asked the U.S. Justice Department to review the circumstances surrounding the shooting, and said the federal agency had agreed to do so. He has urged calm while the investigation takes place and pledged transparency.

Authorities and homeowners in central Florida have accused a 26-year-old man of stealing a bulldozer from a construction site and driving it into a neighborhood to knock down campaign signs promoting Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden

Why Millions Of Americans Don’t Vote | FiveThirtyEight
The last time Richard Brown voted was in 2008. He had caught a couple of presidential debates on TV, and found himself liking what the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, had to say. And as a Black man, he was excited by the idea of voting for the country’s first Black president.
Then in 2012, he decided not to bother casting a second ballot for Obama. It wasn’t that he had soured on the president — he just didn’t think it was necessary. “He’s already in office … [so] I kinda figured he didn’t need my help,” Brown said. He was willing to take the time out of his day to cast his vote, but he didn’t think it would have an impact on the outcome. “I know it’s kind of a stupid thought, but I feel like one missed vote isn’t going to change anything.”
Twelve years later, though, he’s planning to vote again. It’s not because Brown, who is now 53 and lives in the Midwest, is newly hopeful that his vote will matter. In fact, he’s not at all confident that the candidate he’s supporting, Joe Biden, will win. But the stakes of this election feel personal. Over the past four years, some of his friends have changed the way they act and talk, saying hateful things about Obama or sharing racist memes on Facebook.
“I’m not even really keen on Biden,” Brown said. “It’s more so that Trump is bringing racist rhetoric out of a lot of people.” Those kinds of comments are “really hurtful to me, disrespectful to me,” he said. So he’s decided to vote again this year: “This way, if [Biden] does lose the election, I can’t say that it was my fault because I didn’t vote.”
Every election, millions of Americans go through a similar thought process and, it turns out, lots of people feel like Brown: They think voting doesn’t matter or isn’t worth their time.
In any given election, between 35 and 60 percent of eligible voters don’t cast a ballot. It’s not that hard to understand why. Our system doesn’t make it particularly easy to vote, and the decision to carve out a few hours to cast a ballot requires a sense of motivation that’s hard for some Americans to muster every two or four years — enthusiasm about the candidates, belief in the importance of voting itself, a sense that anything can change as the result of a single vote. “I guess I just don’t think that one person’s vote can swing an election,” said Jon Anderson, who won’t be voting for president this year because of moral objections to both candidates.

I don’t think if President Trump is reelected or if Joe Biden wins, it’s going to be complete chaos. So I don’t want to vote out of fear.

But who does — and doesn’t — vote is complex. Most Americans don’t fall neatly into any one category. Instead, as we found in our new poll with Ipsos, most are like Brown. They vote inconsistently, or at moments when they feel like their vote has a chance to make a difference, or when the stakes of not voting are just too high, which is how many Americans describe this upcoming election.
Of the 8,000-plus people we polled, we were able to match nearly 6,000 to their voting history. We analyzed the views of the respondents in that slightly smaller group, and found that they fell into three broad groups: 1) people who almost always vote; 2) people who sometimes vote; and 3) people who rarely or never vote. People who sometimes vote were a plurality of the group (44 percent), while 31 percent nearly always cast a ballot and just 25 percent almost never vote. And as the chart below shows, there weren’t huge differences between people who vote almost all the time and those who vote less consistently. Yes, those who voted more regularly were higher income, more educated, more likely to be white and more likely to identify with one of the two political parties, but those who only vote some of the time were also fairly highly educated and white, and not overwhelmingly young. There were much bigger differences between people who sometimes vote and those who almost never vote.

Nonvoters were more likely to have lower incomes; to be young; to have lower levels of education; and to say they don’t belong to either political party, which are all traits that square with what we know about people less likely to engage with the political system.
Many of the people we spoke with described their decision to vote as very personal, boiling down to the specific candidates, their own ability to navigate the electoral system that year, or whether they thought their vote would matter. But for others, being a “nonvoter” or a “sometimes voter” wasn’t really a choice. There are clear barriers to casting a ballot that many of them experienced.
Those barriers and feelings build on each other in ways that are complicated to tease out. But that complexity actually helps us understand why so many Americans don’t consistently vote — and why they vote, when they do.

Barriers To Voting

When JeMare Williams went to vote for the first time in Macomb County, Michigan, he had a plan. Tucked inside his wallet were several forms of identification and his voter registration card. He was still smarting from the last time he’d tried to vote, when he lived in Wayne County, outside Detroit. That time, he had come to the polling place with his driver’s license but without his voter registration card, and was told he had to fill out a provisional ballot (separate ballots used when a voter’s eligibility is uncertain). After he moved, he was determined that he wouldn’t have to fill out another ballot that might not get counted. “I was like — you’re not going to take this right away,” he said. “Whatever you need for me to vote, I have it.”
For Williams, voting has never been especially easy. He’s missed elections in the past because his job working for a railroad takes him away from home for 24-hour stretches, making it impossible to vote on Election Day. When he has been able to vote, he’s stood in line for hours.
Williams is certainly not alone in experiencing these barriers. Of the three groups of voters we identified, those voters who only vote some of the time were actually the likeliest to report having stood in line for more than an hour; they were also likelier than those who vote more regularly to say they couldn’t get off work to vote.

Take Christopher McDonald, 28. He voted for the first time in 2016, but the steps he had to take to vote felt intimidating, especially for someone who wasn’t that interested in politics. “A lot of it was that I didn’t know where to go or what to do — I didn’t even know where the voting centers were,” he said. When he did end up voting, he was told that the precinct didn’t have his address on file and, like Williams, had to fill out a provisional ballot. He still doesn’t know if his vote actually got counted. “They said, ‘Oh you have to call the commissioner’s office or the courthouse or something,’” he said. “And when I left the voting place, it just went out of my head.”
This year, some of these occasional voters are also dealing with pandemic-specific challenges that could make voting less of a priority. For instance, people who vote more irregularly are a little more likely than those who almost always vote to have lost a job in the past year (13 percent vs. 10 percent) or to have worried about expenses (21 percent vs. 16 percent), although those who almost never vote are even likelier than those who sometimes vote to have reported these experiences.
Adam Sanchez, 27, isn’t sure if he’s voting this year, in part because he doesn’t want to risk his health by voting in person, but also because he doesn’t trust mail-in ballots. “The last time I tried to vote by mail, it didn’t get counted — it was too late,” he said. As a result, Sanchez told us, “I don’t know where my ballot is going to end up, if I don’t see it put into the voting machine.”
On the whole, though, those who don’t vote as frequently didn’t view methods of voting — like in-person voting or mail-in ballots — all that differently than people who always vote. Nonvoters, on the other hand, trusted these methods less across the board.
There are, of course, other systemic reasons why some people might vote more inconsistently. Our survey found, for instance, that occasional voters were slightly more likely than frequent voters to have a long-term disability (8 percent vs. 5 percent), and nonvoters were even more likely to fall into this category (12 percent). Black and Hispanic voters are also more likely to experience hurdles, perhaps in part because there tend to be fewer polling places in their neighborhoods. About 24 percent of Black respondents said that they had to stand in line for more than an hour while voting, and Hispanic respondents were more likely to say they had trouble accessing the polling place or couldn’t get off work in time to vote.

Every year, people make it sound like it’s doomsday all over. But I do think this election will determine the direction of the country.

Some people, like Donna Thompson, 59, told us that a long line or complicated voting system is something that’s just baked into the process for them. “I’m going to have to take time off work to go get in line, because my job doesn’t give me time off to vote,” she said, adding that she’s had to wait five or six hours in past elections. “It’s very frustrating.” But she added that while she’s not as consistent about voting in state and local elections, she tries to always vote in national elections despite the hassle. As a Black woman, “it’s very important that my vote counts because my people died trying to get the right to vote,” she said. “I think I owe it, if nothing else, to them because it wasn’t something that was guaranteed for us.”
Thompson thinks a lot of the problems on Election Day come down to logistical issues that could be fixed. Others agreed that there’s more the U.S. could be doing to encourage people to vote. Fifty-one percent of respondents thought that making Election Day a national holiday would allow more people to cast a ballot. Similar shares agreed that more information about the candidates from unbiased sources (51 percent) or early in-person voting (52 percent) would help, too.
But there wasn’t a lot of consensus around a single fix — and notably, those who voted less frequently were less likely than people who always vote to agree that any one solution would boost turnout. And that might be because concrete barriers are only one piece of the puzzle.

Trust In The System

Kelly Bryan isn’t voting this year — not because the process is too difficult, or she’s uninformed about politics. “I genuinely feel like my vote doesn’t matter,” she said. For most of her life, the 33-year-old has lived in two states, Illinois and Oregon, which both overwhelmingly vote for Democrats in presidential elections. “If I lived in Pennsylvania or Michigan, I’d be first in line to vote,” she said.
In the survey, we asked voters who have missed at least one national election — which included some people who almost always vote — why they didn’t cast a ballot. Nearly a quarter cited some of the structural barriers we mentioned above. But another 31 percent said that they decided not to vote because they disliked the candidates or they thought nothing would change as a result of the election (26 percent).

That sense that the candidates are too flawed to be worth voting for — or that the system is rigged, or can’t be fixed by voting — came up in many of our conversations with survey respondents. For most of his life, Eduardo Martinez thought that politics just didn’t impact his life. “I’m ashamed to say it, but like a lot of people, I said, ‘My vote doesn’t count.’ … Generally what the politicians do doesn’t affect me,’” he said.
That changed in 2018, when Beto O’Rourke ran for Senate in Texas. “That’s where I said ‘Hey, the guy needs my help,’” Martinez said. He cast his first vote for O’Rourke in 2018, at the age of 70. This year, he’s voting again — when we spoke, he had just received his absentee ballot and was planning to fill it out that evening.
But getting to a similar place might be harder for other occasional voters or nonvoters. For one thing, occasional voters (80 percent) and nonvoters (68 percent) are less likely to believe that politicians have an impact on their lives than consistent voters (84 percent). Similarly, people who vote sometimes (78 percent) or rarely (60 percent) are much less likely than voters who vote almost all of the time (85 percent) to say that there are people in politics who look like them — which could in turn make it harder to trust or identify with the candidates running for office.

Every vote should count. The way our electoral system operates now, it’s just not true.

Another hurdle for Martinez were politicians and the political parties, which he described as “not for the people.” Many of the other survey respondents felt similarly: A substantial chunk of respondents said they don’t think either party wants people like them to vote. (Twenty-three percent said this of Democrats and 31 percent of Republicans.) Black and Hispanic people were especially likely to say the Republicans don’t want people like them to vote: Fifty-four percent of Black respondents and 35 percent of Hispanic respondents agreed with this statement, compared to just 26 percent of white respondents.
That perception may be turning off some voters who might otherwise be more likely to cast a ballot. Martinez, who identifies as Mexican American, said he thinks Republicans benefit from lower turnout from people like him. “The only reason the Republicans win is because of people like me,” he said. “Latinos, brown people and Black people don’t vote. That’s why Democrats lose.” JeMare Williams even said that he was a “Republican by nature” in terms of his policy views — but as a Black man, he couldn’t vote for Republican candidates. “They shunned the African American vote because of everything they do to suppress it,” he said. “When you do so much to suppress the vote, you can’t tell me you’re welcoming me into your party.”
Andrea Johnson, meanwhile, has voted in the past but thinks that not voting this year is the best way to send a message to the parties. Like other voters in relatively noncompetitive states, she was skeptical that her vote can make a difference in Virginia, where she’s currently a graduate student. And although she admitted that she’s ideologically closer to Biden than to Trump, she supported more progressive candidates in the Democratic primary and resents the assumption that she’ll simply fall in line behind the Democrats’ chosen candidate. “If Trump were to get reelected, it would send a bigger message to the Democratic Party that ‘Hey, we’re tired of you giving us candidates that we don’t necessarily agree with,’” she said.

Beliefs About Politics

This year, though, there are signs that we could be heading for record-breaking voter turnout. And if that happens, it could be due in large part to the fact that a lot of people who vote only sometimes cast a ballot this year. According to our survey, 82 percent of these voters are following the 2020 election somewhat or very closely, and 93 percent are planning to vote in 2020 — very close to the share of those who say they always vote (97 percent). A much smaller but still non-negligible share of nonvoters (51 percent) also say they’re planning to vote this year. (Of course, many people who say they will vote don’t end up casting a ballot.)
For voters like Amanda Robey, 38, this election feels like a chance to hit the reset button. Robey said that although she generally tries to turn out for national elections, she didn’t vote in 2016. “I knew enough about Trump at that point to know that I didn’t want to vote for him,” she said. But she added that she had misgivings about Clinton that she now chalks up to “Russian bots and misinformation,” so she sat the election out. She regretted that decision almost immediately.
“I honestly did not think there was any way Trump was going to win,” she said. “It felt like a nightmare when I woke up in the middle of the night to check the vote and found out he had won the election.”
But this year, Robey told us, the stakes of the election are high enough that she’s considering voting in person if that’s what it takes, even though she is at moderate risk for COVID-19. Overall, most voters agree that, as far as making progress on the important issues facing the country is concerned, the winner of this year’s election really matters. However, those who rarely vote were the likeliest to say the election doesn’t matter.

That’s true of voters of all political leanings, not just people like Robey who dislike Trump. Trump supporters like Jared Gaffney, 42, agreed that this year’s choice feels more weighty than any election in recent memory. ”There’s definitely more importance to this election, which is kind of odd to say because I thought the last election had quite a bit of importance to it too,” Gaffney said. “But these two candidates are like polar opposites of each other.”
In interviews and the survey, we found, time and again, an increased sense of urgency to vote among less-frequent voters. And in some instances, that’s prompting them to get more engaged with all aspects of the political system, not just the presidential race. The statewide restrictions put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic, for one, convinced Lila Haddad, 31, to start paying more attention to down-ballot races. “I’m a mom with three kids and sometimes I don’t have the time to do the research that I need to in those races, so I just don’t vote,” she said. Now, though, she said she’s going to make those contests more of a priority. “Before this year, it felt like the presidential elections were the really important ones, but now it’s become really plain to me that who we have for city council, governor — that also makes a huge difference in people’s lives.”

There’s really nothing about [Biden] that makes me want to vote for him. It’s just the idea of not voting for Trump.

But those feelings might not persist. It’s one reason why voter turnout tends to ebb and flow. Take someone like Thomas Jones, 56, who didn’t vote in 2016 but plans to cast his ballot for Biden this year. Jones’s daughter was sick with COVID-19 earlier this year (she’s since recovered); however, he is still unhappy with Trump’s response to the pandemic. “The lies that they’ve told, his insistence that it’s going to disappear, his idea that he can use bleach to kind of get rid of it and then say, ‘Oh, I was just joking,’” Jones said. “There are too many people dying to joke about something like that.” But despite his support for Biden, Jones didn’t have much enthusiasm for the Democratic Party. “There’s no voice of reason on either side,” he said.
That deeply rooted disgust with the state of the country’s politics was also evident in our survey and interviews. This year, many Americans on both sides of the political divide feel a need to participate that overrides their distaste for the candidates and the system, but it may not last. Each individual voter will face a new calculus two or four years from now, when the political context could be quite different. Eduardo Martinez, for instance, said that if Trump loses the popular vote but wins the Electoral College, he might not bother voting in the future. “That would really be very upsetting,” he said. “I probably wouldn’t vote again.”
High voter turnout this year shouldn’t be taken as a sign that Americans are newly confident in their electoral system — instead, the driving emotion seems to be desperation. Richard Brown, for his part, thinks he probably won’t vote again for a while after 2020. “I just really feel like if voting really made a difference, [the government] wouldn’t let us vote,” he said. But things feel bad enough right now that he doesn’t care — and he wants to have his say anyway.

Introduction to Mitigation, Mobility and Epidemiology Graph
A mitigation, mobility, and epidemiology (MME) graph displays the effects that mitigation measures might have on community mobility and on the incidence of COVID-19 in a geographical zone over time.
Guide to Create a Mitigation, Mobility and Epidemiology Graph (PDF)pdf icon

Links with this icon indicate that you are leaving the CDC website.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
You will be subject to the destination website’s privacy policy when you follow the link.
CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website.

For more information on CDC’s web notification policies, see Website Disclaimers.

What Your Test Results Mean

pdf icon

Slow the Spread of COVID-19 – High School

pdf icon

Slow the Spread of COVID-19 – College

pdf icon

Help Protect Yourself and Others from COVID-19

pdf icon

Do if for Yourself and Your Friends – High School

pdf icon

Do it for Yourself and Your Friends – College

pdf icon

Stay Safe at the Pool or Beach – High School

pdf icon

Stay Safe at the Pool or Beach – College

pdf icon

Stay Safe at the Pool or Beach – Fall/Winter

pdf icon

Wear a Mask to Protect You and Your Friends

pdf icon

Back to College Tips – COVID-19

pdf icon

What Your Test Results Mean – High School

pdf icon

Links with this icon indicate that you are leaving the CDC website.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
You will be subject to the destination website’s privacy policy when you follow the link.
CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website.

For more information on CDC’s web notification policies, see Website Disclaimers.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is working closely with international partners to respond to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. CDC provides technical assistance to help other countries increase their ability to prevent, detect, and respond to health threats, including COVID-19.
This information is provided by CDC for use in non-US healthcare settings.

Audience: These considerations are intended for use by federal, state, and local public health officials; leaders in occupational health services and infection prevention and control programs; and other leaders in healthcare settings who are responsible for developing and implementing policies and procedures for preventing pathogen transmission in healthcare settings.
Purpose: This document offers a series of strategies or options to optimize supplies of eye protection in healthcare settings when there is limited supply. It does not address other aspects of pandemic planning; for those, healthcare facilities can refer to COVID-19 preparedness plans.
Surge capacity refers to the ability to manage a sudden increase in patient volume that would severely challenge or exceed the present capacity of a facility. While there are no widely accepted measurements or triggers to distinguish surge capacity from daily patient care capacity, surge capacity is a useful framework to approach a decreased supply of eye protection during the COVID-19 response. To help healthcare facilities plan and optimize the use of eye protection in response to COVID-19, CDC has developed a Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Burn Rate Calculator. Three general strata have been used to describe surge capacity and can be used to prioritize measures to conserve glove supplies along the continuum of care.
Conventional capacity: measures consisting of engineering, administrative, and personal protective equipment (PPE) controls that should already be implemented in general infection prevention and control plans in healthcare settings.
Contingency capacity: measures that may be used temporarily during periods of expected eye protection shortages. Contingency capacity strategies should only be implemented after considering and implementing conventional capacity strategies. While current supply may meet the facility’s current or anticipated utilization rate, there may be uncertainty if future supply will be adequate and, therefore, contingency capacity strategies may be needed.
Crisis capacity: strategies that are not commensurate with U.S. standards of care but may need to be considered during periods of known eye protection shortages. Crisis capacity strategies should only be implemented after considering and implementing conventional and contingency capacity strategies. Facilities can consider crisis capacity strategies when the supply is not able to meet the facility’s current or anticipated utilization rate.
CDC’s optimization strategies for eye protection supply offer a continuum of options for use when eye protection supplies are stressed, running low, or exhausted. Contingency and then crisis capacity measures augment conventional capacity measures and are meant to be considered and implemented sequentially. Once eye protection availability returns to normal, healthcare facilities should promptly resume standard practices.
Decisions to implement contingency and crisis strategies are based upon these assumptions:
Facilities understand their eye protection inventory and supply chain
Facilities understand their eye protection utilization rate
Facilities are in communication with local healthcare coalitions and federal, state, and local public health partners (e.g., public health emergency preparedness and response staff) to identify additional supplies
Facilities have already implemented other engineering and administrative control measures including:
Use physical barriers and other engineering controls
Limit number of patients going to hospital or outpatient settings
Use telemedicine whenever possible
Exclude all HCP not directly involved in patient care
Limit face-to-face HCP encounters with patients
Exclude visitors to patients with known or suspected COVID-19
Cohort patients and/or HCP

Facilities have provided HCP with required education and training, including having them demonstrate competency with donningexternal icon and doffing, with any PPE ensemble that is used to perform job responsibilities, such as provision of patient care
Once availability of eye protection returns to normal, healthcare facilities should promptly resume conventional practices. Determining the appropriate time to return to conventional strategies can be challenging. Considerations affecting this decision include:
the number of patients requiring Transmission-Based Precautions (e.g., number of patients with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection)
whether there is evidence of ongoing SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the facility
the incidence of COVID-19 in the community
the number of days’ supply of PPE items currently remaining at the facility
whether or not the facility is receiving regular resupply with its full allotment.
Conventional Capacity Strategies
Use eye protection according to product labeling and local, state, and federal requirements.
Contingency Capacity Strategies
Decrease length of stay for medically stable patients with COVID-19.
Selectively cancel elective and non-urgent procedures and appointments for which eye protection is typically used by HCP.
Shift eye protection supplies from disposable to re-usable devices (i.e., goggles and reusable face shields).
Consider preferential use of powered air purifying respirators (PAPRs) or full-face elastomeric respirators which have built-in eye protection.
Ensure appropriate cleaning and disinfection between users if goggles or reusable face shields are used.
Implement extended use of eye protection.
Extended use of eye protection is the practice of wearing the same eye protection for repeated close contact encounters with several different patients, without removing eye protection between patient encounters. Extended use of eye protection can be applied to disposable and reusable devices.
Eye protection should be removed and reprocessed if it becomes visibly soiled or difficult to see through.
If a disposable face shield is reprocessed, it should be dedicated to one HCP and reprocessed whenever it is visibly soiled or removed (e.g., when leaving the isolation area) prior to putting it back on. See protocol for removing and reprocessing eye protection below.

Eye protection should be discarded if damaged (e.g., face shield can no longer fasten securely to the provider, if visibility is obscured and reprocessing does not restore visibility).
HCP should take care not to touch their eye protection. If they touch or adjust their eye protection they must immediately perform hand hygiene.
HCP should leave patient care area if they need to remove their eye protection. See protocol for removing and reprocessing eye protection below.
Crisis Capacity Strategies
Cancel all elective and non-urgent procedures and appointments for which eye protection is typically used by HCP.
Use eye protection devices beyond the manufacturer-designated shelf life during patient care activities.
If there is no date available on the eye protection device label or packaging, facilities should contact the manufacturer. The user should visually inspect the product prior to use and, if there are concerns (such as degraded materials), discard the product.
Prioritize eye protection for selected activities such as:
During care activities where splashes and sprays are anticipated, which typically includes aerosol generating procedures.
During activities where prolonged face-to-face or close contact with a potentially infectious patient is unavoidable.
Consider using safety glasses (e.g., trauma glasses) that have extensions to cover the side of the eyes. However, protective eyewear (e.g., safety glasses, trauma glasses) with gaps between glasses and the face likely do not protect eyes from all splashes and sprays.
Exclude HCP at increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19 from contact with known or suspected COVID-19 patients.
During severe resource limitations, consider excluding HCP who may be at increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19, such as those of older age, those with chronic medical conditions, or those who may be pregnant, from caring for patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection.
Designate convalescent HCP for provision of care to known or suspected COVID-19 patients.
It may be possible to designate HCP who have clinically recovered from COVID-19 to preferentially provide care for additional patients with COVID-19. Individuals who have recovered from COVID-19 infection may have developed some protective immunity, but this has not yet been confirmed.
Selected Options for Reprocessing Eye Protection
Adhere to recommended manufacturer instructions for cleaning and disinfection.
When manufacturer instructions for cleaning and disinfection are unavailable, such as for single use disposable face shields, consider:
While wearing gloves, carefully wipe the inside, followed by the outside of the face shield or goggles using a clean cloth saturated with neutral detergent solution or cleaner wipe.
Carefully wipe the outside of the face shield or goggles using a wipe or clean cloth saturated with EPA-registered hospital disinfectant solution.
Wipe the outside of face shield or goggles with clean water or alcohol to remove residue.
Fully dry (air dry or use clean absorbent towels).
Remove gloves and perform hand hygiene.

For COVID-19 Clues, Researchers Look to the Sewer
Microbiologist Amy Kirby and environmental engineer Mia Mattioli specialize in wastewater and how it can carry disease-causing germs. Now, they’re trying to turn samples of sewage into an early warning sign of COVID-19 in a community.