RFK Jr. says annual COVID-19 shots no longer advised for healthy children, pregnant women - public health expert explains new guidance
Kennedy
Jr. announced that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will no longer include the COVID-19 vaccine on the list of immunizations it recommends for healthy children and pregnant women.
The announcement, made in a video posted on the social platform X, comes on the heels of another announcement, made on May 20, in which the Food and Drug Administration revealed that it will approve new versions of the vaccine only for adults 65 years of age and older and for people with one or more risk factors for severe COVID-19 outcomes.
The agency will require vaccine manufacturers to conduct clinical trials to demonstrate that the vaccine benefits low-risk groups.
The Conversation US asked
Libby Richards
, a nursing professor from Purdue University involved in public health promotion, to explain what these announcements mean for the general public.
Why are HHS and
FDA
diverging from past practice?
Currently, getting a yearly COVID-19 vaccine is recommended for everyone ages 6 months and older, regardless of their health risk.
In the video announcing the plan to remove the vaccine from the CDC's recommended immunization schedule for healthy children and healthy pregnant women, Kennedy spoke alongside
National Institutes of Health
Director
Jay Bhattacharya
and FDA Commissioner
Marty Makary
.
The trio cited a lack of evidence to support vaccinating healthy children. They did not explain the reason for the change to the vaccine schedule for pregnant people, who have previously been considered at high-risk for severe COVID-19.
Similarly, in the FDA announcement made a week prior, Makary and the agency's head of vaccines,
Vinay Prasad
, said that public health trends now support limiting vaccines to people at high risk of serious illness instead of a universal COVID-19 vaccination strategy.
Was this a controversial decision or a clear consensus?
Many public health experts and professional health care associations have raised concerns about Kennedy's latest announcement, saying it contradicts studies showing that COVID-19 vaccination benefits pregnant people and children.
The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, considered the premier professional organisation for that medical specialty, reinforced the importance of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy, especially to protect infants after birth.
Likewise, the American Academy of Pediatrics pointed to the data on hospitalisations of children with COVID-19 during the 2024-to-2025 respiratory virus season as evidence for the importance of vaccination.
Kennedy's announcement on children and pregnant women comes roughly a month ahead of a planned meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a panel of vaccine experts that offers guidance to the CDC on vaccine policy.
The meeting was set to review guidance for the 2025-to-2026 COVID-19 vaccines. It's not typical for the CDC to alter its recommendations without input from the committee.
FDA officials Makary and Prasad also strayed from past established vaccine regulatory processes in announcing the FDA's new stance on recommendations for healthy people under age 65.
Usually, the FDA broadly approves a vaccine based on whether it is safe and effective, and decisions on who should be eligible to receive it are left to the CDC, which bases its decision on the advisory committee's research-based guidance.
The advisory committee was expected to recommend a risk-based approach for the COVID-19 vaccine, but it was also expected to recommend allowing low-risk people to get annual COVID-19 vaccines if they want to. The CDC's and FDA's new policies on the vaccine will likely make it difficult for healthy people to get the vaccine.
What conditions count as risk factors?
The CDC lists several medical conditions and other factors that increase peoples' risk for severe COVID-19. These conditions include cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, chronic kidney disease and some lung conditions like COPD and asthma. Pregnancy is also on the list.
The article authored by Makary and Prasad describing the FDA's new stance on the vaccine also contain a lengthy list of risk factors and notes that about 100 million to 200 million people will fall into this category and will thus be eligible to get the vaccine. Pregnancy is included. Reversing the recommendation for vaccinating healthy pregnant women thus contradicts the new framework described by the FDA.
Studies have documented that COVID-19 vaccines are safe during pregnancy and may reduce the risk of stillbirth. A study published in May 2025 using data from 26,783 pregnancies found a link between COVID-19 infection before and during pregnancy and an increased risk for spontaneous abortions.
Importantly, a 2024 analysis of 120 studies including a total of 168,444 pregnant women with COVID-19 infections did not find enough evidence to suggest the infections are a direct cause of early pregnancy loss.
Nonetheless, the authors did state that COVID-19 vaccination remains a crucial preventive measure for pregnant women to reduce the overall risk of serious complications in pregnancy due to infection.
Immune changes during pregnancy increase the risk of severe illness from respiratory viruses. Vaccination during pregnancy also provides protection to the fetus that lasts into the first few months of life and is associated with a lower risk of COVID-19 related hospitalisation among infants.
The changes to the CDC's and the FDA's plan for COVID-19 vaccines also leave out an important group - caregivers and household members of people at high risk of severe illness from infection. This omission leaves high-risk people more vulnerable to exposure to COVID-19 from healthy people they regularly interact with. Multiple countries with risk-based vaccination policies do include this group.
What about vaccines for children?
High-risk children age 6 months and older who have conditions that increase the risk of severe COVID-19 are still eligible for the vaccine. Existing vaccines already on the market will remain available, but it is unclear how long they will stay authorised and how the change in vaccine policy will affect childhood vaccination overall.
To date, millions of children have safely received the COVID-19 vaccine. Data on whether children benefit from annual COVD-19 vaccines is less clear. Parents and clinicians make vaccination decisions by weighing potential risks with potential benefits.
Will low-risk people be able to get a COVID-19 shot?
Not automatically. Kennedy's announcement does not broadly address healthy adults, but under the new FDA framework, healthy adults who wish to receive the fall COVID-19 vaccine will likely face obstacles.
Health care providers can administer vaccines "off-label", but insurance coverage is widely based on FDA recommendations. The new, narrower FDA approval will likely reduce both access to COVID-19 vaccines for the general public and insurance coverage for COVID-19 vaccines.
Under the Affordable Care Act,
Medicare
, Medicaid and private insurance providers are required to fully cover the cost of any vaccine endorsed by the CDC. Kennedy's announcement will likely limit insurance coverage for COVID-19 vaccination.
Overall, the move to focus on individual risks and benefits may overlook broader public health benefits. Communities with higher vaccination rates have fewer opportunities to spread the virus. (The Conversation) GRS GRS
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
US CDC considers travel notice for China as chikungunya cases rise, Bloomberg News reports
Bengaluru: The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is planning to issue a travel notice for China as mosquito-borne chikungunya infections rise in the country, Bloomberg News reported on Wednesday. "CDC is aware of the reported chikungunya outbreak in Guangdong Province in China and is currently assessing the size and extent of the outbreak," a CDC spokesperson told Bloomberg News. The U.S. CDC did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment. According to the Global Times newspaper, South China's Guangdong Province reported a total of 4,824 chikungunya cases as of July 26. Chikungunya, which is spread primarily by Aedes mosquito species and has no specific treatment, can cause rapid and large outbreaks. As the mosquitoes bite in the daytime, prevention is key, through the use of insect repellent and long-sleeved clothing. Earlier this month, the World Health Organization issued an urgent call for action to prevent a repeat of the 2004-2005 epidemic of chikungunya as new outbreaks linked to the Indian Ocean region spread to Europe and other continents.
NDTV
2 hours ago
- NDTV
US Beverage Brand Issues Urgent Recall Over Vodka-Filled Energy Drinks
American alcoholic beverage brand High Noon is recalling its energy drink cans due to a major labelling issue. The company has voluntarily recalled two lots of its High Noon Beach Variety 12-packs, according to a press release. The announcement came after some cans were filled with High Noon Vodka Seltzer and mislabelled as the non-alcoholic Celsius Astro Vibe Energy Drink, Sparkling Blue Razz Edition. As a result, consuming the beverage in these cans may lead to accidental alcohol consumption. Reportedly, no illnesses or health incidents have been documented as of now. The mix-up happened after a packaging supplier mistakenly sent empty Celsius cans to High Noon, a brand that specialises in hard seltzer. The empty cans were filled with alcohol and then delivered to Florida, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, Virginia and Wisconsin between July 21 and 23. Also Read: Viral Video Shows Man Allegedly Drinking Alcohol In Delhi Metro. His Clarification... Only two lots of High Noon Beach Variety Packs have this labelling error – one with Lot Codes L CCC 17JL25 14:00 to L CCC 17JL25 23:59 and another with Lot Codes L CCC 18JL25 00:00 to L CCC 18JL25 03:00. Consumers are urged to discard the Celsius-labelled recalled cans. If they have already bought the recalled High Noon Beach Variety 12-packs, they may reach out to High Noon Consumer Relations about the next steps, including how to obtain a refund. "We are working with the FDA, retailers and distributors to proactively manage the recall to ensure the safety and well-being of our consumers. The states that may be impacted are: Florida, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Virginia and Wisconsin,' said a representative for High Noon in a statement to The Independent. High Noon is a popular American hard seltzer brand known for its drinks made with real vodka or tequila and real fruit juice. It was launched in 2019 by E & J Gallo Winery, a prominent American wine and spirits company. It is one of the fastest-growing alcoholic seltzer brands in the US.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
How conspiracy theories about COVID's origins are hampering our ability to prevent the next pandemic
Sydney : In late June, the Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO), a group of independent experts convened by the World Health Organization (WHO), published an assessment of the origins of COVID . The report concluded that although we don't know conclusively where the virus that caused the pandemic came from: "a zoonotic origin with spillover from animals to humans is currently considered the best supported hypothesis." SAGO did not find scientific evidence to support "a deliberate manipulation of the virus in a laboratory and subsequent biosafety breach". This follows a series of reports and research papers since the early days of the pandemic that have reached similar conclusions: COVID most likely emerged from an infected animal at the Huanan market in Wuhan , and was not the result of a lab leak. But conspiracy theories about COVID's origins persist. And this is hampering our ability to prevent the next pandemic. Attacks on our research As experts in the emergence of viruses, we published a peer-reviewed paper in Nature Medicine in 2020 on the origins of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID. Like SAGO, we evaluated several hypotheses for how a novel coronavirus could have emerged in Wuhan in late 2019. We concluded the virus very likely emerged through a natural spillover from animals - a "zoonosis" - caused by the unregulated wildlife trade in China . Since then, our paper has become a focal point of conspiracy theories and political attacks. The idea SARS-CoV-2 might have originated in a laboratory is not, in itself, a conspiracy theory. Like many scientists, we considered that possibility seriously. And we still do, although evidence hasn't emerged to support it. But the public discourse around the origin of the pandemic has increasingly been shaped by political agendas and conspiratorial narratives. Some of this has targeted our work and vilified experts who have studied this question in a data-driven manner. A common conspiracy theory claims senior officials pressured us to promote the "preferred" hypothesis of a natural origin, while silencing the possibility of a lab leak. Some conspiracy theories even propose we were rewarded with grant funding in exchange. These narratives are false. They ignore, dismiss or misrepresent the extensive body of evidence on the origin of the pandemic. Instead, they rely on selective quoting from private discussions and a distorted portrayal of the scientific process and the motivations of scientists. So what does the evidence tell us? In the five years since our Nature Medicine paper, a substantial body of new evidence has emerged that has deepened our understanding of how SARS-CoV-2 most likely emerged through a natural spillover. In early 2020, the case for a zoonotic origin was already compelling. Much-discussed features of the virus are found in related coronaviruses and carry signatures of natural evolution. The genome of SARS-CoV-2 showed no signs of laboratory manipulation. The multi-billion-dollar wildlife trade and fur farming industry in China regularly moves high-risk animals, frequently infected with viruses, into dense urban centres. It's believed that SARS-CoV-1, the virus responsible for the SARS outbreak, emerged this way in 2002 in China's Guangdong province. Similarly, detailed analyses of epidemiological data show the earliest known COVID cases clustered around the Huanan live-animal market in Wuhan, in the Hubei province, in December 2019. Multiple independent data sources, including early hospitalisations, excess pneumonia deaths, antibody studies and infections among health-care workers indicate COVID first spread in the district where the market is located. In a 2022 study we and other experts showed that environmental samples positive for SARS-CoV-2 clustered in the section of the market where wildlife was sold. In a 2024 follow-up study we demonstrated those same samples contained genetic material from susceptible animals - including raccoon dogs and civets - on cages, carts, and other surfaces used to hold and transport them. This doesn't prove infected animals were the source. But it's precisely what we would expect if the market was where the virus first spilled over. And it's contrary to what would be expected from a lab leak. These and all other independent lines of evidence point to the Huanan market as the early epicentre of the COVID pandemic. Hindering preparedness for the next pandemic Speculation and conspiracy theories around the origin of COVID have undermined trust in science. The false balance between lab leak and zoonotic origin theories assigned by some commentators has added fuel to the conspiracy fire. This anti-science agenda, stemming in part from COVID origin conspiracy theories, is being used to help justify deep cuts to funding for biomedical research, public health and global aid. These areas are essential for pandemic preparedness. In the United States this has meant major cuts to the US Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health , the closure of the US Agency for International Development , and withdrawal from the WHO. Undermining trust in science and public health institutions also hinders the development and uptake of life-saving vaccines and other medical interventions. This leaves us more vulnerable to future pandemics. The amplification of conspiracy theories about the origin of COVID has promoted a dangerously flawed understanding of pandemic risk. The idea that a researcher discovered or engineered a pandemic virus, accidentally infected themselves, and unknowingly sparked a global outbreak (in exactly the type of setting where natural spillovers are known to occur) defies logic. It also detracts from the significant risk posed by the wildlife trade. In contrast, the evidence-based conclusion that the COVID pandemic most likely began with a virus jumping from animals to humans highlights the very real risk we increasingly face. This is how pandemics start, and it will happen again. But we're dismantling our ability to stop it or prepare for it. (The Conversation)
