As new variant spreads, what's the latest COVID-19 vaccine guidance? It's complicated.
As a new COVID-19 variant takes over in the U.S., guidance surrounding vaccines has become increasingly confusing.
Changes in vaccination guidelines, ever-evolving variants and strains, along with threats to health insurance, have sent average Americans looking for the latest recommendations as members of the federal government often conflict with independent medical agencies and healthcare professionals.
In the two weeks leading up to June 21, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported just shy of 14,500 positive COVID tests, and while hospitalizations and deaths are fortunately down significantly since the pandemic's peak, vulnerable people are still grappling with limiting their risk amid changing practices.
Having trouble keeping track of variants and vaccines? Here's what we know.
NB.1.8.1 is one of the latest variants of COVID-19, a "slightly upgraded version" of the LP.8.1 variant that is prominent right now, Subhash Verma, microbiology and immunology professor at the University of Nevada, Reno, previously told USA TODAY in May.
Verma previously stated that NB.1.8.1 may be transferred more easily than LP.8.1. Additionally, he noted that NB.1.8.1 can evade antibodies created by vaccines or past infections more easily than LP.8.1.
In early April, NB.1.8.1 accounted for 0% of COVID cases in the U.S. In the two weeks ending June 21, it accounted for the majority of cases at 43%, according to the CDC.
The variant has similar symptoms to other strains, including fever or chills, cough, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, sore throat, congestion or a runny nose, new loss of taste or smell, fatigue, muscle or body aches, headache, nausea or vomiting. One of its more unique features is "razor blade throat," reported by patients as an exceptionally sore throat.
Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said on May 27 that the COVID-19 vaccine would no longer be included in the CDC's recommended immunization schedule for healthy children and pregnant women, a move that broke with previous expert guidance and bypassed the normal scientific review process.
Under the changes, the only people who will be recommended for COVID-19 vaccines are those over 65 and people with existing health problems. This could make it harder for others who want the COVID-19 vaccine to get it, including health care workers and healthy people under 65 with a vulnerable family member or those who want to reduce their short-term risk of infection.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), among other organizations, issued statements condemning the change, with the ACOG saying it was "...concerned about and extremely disappointed by the announcement that HHS will no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy."
"It is very clear that COVID-19 infection during pregnancy can be catastrophic and lead to major disability, and it can cause devastating consequences for families. The COVID-19 vaccine is safe during pregnancy, and vaccination can protect our patients and their infants after birth," President Steven J. Fleischman said in a statement.
Insurance coverage typically follows federal recommendations, so anyone who is healthy and under 65 is likely to have to pay out of pocket to get the shot, which runs about $200, if they can get it. It's not clear what insurance companies will do about the new recommendations.
The American Medical Association (AMA) and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), in partnership with other professional medical organizations, broke from RFK and HHS after this announcement, sharing plans to develop their own guidelines independent of the government organization.
In an open letter signed by 80 medical organizations across the country and published on June 25, the AMA called for physicians, healthcare networks and insurance companies to continue supporting "evidence-based immunizations to help prevent severe disease and protect public health."
"Vaccines for influenza, RSV, and COVID-19 remain among the best tools to protect the public against these illnesses and their potentially serious complications—and physicians are among the most trusted voices to recommend them. We come together as physicians from every corner of medicine to reaffirm our commitment to these lifesaving vaccines," the letter said.
"Recent changes to federal immunization review processes raised concerns across the medical and public health community. In this moment of uncertainty, physicians must align around clear, evidence-based guidance for patients."
The AAP likewise said in a June 26 statement that it will "continue to publish its own evidence-based recommendations and schedules."
AAP President Susan J. Kressly said the creation of federal immunization policy is 'no longer a credible process," adding, "...we're not stepping back, we're stepping up. The AAP will continue to publish our own immunization schedule just as we always have, developed by experts, guided by science, trusted by pediatricians and families across the country.'
These latest independent guidelines have yet to be released.
Meanwhile, the new Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) gathered for the first time on June 25 in a meeting that drew criticism from some experts.
RFK fired all 17 original members of the committee on June 9, replacing them with members that critics have called unqualified. Some of the members, like Kennedy, have a history of anti-vaccine advocacy, prompting backlash that had doctors and organizations calling for a delay in the meeting.
Anti-vaccine sentiments were repeated by ACIP Chair Martin Kulldorf at the meeting, who said the panel will be "investigating" MMR and childhood vaccines.
The CDC panel also reviewed data about COVID-19 vaccines, questioning their safety and effectiveness. They also raised questions about the study design, methodologies and surveillance monitoring systems behind the data, which Dr. Pamela Rockwell, clinical professor of family medicine at the University of Michigan Medical School, addressed as a standard of medical research.
"Our efforts, through a very robust system of checks and balances, are to create vaccines and vaccination programs that result in the most benefit with the least harm," said Dr. Gretchen LaSalle, a family physician in Spokane, Washington, who represented the American Academy of Family Physicians.
Despite this, the committee didn't vote on COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for the fall and isn't expected to reconvene until 'September/October,' according to the CDC website.
ACIP commitee: Inside the unusual, RFK-appointed panel that's deciding on childhood vaccines
The FDA likewise announced updated requirements for mRNA COVID-19 vaccine warning labels on June 25, which apply to Comirnaty by Pfizer Inc. and Spikevax by ModernaTX Inc. Prescribing information will now include warnings of the connection between the vaccines and a rare side effect that causes inflammation of the heart muscle and lining.
The new warning label discloses the risk of myocarditis, which appeared in 8 cases per 1 million people who got the 2023-2024 COVID shots between the ages of 6 months and 64 years old, mostly commonly among males aged 12 to 24. The previous label, which also disclosed the risk, said the problem mostly occurred in minors aged 12-17.
Despite the back-and-forth in the U.S., the World Health Organization (WHO) has kept its recommendation consistent. Currently approved COVID-19 vaccines are expected to remain effective against the NB.1.8.1 variant, it said.
In a webpage dated Jan. 7, the CDC advised that everyone over the age of six months get the 2024-2025 COVID-19 vaccine, specifically the 2024-2025 Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. The page has since been updated with a banner, reading "COVID-19 vaccine recommendations have recently been updated for some populations. This page will be updated to align with the updated immunization schedule." The original recommendations align with the WHO's current guidelines.
WHO, AMA, AAP and existing standards recommend that people who have never received a COVID-19 vaccine, are age 65 and older, are immunocompromised, live at a long-term care facility, are pregnant, breastfeeding, trying to get pregnant, and/or want to avoid getting long COVID, should get the vaccine, especially.
Contributing: Greta Cross, Adrianna Rodriguez, USA TODAY
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: What are the latest COVID vaccine guidelines for this summer?
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
7 hours ago
- Newsweek
Bologna Products Recall Sparks Nationwide Warning to Customers
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Gaiser's European Style Provisions Inc. is recalling over 143,000 pounds of ready-to-eat bologna products due to "misbranding," according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) on Friday. Newsweek reached out to the company via email for comment. Why It Matters Numerous recalls have been initiated in 2025 due to the potential of damaged products, foodborne illness, contamination and undeclared food allergens. Millions of Americans experience food sensitivities or allergies every year. According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the nine "major" food allergens in the U.S. are eggs, milk, fish, wheat, soybeans, Crustacean shellfish, sesame, tree nuts and peanuts. What To Know In the alert, the FSIS warns that the recalled bologna products contain "meat or poultry source materials" not noted on the product's labels. The goods were produced from March 20, 2025, to June 20, 2025. The alert has photos of the various products' labels and below is a list of the impacted products, according to the FSIS: Vacuum-packed packages of "FAMILY TREE BOLOGNA VEAL" containing undeclared pork. Plastic-wrapped packages of "BABUSHKA'S RECIPE CHICKEN BOLOGNA" containing undeclared pork. Plastic-wrapped packages of "FANCY BOLOGNA" labeled with pork as an ingredient but containing undeclared beef and chicken. Vacuum-packed packages of "GAISER'S RUSSIAN BRAND DOKTORSKAYA BOLOGNA" containing undeclared beef. Plastic-wrapped packages of "GAISER'S BOLOGNA VEAL" containing undeclared chicken and pork. Plastic-wrapped packages of "GAISER'S TURKEY BOLOGNA" containing undeclared chicken and pork. Plastic-wrapped packages of "CHICKEN BOLOGNA KYPOYKA PABA" containing undeclared pork. The FSIS warns that these products were distributed to retailers and wholesalers across the country and have an establishment number of "EST. 5385" inside the U.S. Department of Agriculture inspection mark. "Some products would have been weighed, wrapped, and labeled in retail store locations at the time of purchase," the FSIS says, adding later that the department is concerned people may have the recalled products in their freezers or refrigerators. Gaiser's Russian Brand Doktorskaya Bologna can be seen related to a recall on June 27. (Photo from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service.) Gaiser's Russian Brand Doktorskaya Bologna can be seen related to a recall on June 27. (Photo from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service.) What People Are Saying The FSIS in the alert, in part: "The problem was discovered when FSIS was notified by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of a complaint received through the OIG's hotline. FSIS investigated the complaint and determined that the products contained source materials that were not declared on the label. "Although FSIS does not expect any adverse health effects for Class III recalled products and there have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products, anyone concerned about an illness should contact a healthcare provider." What Happens Next Customers who have purchased the recalled products should not consume them; either throw them away or return the goods to the original place of purchase, the FSIS says.
Atlantic
9 hours ago
- Atlantic
‘I'm Not Quite Sure How to Respond to This Presentation'
The past three weeks have been auspicious for the anti-vaxxers. On June 9, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. purged the nation's most important panel of vaccine experts: All 17 voting members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which sets recommendations for the use of vaccines and determines which ones must be covered through insurance and provided free of charge to children on Medicaid, were abruptly fired. The small, ragtag crew of replacements that Kennedy appointed two days later met this week for the first time, amid lots of empty chairs in a conference room in Atlanta. They had come to talk about the safety of vaccines: to raise concerns about the data, to float hypotheses of harm, to issue findings. The resulting spectacle was set against a backdrop of accelerating action from the secretary. On Wednesday, Kennedy terminated more than $1 billion in U.S. funding for Gavi, a global-health initiative that supports the vaccination of more than 65 million children every year. Lyn Redwood, a nurse practitioner and the former president of Children's Health Defense, the anti-vaccine organization that Kennedy used to chair, was just hired as a special government employee. (She presented at the ACIP meeting yesterday.) A recently posted scientific document on the ACIP website that underscored the safety of thimerosal, an ingredient in a small proportion of the nation's flu vaccines, had been taken down, a committee member said, because the document 'was not authorized by the office of the secretary.' (A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services told me in an email that this document was provided to the ACIP members in their meeting briefing packets.) What's clear enough is that, 61 years after ACIP's founding, America's vaccination policy is about to be recooked. Now we've had a glimpse inside the kitchen. The meeting started with complaints. 'Some media outlets have been very harsh on the new members of this committee,' said Martin Kulldorff, a rangy Swedish biostatistician and noted COVID contrarian who is now ACIP's chair. (Kuldorff was one of the lead authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, a controversial proposal from the fall of 2020 to isolate seniors and other vulnerable people while reopening the rest of society.) In suggesting that he and Kennedy's other appointees are opposed to vaccination, Kulldorff said, journalists were misleading the public, weakening trust in public health, and fanning 'the flames of vaccine hesitancy.' This was, in fact, the most pugnacious comment of the two-day meeting, which otherwise unfolded in a tone of fearmongering gentility. Robert Malone, a doctor and an infectious-diseases researcher who has embraced the 'anti-vaccine' label and published a conspiracy-theory-laden book that details government psyops against the American people, was unfailingly polite in his frequent intimations about the safety of vaccines, often thanking CDC staff for their hard work and lucid presentations. With his thick white beard, calm affect, and soldierly diction—Malone ended many of his comments by saying, 'Over' into the microphone—he presented less as a firebrand than as, say, the commanding officer of a submarine. When Malone alluded to the worry, for example, that spike proteins from the mRNA-based COVID vaccines linger in the body following injection, he did so in respectful, even deferential, language, suggesting that the public would benefit from greater study of possible 'delayed effects' of immune-system activation. The CDC's traditional approach—its 'world-leading, rigorous' one, he clarified—might be improved by examining this question. A subject-matter expert responded that the CDC has been keeping tabs on real-world safety data on those vaccines for nearly five years, and has not detected any signs of long-term harm. Later, Malone implied that COVID or its treatments might have, through some unspecified, bank-shot mechanism, left the U.S. population more susceptible to other illnesses. There was a 'paradoxical, sudden decrease' in flu cases in 2020 and 2021, he noted, followed by a trend of worsening harm. A CDC staffer pointed out that the decrease in flu during those years was not, in fact, a paradox; well-documented shifts in people's health behavior had temporarily reduced the load of many respiratory illnesses during that same period. But Malone pressed on: 'Some members of the scientific community have concern that they're coming out of the COVID pandemic—exposure to the virus, exposure to various countermeasures—there may be a pattern of broad-based, uh, energy,' he said, his eyes darting up for a moment as he said the word, 'that might contribute to increased severity of influenza disease.' He encouraged the agency to 'be sensitive to that hypothesis.' Throughout these and other questions from the committee members, the CDC's subject-matter experts did their best to explain their work and respond to scattershot technical and conceptual concerns. 'The CDC staff is still attempting to operate as an evidence-based organization,' Laura Morris, a professor at the University of Missouri School of Medicine, who has attended dozens of ACIP meetings in the past and attended this one as a nonvoting liaison to the committee from the American Academy of Family Physicians, told me. 'There was some tension in terms of the capacity of the committee to ask and understand the appropriate methodological questions. The CDC was trying to hold it down.' That task became more difficult as the meeting progressed. 'The new ACIP is an independent body composed of experienced medical and public health experts who evaluate evidence, ask hard questions, and make decisions based on scientific integrity,' the HHS spokesperson told me. 'Bottom line: this process reflects open scientific inquiry and robust debate, not a pre-scripted narrative.' The most vocal questioner among the new recruits—and the one who seemed least beholden to a script—was the MIT business-school professor Retsef Levi, a lesser-known committee appointee who sat across the table from Malone. A scruffy former Israel Defense Forces intelligence officer with a ponytail that reached halfway down his back, Levi's academic background is in data modeling, risk management, and organizational logistics. He approached the proceedings with a swaggering incredulity, challenging the staffers' efforts and pointing out the risks of systematic errors in their thinking. (In a pinned post on his X profile, Levi writes that 'the evidence is mounting and indisputable that mRNA vaccines cause serious harm including death'—a position entirely at odds with copious data presented at the meeting.) Shortly before the committee's vote to recommend a new, FDA-approved monoclonal antibody for preventing RSV in infants, Levi noted that he'd spent some time reviewing the relevant clinical-trial data for the drug and another like it, and found some worrying patterns in the statistics surrounding infant deaths. 'Should we not be concerned that maybe there are some potential safety signals?' he asked. But these very data had already been reviewed, at great length, in multiple settings: by the FDA, in the course of drug approval, and by the dozens of members of ACIP's relevant work group for RSV, which had, per the committee's standard practice, conducted its own staged analysis of the new treatment before the meeting and reached consensus that its benefits outweighed its risks. Levi was uncowed by any reference to this prior work. 'I'm a scientist, but I'm also a father of six kids,' he told the group; speaking as a father, he said, he personally would be concerned about the risk of harm from this new antibody for RSV. In the end, Levi voted against recommending the antibody, as did Vicky Pebsworth, who is on the board of an anti-vaccine organization and holds a Ph.D. in public health and nursing. The five other members voted yes. That 5–2 vote aside, the most contentious issue on the meeting's schedule concerned the flu shots in America that contain thimerosal, which has been an obsession of the anti-vaccine movement for the past few decades. Despite extensive study, vaccines with thimerosal have not been found to be associated with any known harm in human patients, yet an unspecified vote regarding their use was slipped into the meeting's agenda in the absence of any work-group study or presentation from the CDC's staff scientists. What facts there were came almost exclusively from Redwood, the nurse who used to run Kennedy's anti-vaccine organization. Earlier this week, Reuters reported that at least one citation from her posted slides had been invented. That reference was removed before she spoke yesterday. (HHS did not address a request for comment on this issue in its response to me.) The only one of Kennedy's appointees who had ever previously served on the committee—the pediatrician Cody Meissner—seemed perplexed, even pained, by the proceedings. 'I'm not quite sure how to respond to this presentation,' he said when Redwood finished. He went on to sum up his concerns: 'ACIP makes recommendations based on scientific evidence as much as possible. And there is no scientific evidence that thimerosal has caused a problem.' Alas, Meissner's warnings were for nought. Throughout the meeting, he came off as the committee's last remaining, classic 'expert'—a vaccine scientist clinging to ACIP's old ways—but his frequent protestations were often bulldozed over or ignored. In the end, his was the only vote against the resolutions on thimerosal. Throughout the two-day meeting, Kuldorff kept returning to a favorite phrase: evidence-based medicine. 'Secretary Kennedy has given this committee a clear mandate to use evidence-based medicine,' he said on Wednesday morning; 'The purpose of this committee is to follow evidence-based medicine,' he said on Wednesday afternoon; 'What is important is using evidence-based medicine,' he said again when the meeting reached its end. All told, I heard him say evidence-based at least 10 times during the meeting. (To be fair, critics of Kuldorff and his colleagues also love this phrase.) But the committee was erratic in its posture toward the evidence from the very start; it cast doubt on CDC analyses and substituted lay advice and intuition for ACIP's normal methods of assessing and producing expert consensus. 'Decisons were made based on feelings and preferences rather than evidence,' Morris told me after the meeting. 'That's a dangerous way to make public-health policy.'
Los Angeles Times
9 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
California will see ‘devastating' healthcare cuts under GOP bill, Newsom says
As many as 3.4 million Californians could lose their state Medi-Cal health insurance under the budget bill making its way through the U.S. Senate, Gov. Gavin Newsom said Friday. Newsom said the proposed cuts to healthcare in the 'one big, beautiful bill,' a cornerstone of President Trump's second-term agenda, could force the closure of struggling rural hospitals, reduce government food assistance for those in need and drive up premiums for people who rely on Covered California, the state's Affordable Care Act health insurance marketplace. 'This is devastating,' Newsom said. 'I know that word is often overused in this line of work, but this is, in many ways, an understatement of how reckless and cruel and damaging this is.' Medicaid provides health insurance for about 1 in 5 Americans and generally uses income, rather than employment, as a condition for enrollment. Roughly 15 million Californians, more than a third of the state, are on Medi-Cal, the state's version of Medicaid, with some of the highest percentages in rural counties that supported Trump in the November election. More than half of California children receive healthcare coverage through Medi-Cal. The Senate is still debating its version of the bill. But the current version would require many Medicaid recipients to prove every six months that they work, volunteer or attend school at least 80 hours per month. States would be required to set up their work eligibility verification systems by the end of 2026, just after the midterm elections. States that do not set up those systems could lose federal Medicaid funding. Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters last month that the aim of the policy was to encourage poor Americans to contribute and 'return the dignity of work to young men who need to be out working instead of playing video games all day.' The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated this month that the requirements would cut about $344 billion in Medicaid spending over a decade and leave 4.8 million more people uninsured. Health policy experts warn that work requirements can lead to people who are eligible, but can't prove it, losing their benefits. Newsom said 5.1 million people in California would need to go through the work verification progress and about one-third would 'likely' meet the requirements. The other two-thirds would 'go through the labyrinth of manual verification,' Newsom said. He said 3 million people in California could lose coverage through the new Medicaid work requirements, and 400,000 more could lose their insurance if they were required to re-verify their eligibility every six months. Newsom said that the state's estimate was based on the number of people who dropped off Medicaid in New Hampshire and Arkansas after those states briefly implemented their own work requirements. Last year, California became the first state in the nation to offer healthcare to low-income undocumented immigrants. The expansion, approved by Newsom and the Democratic-led Legislature, has cost the state billions and drawn sharp criticism from Republicans. Assembly Minority Leader James Gallagher (R-Yuba City), who has previously called on Newsom to walk back that coverage, said on social media Friday that Newsom and Democratic legislative leaders had 'obliterated' the healthcare system. Newsom's budget proposal in May proposed substantial cuts to the healthcare program for undocumented immigrants, including freezing new enrollment in 2026, requiring adults to pay $100 monthly premiums and cutting full dental coverage. Lawmakers ultimately agreed to require undocumented immigrant adults ages 19 to 59 to pay $30 monthly premiums beginning July 2027. Their plan adopts Newsom's enrollment cap but gives people three months to reapply if their coverage lapses instead of immediately cutting off their eligibility. Democrats agreed to cut full dental coverage for adult immigrants who are undocumented, but delayed the change until July 1, 2026. In Congress, the GOP bill could also pose a serious threat to 16 struggling hospitals in 14 rural counties, which received a $300-million lifeline in interest-free loans in 2023, Newsom said. He said the Republican members of Congress in California who supported the bill and represent rural parts of California, including Central Valley Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford) and Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin), are 'gutting an already vulnerable system.' Some senators are pushing to change a requirement that would require states to freeze and cut by half the tax they impose on Medicaid providers, slashing a key source of funding for rural hospitals. Michelle Baass, the director of the California Department of Health Care Services, said that change could be 'fatal for the many rural and critical-access hospitals that are already financially strained.' Newsom said in aggregate, the cuts could threaten California's progress in reducing the share of residents without health insurance, which stands at about 6.4%.
