CDC says healthy children may get COVID vaccine, contradicting RFK Jr.
May 30 (UPI) -- The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now says children without underlying health conditions "may receive" a COVID-19 vaccine, contradicting a directive by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. earlier in the week.
The CDC updated the childhood immunization schedule published late Thursday. Kennedy, who said the agency would stop recommending the shots for healthy children, said the guidelines would be changed.
Instead, the agency recommends vaccines based on "shared clinical decision-making," meaning children can get vaccinated if their parents and doctors agree.
This will also require health insurance companies, Medicare and Medicaid plans to continue to cover the vaccines for children.
"Where the parent presents with a desire for their child to be vaccinated, children 6 months and older may receive COVID-19 vaccination, informed by the clinical judgment of a healthcare provider and personal preference and circumstances," the new language said.
HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon told The Washington Post in an email Friday: "The CDC and HHS encourage individuals to talk with their healthcare provider on any medical decisions. Under the leadership of Secretary Kennedy, HHS is restoring the doctor-patient relationship. If a parent desires their healthy child to be vaccinated or if a pregnant woman desires to be vaccinated, their decision should be based on informed consent through the clinical judgment of their healthcare provider."
Kennedy didn't advise patients to consult doctors about the decision.
The pediatrics association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said Kennedy's Tuesday announcement undermined public trust in vaccination policy and understated COVID-19 dangers. The CDC didn't receive a directive to alter its recommendations until after Kennedy's video posted.
"At least how some clinicians perceive it is, 'You guys are the experts, and if you don't know what the right thing to do is, how are we supposed to have that conversation in a 10-minute office visit?'" Sean O'Leary, chairman of the American Academy of Pediatrics' committee on infectious diseases, told The Washington Post.
The shared clinical decision-making recommends COVID-19 vaccines for moderately or severely immunocompromised children, as well as most adults for now. COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy are listed as "No Guidance/Not Applicable," where they were previously recommended for all pregnant adults.
Kennedy said in his video announcement that healthy pregnant women were being removed from the immunization schedule for the COVID-19 vaccine.
This contradicts what is on the CDC website.
"Studies including hundreds of thousands of people around the world show that COVID-19 vaccination before and during pregnancy is safe, effective, and beneficial to both the pregnant woman and the baby," one CDC webpage still reads. "The benefits of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine outweigh any potential risks of vaccination during pregnancy."
The CDC advisory committee at its last meeting in April said it didn't plan to lift the recommendation for pregnant women to get vaccinated.
Citing "a review of the recommendations" of the Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health, Kennedy's memo said that the risks of the COVID-19 vaccine for healthy children "do not outweigh the purported benefits of the vaccine."
The directive also cited "the lack of high-quality data demonstrating safety of the mRNA vaccines during pregnancy combined with the uncertainty of the benefits" for pregnant women and their baby.
Agency officials overseeing shot recommendations said they were surprised by Kennedy's move, CBS News reported.
"As you might be aware, the HHS Secretary issued a directive to CDC to update COVID-19 vaccine recommendations on the child and adult immunization schedules. In accordance with that instruction, CDC last night posted updated versions," agency officials wrote in an email to staff Friday.
Richard Hughes IV, who teaches vaccine law at George Washington University Law School, told The Washington Post the directives raise questions about federal health officials' approach.
"They are running roughshod over processes when they are doing all this. They're just sort of trying to implement the biased positions that they came in with," Hughes, a former vice president of public policy at Moderna. "I don't think they thought it through a lot."
This week, HHS notified Moderna that it was canceling contracts worth $766 million to develop, test and license vaccines for flu subtypes that could trigger future pandemics, including the dangerous H5N1 bird flu virus.
Pfizer was the first COVID-19 vaccine to receive emergency approval in December 2020 and Moderna was followed one week later.
The FDA first granted Pfizer-BioNTech full COVID-19 approval for those 12 and older in August 2021 and Moderna in January 2022. They remain available under emergency use authorization for children as young as 6 months.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Novavax's COVID-19 vaccine with age restrictions after a six-week delay. The agency approved the vaccine only for people 65 and older and those 12 and older with at least one underlying condition in which they are at a higher risk of severe illness.
Novavax uses more traditional protein-based technology than the mRNA vaccines of Pfizer and Moderna.
The first COVID-19 case was reported in the United States on Jan. 20, 2020.
About 23% of U.S. adults are estimated to be up to date with the vaccine, according to the CDC through April. For children 6 months and up to 18, it is an estimated 13.% the CDC reported.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Subtle Differences Emerge Between FDA And CDC On COVID Vaccine Advice
An illustration picture shows vials with Covid-19 vaccine stickers attached and syringes with the ... More logo of the company Novavax. (Photo by JUSTIN TALLIS / AFP) (Photo by JUSTIN TALLIS/AFP via Getty Images) In a major policy shift last month, Food and Drug Administration officials proposed requiring new clinical trial research with respect to the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in healthy people under 65, including pregnant women, before issuing an updated approval for a broader population. At the same time, in an update to its immunization schedule posted May 29th, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention include the option of COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children and pregnant women. Based on the language used by CDC, it suggests the agency aims for a shared decision-making approach in which individuals consult with their doctor prior to getting a shot. We witnessed a preview of the new FDA approach when the agency made an unusual decision to limit the approval of the nation's only non-mRNA coronavirus vaccine, Novavax's nuvaxovid, for use only in adults 65 and older or those 12 to 64 who have at least one health problem that puts them at increased risk from COVID-19. To be indicated for a broader population, the FDA plans to require that vaccine makers conduct booster trials to demonstrate effectiveness in people under 65 or without certain risks. These trials could take a year to complete, according to a STAT report. As such, it's not something that can be accomplished prior to the autumn, even if Novavax, Pfizer, or Moderna, wished to pursue this pathway. Similar to annual flu shots, which adapt to new strains, COVID-19 boosters update immunity to target evolving variants. Data from several years of booster campaigns show lower hospitalization and death rates for boosted individuals compared to unvaccinated people or those who haven't gotten boosters. This particularly applies to the vulnerable subpopulations, stratified by age and underlying health conditions. The COVID-19 vaccines, both mRNA and non-mRNA, are recommended for anyone who is over 65 or who has a medical condition that can increase the risk of severe illness or death. Underlying conditions include, among other things, obesity, 'physical inactivity,' diabetes, clinical depression and being immunocompromised. It's estimated that between 100 and 200 million Americans will still be eligible for vaccination due to having such health issues. Nevertheless, this raises questions for people who don't have underlying health conditions and are under 65 but would like to get a COVID-19 shot this fall. The FDA and CDC appear to differ subtly in terms of their current advice for healthy individuals under 65. Is it possible for these folks to obtain a jab at the pharmacy with no questions asked? Or will they have to go to their doctor and be granted de facto permission to get the shot? Perhaps equally important, will their insurer pay for it? As the New York Times explains, insurance companies may serve as the 'gatekeepers by demanding medical documentation of an underlying condition before agreeing to cover the cost.' The out-of-pocket cost to patients could be as much $140 a shot. Top FDA officials Prasad and Makary advocate an 'evidence-based' approach to COVID-19 vaccination. They also write of aligning policy with Europe. Indeed, in most instances, European public health authorities have adopted a targeted approach that aims at ensuring the elderly and those with underlying health conditions get boosted. This means that outreach campaigns in European countries only target subpopulations for which the vaccine is recommended by the respective public health authority. This is unlike the universal recommendations previously issued by the CDC that didn't differentiate by age or risk factors. However, the European agencies in charge of vaccine approval, the EMA and MHRA, haven't suggested marketing authorization changes, such as narrowing the indication based on age, for any of the approved COVID-19 vaccines.
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
The Benefits And Drawbacks Of RFK Jr.'s New COVID Vaccine Recommendations
SAVANNAH, GA - DECEMBER 15: A nurse shows off a vial of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine ... More outside of the Chatham County Health Department on December 15, 2020 in Savannah, Georgia. (Photo by) RFK Jr. and the HHS will no longer recommend annual COVID-19 vaccines for healthy pregnant women and young adults, according to a video announcement posted on X May 27 by Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. A few days later, the CDC took a slightly different stance and stated that children between the ages of 6 months and 17 years may get the COVID-19 vaccine through shared decision-making between parents and healthcare providers. The CDC also updated the adult immunization schedule to say there is 'no guidance' on use for pregnancy. These decisions have sparked much debate among public health experts, policymakers and government officials. Here are the pros and cons of such a policy shift. As Kennedy cited in his video announcement, the U.S. seems to be aligning its vaccine policy with other countries such as the U.K. and Australia that have stopped recommending routine COVID-19 vaccines for young healthy adults. In addition, according to the new recommendations, the focus of vaccinations will largely be on high-risk populations, namely those who are 65 years of age and older as well as younger individuals with at least one medical condition that puts them at high risk for COVID-19. This could allow resources and attention to be redirected to the populations that need the vaccine most. The new recommendations also demand evidence in answering important questions the public deserves to know. For younger healthy American adults, getting approval for the vaccine will require placebo-controlled trials to show a benefit for that particular population. As an example, does a healthy 31-year-old male with no medical problems need to get a COVID-19 booster every single year, even after having received several COVID-19 boosters in the past? These are the types of questions that all Americans would like to and deserve to know with respect to COVID vaccinations. On the flip side, the new recommendations have many public health experts concerned. Pregnant healthy females could be barred from getting the COVID-19 vaccine, since the CDC has failed to provide guidance on the issue. Without a strong recommendation from the CDC, many pregnant patients could face real barriers from insurance companies to cover the vaccine, according to The New York Times. Pregnant women are at high risk for COVID infection and complications because pregnancy results in a weakened immune system. As Dr. Steven Fleischman, President of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states, 'The science has not changed. It is very clear that COVID infection during pregnancy can be catastrophic and lead to major disability.' The new recommendations could harm vulnerable populations. In addition to potential decreased vaccination rates and adverse outcomes for pregnant females, children could also suffer. When pregnant females get vaccinated against COVID-19 in the third trimester, they are able to pass along antibodies and protection to their infants, who have not developed mature immune systems. If pregnant females do not get vaccinated, infants will lack these antibodies and could then go on to develop severe complications from the virus should they get infected. Finally, the new recommendations could limit access to the vaccine to those that want it. Private insurance companies usually require FDA approval and CDC recommendations to cover the vaccine as part of health insurance. The current CDC recommendations simply state young children may get the vaccine with shared-decision making, not outright stating that they should get the vaccine. In addition, the CDC falls short in explicitly recommending the vaccine for pregnant females. This could prevent private insurance companies from fully covering the vaccine. Ultimately, this may mean some pregnant women and those that cannot afford the vaccine may not have access to it. The new recommendations for the COVID-19 vaccine for children and pregnant females was made without the customary use of independent advisors, and could have important implications for public health. While aligning with international practices, the move could significantly limit the amount of vaccines available for millions of Americans.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
GOP Senator Tells Car Crash Town Hall ‘We're All Going to Die'
Republican Senator Joni Ernst's meeting with her constituents went off the rails on Friday when she faced angry protests over Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' In one jaw-dropping moment, the senator gave a flippant response, further agitating the crowd when being pressed over the cuts to Medicaid and other benefits like food assistance. While Ernst was talking about who was eligible for benefits, someone in the audience could be heard raising concerns that people would die. 'Well, we all are going to die, so for heaven's sake,' Ernst responded with a smile. A rumble went through the crowd. It was a standout moment as many constituents took issue with the bill passed in the House and now headed to the Senate for cutting Medicaid and other benefits. The fiery town hall in rural Butler County, Iowa, is the latest in a series of Republican events where lawmakers have returned home from Washington to be lambasted by livid constituents. In other vitriolic confrontations at the Iowa meeting, one angry attendee blasted the Trump administration's actions as a 'Nazi blitzkrieg' and another branded Ernst a 'coward.' The Congressional Budget Office estimates millions will lose Medicaid coverage, but Ernst denied the legislation cuts the low-income insurance program and insisted the bill would make it so people who are not eligible would not be receiving benefits. The 'big, beautiful bill' was the priority for many of the attendees who showed up early on a Friday to give the senator an earful, but it was not the only matter that got constituents going. One man, a teacher who said he served in the Navy, told Ernst to her face that Trump is destroying the federal government and claimed the House and Senate had been 'rendered useless.' 'You folks have let it happen. You sat back and done nothing,' he said as the crowd applauded. 'The House is the best example. We're still seeing on the Senate. It looks like there's a little gumption to fight back against the new dictator. But this has been like a Nazi blitzkrieg and you folks have sat back and done nothing.' He then blasted her for voting for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and accused her of being scared. 'Are you afraid of Trump, are you corrupt like Trump, or are you just at the point you don't care anymore, and that's why you don't do anything?' he asked. His question prompted a round of cheers and applause from the crowd. 'Obviously, I don't agree because I don't think our country is being destroyed,' Ernst responded as the crowd grumbled. Another person shouted about squealing as Ernst talked about her focus on government spending. The senator fired back, saying: 'I'm not squealing, ma'am.' At another point, a constituent stood up to ask her about a provision of the House bill that would restrict the federal courts from enforcing contempt orders and warned about it unraveling the government's system of checks and balances. He asked her if she would pledge not to vote for the bill or any other that contains the 'poisonous provision.' Ernst argued that while the House wrote one version of the bill, the Senate would have its own version of the legislation. She claimed that due to Senate rules, their reconciliation bill has to stick to mandatory spending. 'I don't know anything about that provision that talks about mandatory spending or revenues, so a lot of what has been wrapped up into the House bill will be flushed out in what we call the Byrd bath in the Senate,' Ernst said. However, her answer did not satisfy attendees in the auditorium who shouted out follow-up questions. Ernst responded that the provision would not be in the Senate bill. As she tried to move on to the next question, disgruntled constituents loudly disapproved and said they didn't trust it. One woman could be clearly heard as she called the senator a 'coward.'
