logo
RFK Jr. pulls funding for mRNA vaccines as scientists pursue breakthrough treatments for HIV, cancer, the flu and more

RFK Jr. pulls funding for mRNA vaccines as scientists pursue breakthrough treatments for HIV, cancer, the flu and more

Yahoo3 days ago
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced Tuesday that the federal government is canceling nearly $500 million in funding for the development of mRNA vaccines, a revolutionary new technology that was first put into widespread use during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In a video explaining the decision posted to social media, Kennedy said that the Department of Health and Human Services has determined that 'mRNA technology poses more risk than benefits' for respiratory viruses like COVID-19.
He also claimed that the pandemic showed 'mRNA vaccines don't perform well against viruses that affect the upper respiratory tract.' That statement runs counter to a wide body of research finding that COVID vaccines saved millions — if not tens of millions — of lives over the course of the pandemic.
A total of 22 projects funded by a government agency called the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) will be affected by the funding freeze, according to the department. A few projects that are in their final stages will be allowed to continue, but 'no new mRNA-based projects will be initiated.'
'This isn't just about vaccines. It's about whether we'll be ready when the next crisis hits. Cutting mRNA development now puts every American at greater risk,' Rick Bright, who directed BARDA in the early stages of the pandemic before being reassigned by the Trump administration, told NBC News.
The decision doesn't mean that research into mRNA vaccines will stop entirely, but it does cut off a major source of funding that helped the vaccines become a reality in the first place. By the time the pandemic had started, the government had already given an estimated $337 million in grants for research into mRNA vaccines. That support over the course of decades put scientists in a position to make COVID vaccines available to the public at a record-shattering pace of less than a year.
How do mRNA vaccines work?
The 'm' in mRNA stands for messenger. In the most basic terms, it's a piece of genetic code that tells our cells what to do. Scientists have discovered how to harness this process to make vaccine development much faster and less expensive.
Traditional vaccines typically use a dead or weakened version of a virus to stimulate an immune response that effectively teaches the body how to combat the real version if it ever encounters it. These types of vaccines can take a long time to develop because they rely on the slow, often complicated process of cultivating and modifying the actual virus into a safe and effective form.
Using mRNA is much faster because the crucial ingredients can be created and customized in a lab. It took Moderna just two days to produce its mRNA vaccine for COVID in January 2020, before most people had ever even heard of the virus. The vaccines carry a snippet of mRNA that instructs the body to produce a small portion of a virus, usually a protein on its outer membrane, which is enough to trigger the same type of immune response that is prompted by traditional vaccines. The quicker process also means that existing mRNA vaccines can be modified more rapidly when viruses evolve.
Despite Kennedy's claims, mRNA-based COVID vaccines have been found to be just as effective at preventing severe infections and death as vaccines made using other methods. After the vaccines became widely available, unvaccinated people were 11 times more likely to die of COVID than those who were fully vaccinated, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Two researchers who helped achieve early breakthroughs in mRNA vaccines were awarded the Nobel Prize in 2023.
Applications beyond COVID
The introduction of COVID vaccines didn't just mark a turning point in the deadliest pandemic in modern history. It also provided evidence of mRNA's potential to protect people from a whole range of diseases.
Just last week, researchers released promising results from early trials of new mRNA-based vaccines for HIV, a huge breakthrough in a pursuit that has confounded scientists for more than 40 years. There have been tremendous strides made in drugs that protect people from catching the virus or keep them healthy if they do contract it, but the limitations of those treatments still mean that more than 600,000 people are dying every year of AIDS — mostly in the developing world. Experts see a potential vaccine as a key to finally conquering the virus.
There is also optimism that mRNA could be an effective tool in combating the seasonal flu. Current flu vaccines vary widely in effectiveness from year to year, and are only about 60% effective at their best, because it can be hard for experts to predict which strain of the virus will be more dominant in any given flu season.
Several pharmaceutical companies are developing mRNA flu vaccines that could become a powerful tool for fighting influenza because of how quickly they can be adapted to match the nature of the virus at any given time. That speed could be especially important if a novel flu strain, like bird flu, causes a severe outbreak. There is even some promise that mRNA might one day be used to make a universal flu vaccine that covers all strains.
The holy grail for mRNA is cancer. Though vaccines are typically used to prevent disease, there are several vaccines in development that show 'real hope' of being an effective treatment for people with cancer. Those include 'individualized' vaccines that are custom-made for each patient's specific needs.
An mRNA vaccine for RSV is already available to certain high-risk adults. Other possible applications include the Zika virus and cytomegalovirus, an infection that is particularly dangerous for babies and people with compromised immune systems.
Though experts say the rollback of U.S. government funding is a setback for these projects, some also expressed optimism that mRNA breakthroughs will continue to come even without America's support.
'Will this dent what's going on in the U.S.? Unquestionably,' Kate Bingham, who led the United Kingdom's COVID vaccine task force, told the Guardian. 'Does that mean it's negative for the world? Not necessarily.'
Solve the daily Crossword
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Artificial Intelligence Transforming $694.7 Billion Global Healthcare Tech Market
Artificial Intelligence Transforming $694.7 Billion Global Healthcare Tech Market

Time Business News

time33 minutes ago

  • Time Business News

Artificial Intelligence Transforming $694.7 Billion Global Healthcare Tech Market

An in-depth analysis of the medical technology sector's unprecedented growth, driven by AI innovation and surging investment in digital health solutions The global medical technology industry is experiencing a transformative period of growth and innovation, with artificial intelligence emerging as the primary catalyst for change. As healthcare systems worldwide grapple with aging populations, chronic disease epidemics, and the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, the medtech sector has risen to meet these challenges with unprecedented technological advancement and financial investment. AI technologies commonly used in the medical field: Medical Imaging Analysis AI-powered tools for interpreting X-rays, MRIs, CT scans, and ultrasounds. Examples: Detecting tumors, fractures, or abnormalities automatically. Predictive Analytics Algorithms that analyze patient data to predict disease risk or progression. Used for early diagnosis and personalized treatment plans. Natural Language Processing (NLP) Extracting meaningful information from medical records, clinical notes, and research papers. Enables automated documentation and decision support. Robotic Surgery AI-assisted robots that perform or aid in minimally invasive surgeries with precision. Examples: Da Vinci Surgical System. Virtual Health Assistants AI chatbots and voice assistants that provide patients with medical information, symptom checking, and appointment scheduling. Drug Discovery and Development AI models that predict molecular interactions and speed up identification of potential drug candidates. Personalized Medicine Using AI to tailor treatments based on genetic, environmental, and lifestyle factors. Remote Monitoring and Wearables AI algorithms that analyze data from wearable devices to monitor vitals and detect anomalies in real-time. Clinical Trial Optimization AI for identifying suitable candidates, predicting outcomes, and managing trial logistics efficiently. Automated Administrative Tasks AI-driven tools to handle billing, coding, and patient scheduling to reduce workload and errors. The numbers tell a compelling story of an industry in rapid expansion. According to the latest market research, the global medical technology market is estimated to have grown from $668.2 billion in 2024 to $694.7 billion by 2025, representing a year-over-year increase of approximately 4%. However, this growth trajectory is expected to accelerate significantly over the coming decade. Market analysts project the medtech sector will reach $772.50 billion by 2029, driven by a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.26% through the forecast period. Even more optimistic projections suggest the market could expand to $853.4 billion by 2035, with some estimates placing the CAGR at 4.5% over the extended forecast period. The medical devices segment specifically shows particularly robust growth patterns, with industry experts anticipating a $223 billion growth opportunity between 2024 and 2029, representing a CAGR of 6.5%. This expansion is being fueled by several key factors: the increasing prevalence of chronic diseases including cancer and diabetes, an aging global population requiring more medical interventions, and the rapid adoption of advanced technologies across healthcare systems. Geographic analysis reveals interesting patterns in medtech market distribution and growth potential. North America continues to dominate the global medical devices market, commanding a 38.17% market share in 2024. This leadership position is attributed to the region's robust healthcare infrastructure, favorable reimbursement policies, and high adoption rates of advanced medical technologies across the United States and Canada. However, the most significant growth opportunities are emerging in Asia-Pacific markets. Industry analysts project that China, Japan, and the United States will collectively contribute two-thirds of near-term industry growth in medtech. China's rapidly expanding healthcare system and Japan's aging population are creating substantial demand for innovative medical technologies, while the United States continues to drive growth through innovation and the adoption of cutting-edge healthcare solutions. The European market is also showing strong momentum, with digital health funding in the region surging by 27% in recent periods, indicating renewed investor confidence and market expansion across EU countries. Perhaps no trend is more significant for the medtech industry than the integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies. AI-powered medical devices and digital health solutions have captured the imagination of investors, healthcare providers, and patients alike, driving unprecedented funding and adoption rates. The financial commitment to AI in healthcare has been staggering. Healthcare AI companies attracted nearly $4 billion in venture capital funding, significantly boosting the overall digital health market in 2025. This represents a substantial portion of the $6.4 billion in total digital health venture capital funding secured in the first six months of 2025 alone. The dominance of AI in healthcare investment is even more pronounced when examining deal structures and valuations. AI-powered healthcare companies are commanding significantly higher valuations than their traditional counterparts, receiving approximately 83% more per deal. Series A funding rounds for AI health companies average $24 million, representing a 56% premium over non-AI companies, while Series B rounds reach an average of $55 million, a 38% increase compared to traditional healthcare technology companies. This investment surge has translated into practical applications across the medtech spectrum. AI-enabled diagnostic imaging systems are becoming standard in radiology departments worldwide, while machine learning algorithms are being integrated into surgical robots, patient monitoring systems, and drug discovery platforms. The technology's ability to analyze vast datasets, identify patterns, and provide predictive insights is revolutionizing everything from early disease detection to personalized treatment protocols. Within the broader medtech landscape, certain segments are demonstrating particularly strong growth trajectories. In-vitro diagnostics (IVD) has emerged as a dominant segment, holding a significant portion of market share due to increased demand for rapid testing solutions, personalized medicine approaches, and point-of-care diagnostic capabilities. Conventional electro-mechanical and disposable devices continue to represent the largest portion of the market, commanding 56.47% of 2024 revenue. However, emerging technology platforms are showing impressive growth rates. Augmented and virtual reality platforms in healthcare are expected to expand at a remarkable 7.78% CAGR, driven by applications in surgical training, patient education, and therapeutic interventions. The shift toward decentralized, data-rich ecosystems is fundamentally changing how medical devices are designed, deployed, and maintained. Remote monitoring capabilities, cloud-based data analytics, and interconnected device networks are enabling healthcare providers to deliver more personalized and efficient care while reducing costs and improving patient outcomes. The medtech investment landscape in 2024 and 2025 has been characterized by robust funding activity and a revival of public market activity after a prolonged drought. Digital health funding rebounded to $25.1 billion in 2024, with the United States leading with $17.2 billion in total investment, while Europe contributed significantly to the global total with its 27% funding increase. The first half of 2025 saw 11 mega-rounds (funding rounds exceeding $100 million), with nine of these large fundraising events going to AI-focused startups. This trend is on track to exceed the 17 mega-rounds recorded throughout all of 2024, indicating accelerating investor confidence and market momentum. Perhaps most significantly for industry maturation, the IPO market has shown signs of revival after 21 months without a digital health public offering. Companies like Nuvo, Waystar, and Tempus AI successfully completed their transitions to public markets via NASDAQ listings, providing important liquidity events for investors and signaling broader market confidence in medtech valuations. Mergers and acquisitions activity has also increased substantially, with partnerships reaching record highs as established healthcare companies seek to acquire innovative technologies and startups look for strategic partnerships to scale their solutions. The medtech industry is experiencing unprecedented convergence between traditionally separate technology domains. The integration of artificial intelligence with medical imaging has resulted in partnerships such as the collaboration between GE Healthcare and Radnet, announced in November 2024, combining AI capabilities with mammography imaging to improve diagnostic accuracy and efficiency. Biotechnology and technology convergence, often referred to as 'TechBio,' has emerged as a particularly attractive investment category. These companies combine biological research with advanced computational methods, data analytics, and AI to accelerate drug discovery, develop personalized therapies, and create novel diagnostic approaches. The trend toward platform-based approaches is also reshaping the industry landscape. Rather than developing standalone devices, many companies are creating comprehensive ecosystems that integrate hardware, software, data analytics, and service components to provide end-to-end healthcare solutions. Despite the tremendous growth and innovation in the medtech sector, the industry faces several significant challenges that could impact future development. Regulatory frameworks are struggling to keep pace with technological advancement, particularly in areas such as AI governance, data privacy, and cybersecurity for connected medical devices. Questions about AI device governance are becoming increasingly prominent as these technologies become more widespread. Key concerns include determining responsibility for maintaining AI models, ensuring continued accuracy and safety over time, and establishing protocols for updating algorithms in deployed medical devices. The regulatory environment is evolving to address these challenges, with agencies like the FDA developing new frameworks for AI/ML-enabled medical devices and establishing pathways for continuous learning algorithms. However, the pace of regulatory adaptation remains a potential bottleneck for industry growth. Looking ahead, the medtech industry appears poised for continued robust growth driven by several powerful tailwinds. The aging global population will create sustained demand for medical technologies, while the increasing prevalence of chronic diseases will require more sophisticated monitoring and treatment solutions. Technological advancement shows no signs of slowing, with AI capabilities becoming more sophisticated and accessible. The integration of AI with other emerging technologies such as quantum computing, advanced materials science, and nanotechnology promises to unlock entirely new categories of medical interventions. The shift toward value-based healthcare models will likely accelerate adoption of technologies that can demonstrate clear improvements in patient outcomes while reducing overall healthcare costs. This trend favors solutions that enable earlier disease detection, more precise treatments, and better care coordination. Investment momentum appears sustainable, with both private and public market conditions supporting continued funding for innovative medtech companies. The successful IPO exits of 2024 and early 2025 have provided validation for the sector's growth thesis and created additional capital for reinvestment in emerging technologies. The medical technology industry stands at an inflection point, with artificial intelligence serving as the primary catalyst for transformation across every segment of the market. With global market valuations exceeding $670 billion and growth rates consistently outpacing broader economic indicators, medtech has established itself as one of the most dynamic and impactful sectors in the global economy. The convergence of demographic trends, technological capability, and capital availability has created unprecedented opportunities for innovation and growth. While challenges around regulation, data governance, and technology integration remain, the industry's track record of adaptation and the clear societal need for advanced healthcare solutions suggest continued robust expansion. For investors, healthcare providers, and patients alike, the medtech revolution represents both tremendous opportunity and the promise of fundamentally improved healthcare outcomes. As AI-powered diagnostic tools become more accurate than human specialists, robotic surgical systems enable previously impossible procedures, and personalized medicine approaches deliver targeted therapies, the industry is not just growing—it is redefining what is possible in healthcare. The next decade will likely see even more dramatic advances as current technologies mature and new innovations emerge from research laboratories and startup incubators worldwide. With $25 billion in annual funding, a robust IPO pipeline, and accelerating adoption rates across global healthcare systems, the medtech industry appears well-positioned to continue its remarkable growth trajectory while delivering transformative benefits to patients and healthcare providers worldwide. TIME BUSINESS NEWS

Can't commit to vegetarianism but want animals to suffer less? You've got options.
Can't commit to vegetarianism but want animals to suffer less? You've got options.

Vox

time2 hours ago

  • Vox

Can't commit to vegetarianism but want animals to suffer less? You've got options.

is a senior reporter for Vox's Future Perfect and co-host of the Future Perfect podcast. She writes primarily about the future of consciousness, tracking advances in artificial intelligence and neuroscience and their staggering ethical implications. Before joining Vox, Sigal was the religion editor at the Atlantic. Your Mileage May Vary is an advice column offering you a unique framework for thinking through your moral dilemmas. It's based on value pluralism — the idea that each of us has multiple values that are equally valid but that often conflict with each other. To submit a question, fill out this anonymous form. Here's this week's question from a reader, condensed and edited for clarity: I typically eat vegetarian, and have considered going fully vegan out of concern for animal welfare. But lately my on-again, off-again gastrointestinal problems have been acting up, and I've had to go back on a more restricted diet to manage my symptoms — no spice, no garlic or onions, nothing acidic, and nothing caffeinated. Sticking to a 'bland' diet is hard enough, but doing so while vegetarian is very difficult when things like tomatoes and onions and grapefruits are off the table. I know a lot of people with these issues eat fish or meat, and some medical professionals recommend drinking chicken bone broth to soothe flare-ups. I don't want to abandon my commitment to animal welfare while my gut sorts itself out, but my food options are limited right now. How should I approach this? Dear Would-Be Vegetarian, You're not alone in finding it hard to stick to a purely vegetarian diet. Only 5 percent of American adults say they're vegetarian or vegan. What's more, one study found that 84 percent of people who adopt those diets actually go back to eating meat at some point. And most of them aren't even dealing with the gastrointestinal problems you face. So, it speaks to the depth of your moral commitment that you're really wrestling with this. I'll have some concrete suggestions for you in a bit, but first I want to emphasize that how you approach the question of meat-eating will depend on your underlying moral theory. There's a classic split in moral philosophy between deontologists and utilitarians. A deontologist is someone who thinks an action is moral if it's fulfilling a duty — and we have universal duties like, 'always treat others as ends in themselves, never as means to an end.' From that perspective, killing an animal for food would be inherently morally wrong, because you're treating the animal as a means to an end. Meanwhile, a utilitarian is someone who thinks that an action is moral if it produces good consequences — and behaving morally means producing the most happiness or well-being possible, or reducing the most suffering possible. Utilitarian philosophers like Peter Singer argue that we should be reducing, and ideally eliminating, the suffering that animals endure at our hands. Deontologists and utilitarians are often pitted against each other, but they actually have one big thing in common: They both believe in a universal moral principle — whether it's 'always treat others as ends in themselves' or 'always maximize happiness.' A lot of people find that comforting, because it offers certainty about how we should act. Even if acting morally requires hard sacrifices, it's incredibly soothing to think 'If I just do X, then I'll know for sure that I'm being a good person!' But these moral theories assume that all the complexity of human life can be reduced to one tidy formula. Can it, really? Have a question you want me to answer in the next Your Mileage May Vary column? Feel free to email me at or fill out this anonymous form! Newsletter subscribers will get my column before anyone else does and their questions will be prioritized for future editions. Sign up here! Another school of philosophy — pragmatism — says we should be skeptical of fixed moral principles. Human life is so complicated, with many different factors at play in any ethical dilemma, so we should be pluralistic about what makes outcomes valuable instead of acting like the only thing that matters is maximizing a single value (say, happiness). And human society is always evolving, so a moral idea that makes sense in one context may no longer make sense in a different context. To a pragmatist, moral truths are contingent, not universal and unchanging. I think one pragmatist who can really help you out is the University of Michigan's Elizabeth Anderson. In a 2005 essay applying pragmatism to the question of eating meat, the philosopher points out that for most of human history, we couldn't have survived and thrived without killing or exploiting animals for food, transportation, and energy. The social conditions for granting animals moral rights didn't really exist on a mass scale until recently (although certain non-Western societies did ascribe moral worth to some animals). 'The possibility of moralizing our relations to animals (other than our pets),' Anderson writes, 'has come to us only lately, and even then not to us all, and not with respect to all animal species.' In other words, Anderson doesn't think there's some universal rule like 'eating animals is inherently morally wrong.' It's our social and technological circumstances that have made us more able than before to see animals as part of our moral circle. She also doesn't believe there's a single yardstick — like sentience or intelligence — by which we can judge how much of our moral concern an animal deserves. That's because moral evaluation isn't just about animals' intrinsic capacities, but also about their relationships to us. It matters whether we've made them dependent on us by domesticating them, say, or whether they live independently in the wild. It also matters whether they're fundamentally hostile to us. Killing bedbugs? Totally fine! They may be sentient, but, Anderson writes, 'We are in a permanent state of war with them, without possibility of negotiating for peace. To one-sidedly accommodate their interests…would amount to surrender.' Anderson's point is not that animals' intelligence and sentience don't matter. It's that lots of other things matter, too, including our own ability to thrive. With this pragmatic approach in mind, you can consider how to balance your concern for animal welfare with your concern for your own welfare. Instead of thinking in terms of a moral absolute that would force you into a 'purist' diet no matter the cost to you, you can consider a 'reducetarian' diet, which allows you to ease your own struggle while also taking care for animals seriously. The key thing to realize is that some types of animal consumption cause a lot less suffering than others. For one thing, if you're eating meat, try to buy the pasture-raised kind and not the kind that comes from factory farms — the huge industrialized facilities that supply 99 percent of America's meat. In these facilities, animals are tightly packed together and live under unbelievably harsh and unsanitary conditions. They're also often mutilated without pain relief: Think pigs being castrated, cows being dehorned, and hens being debeaked. Oh, and chickens have been bred to be so big that they're in constant pain; they live miserable lives from start to finish. A pasture-raised label doesn't mean an animal has been spared all of the harms of modern agriculture — it doesn't guarantee that pain relief is used for painful procedures, and farm animals across different production systems have been bred to maximize production, which can take a toll on their welfare. And of course they'll ultimately meet the same fate as those raised on factory farms — slaughter. But your goal here is to meaningfully reduce, not 100 percent eliminate, the harms. And at least pasture-raised animals have gotten to roam around in a field and engage in natural behaviors up until the end. It's a similar story for fish, by the way. More than half of the fish we eat comes from fish farms, which are basically just underwater factory farms. Wild-caught fish is not perfect — slow, suffocating deaths are common — but it's better than farmed. The caveat here is that a lot of the welfare labels you'll see on animal products are basically a con. And some certification schemes have similar names, so you have to pay close attention. If you see the label 'Certified Humane,' that's genuinely higher-welfare — but don't mistake it for 'American Humane Certified,' which is really not. And be wary of putting much stock in labels like 'cage-free' or 'free-range.' They're better than nothing, but because the terms are often ill-defined and unenforced, they're not as meaningful as you might think. Here's a good guide to separating the real deal from the advertising spin. Another classic recommendation among animal welfare advocates is to eat bigger animals — in other words, go for beef rather than chicken. That's both because of how miserable chickens' lives are on factory farms and because, as Vox's Kelsey Piper has written, it just takes way more chicken lives than cow lives to feed people. Cows are huge, producing about 500 pounds of beef apiece, while a chicken yields only a few pounds of meat. So, every year, the average American eats about 23 chickens and just over one-tenth of one cow. That said, cows take a heavier toll on the climate than chickens do, so you don't want to eat tons of beef either. The environment is also one of the key values at stake in our consumption choices, so that has to factor in, too. Of course, another possibility — to the extent that this works with your gastrointestinal issues — is to reach for low-fiber plant-based foods like tofu, seitan, and the smorgasbord of newer products now available (like Beyond and Impossible burgers). But assuming you're going to eat meat, it's a good idea to set some clear parameters and standards around your reducetarian diet. A lot of reducetarians — myself included — have fallen into the trap of saying, 'I'll reduce how much meat I eat,' but forgetting to quantify what that means. That can lead you to eat more meat than you'd intended. So it's probably better to commit to something like 'weekday vegetarian' or 'vegan before six' — you can check out the Reducetarian Foundation for suggestions. At the end of the day, remember that there's a plurality of values at stake here, and no one of them necessarily trumps all the others. If you feel that eating some meat is important for your well-being right now, and you try to do that in ways that keep suffering for animals to a minimum, I don't think you need to feel bad about that. That's because you won't be shirking your values: You'll be recognizing that your values are plural, and you're doing your best to balance between them. That may be the best any of us can really do. Bonus: What I'm reading The blogger Bentham's Bulldog recently published a piece titled ' How to cause less suffering while eating animals .' It contains some of the same recommendations I mentioned above, but the underlying ethical framework is different and it makes one recommendation I didn't: 'offsetting' your meat consumption by donating to highly effective animal charities . I worry that offsetting might create a moral hazard, as with people offsetting their carbon emissions and then potentially feeling free to fly more. But it's worth considering, particularly if you pair it with clear parameters around your reducetarian diet. This Aeon essay answers a question I've often wondered about: Why haven't other animals — say, birds — developed complex civilizations like we humans have? Why don't they build rocket ships, argue about economic policy, and play canasta? I'm grateful to the evolutionary biologist who wrote this piece for finally giving me a satisfying answer. I can't stop thinking about this post on how AI companies may have designed chatbots to play an underspecified 'helpful assistant' character who, due to being underspecified, looks to the internet for examples of how to play that role, finds tons of science fiction about cheesy robots, and thus starts to behave like a cheesy sci-fi robot (ChatGPT will say things like, 'Gee, that really tickles my circuits!'). This post is mega-long, deeply trippy, and worth reading.

With COVID-19 cases on the rise, shifting federal guidelines spark widespread confusion over vaccine eligibility
With COVID-19 cases on the rise, shifting federal guidelines spark widespread confusion over vaccine eligibility

Chicago Tribune

time2 hours ago

  • Chicago Tribune

With COVID-19 cases on the rise, shifting federal guidelines spark widespread confusion over vaccine eligibility

Aaron Hardwick woke up one Tuesday in June and immediately knew something was wrong. He felt hot, and his stomach hurt. He soon tested positive for COVID-19. 'The fever, the insomnia and the chills, and the shaking, was out of this world,' said Hardwick, 45, of Rogers Park. 'That was something I've never had before in my life.' Hardwick said he was last vaccinated for COVID-19 in 2023. He'd like to get vaccinated again in the future to avoid reliving his recent illness. But he isn't sure if that's possible. 'I don't know what we're supposed to do,' Hardwick said. 'Can we get the shot? Are we supposed to? Who knows?' With fall approaching and COVID-19 activity rising across the country, confusion over vaccines is widespread. Mixed messages from the federal government have left patients, doctors and public health leaders uncertain about how and which COVID-19 vaccines will be administered to whom in coming months, and what health insurance will cover. The shots can cost more than $100 each without insurance. Though COVID-19 vaccines released last year are still available at the moment and covered by insurance, the uncertainty surrounds who will be able to get updated vaccines in coming months — shots created to protect against more recent strains of COVID-19. Like flu vaccines, COVID-19 vaccines are updated regularly. 'I think there's still a lot of confusion among people who would be in the know about what to order, how much to order and the fact we don't know what's covered,' said Dr. Emily Landon, an infectious disease specialist at UChicago Medicine, about ordering updated COVID-19 vaccines for the fall. 'It's very difficult to make decisions about what to order if you don't know how many of your patients are going to qualify for a certain treatment or vaccine.' Some doctors say they are already starting to get questions from patients about COVID-19 vaccines for the fall, as students head back to school and cases of the illness seem to be rising. Landon and a number of other doctors are recommending people get the most updated vaccines that they can in the fall, and local health departments are moving forward with plans for vaccine clinics, where they hope to offer updated shots to anyone over the age of 6 months who wants them. As of Aug. 5, COVID-19 infections were growing or likely growing in 45 states, including Illinois, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates. In recent years, each summer has brought with it a wave of the illness. Nimbus, also known as 'razor blade throat,' was the most prevalent strain of COVID-19 in the U.S. as of June, according to the CDC. Though Nimbus can cause a very sore throat in some people, experts say it doesn't seem any more severe than previous variants. Hardwick's bout with what he believes to be Nimbus was harrowing, he said. He had vivid nightmares and a headache at the base of his skull that was strong enough to completely block out his hearing. About three weeks after he tested positive for COVID-19, he experienced Bell's palsy, which is when a person has sudden weakness or paralysis on one side of their face. The condition can follow viral infections. 'It's still pretty serious,' Hardwick said of COVID-19. 'I wish we would take it a little more seriously than we are.' Confusing COVID-19 vaccine guidance Typically, the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices makes vaccine recommendations in June for the fall respiratory season. Those recommendations help determine who receives vaccines and whether insurance plans will cover them. That committee, however, has not yet made recommendations regarding COVID-19 vaccines for the fall. All of the committee members were recently replaced at the direction of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services secretary. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has also not approved any updated COVID-19 vaccines for this fall, though those approvals typically come at the end of August or early September. Instead, individual federal health leaders have made sometimes contradictory remarks about what to expect in the fall when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines. In May, leaders of the FDA published an article in the New England Journal of Medicine saying that, moving forward, the FDA would approve COVID-19 vaccines only for people ages 65 and older and younger people with underlying conditions. They wrote that the vaccines would only be approved for healthy adults after 'randomized, controlled trial data evaluating clinical outcomes.' The policy 'balances the need for evidence,' wrote the paper's authors, FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary and Dr. Vinay Prasad, who recently resigned from the FDA as a top official over vaccines . The trouble is that clinical trials take time, and the COVID-19 virus is constantly changing, Landon said. 'Clinical trials are not feasible because you don't know what strains to make it for until the strain is here,' Landon said. Further complicating matters, a week after the New England Journal of Medicine article was published, Kennedy announced in a video posted to social media that the CDC would no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children and healthy pregnant women. 'Last year the Biden administration urged healthy children to get yet another COVID shot despite the lack of any clinical data to support the repeat booster strategy in children,' Kennedy said. The CDC no longer recommends the vaccine for healthy children, but says it may still be given as part of a 'shared decision-making clinical process' between doctors and parents. Kennedy's announcement also seemingly contradicted the New England Journal of Medicine article which said the FDA would likely approve the vaccines for people at high risk of developing severe COVID-19, including pregnant women. A CDC immunization schedule now says 'no guidance/not applicable' when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant women. '(Kennedy) just came out and said these two populations don't need the COVID-19 vaccine, which is completely ridiculous,' said Dr. Tina Tan, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Lurie Children's Hospital and president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. The Itasca-based American Academy of Pediatrics and five other medical organizations sued Kennedy and other federal health care leaders in early July over the changes. A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said in a statement that with the COVID-19 public health emergency over, it's time for a new phase in response to the virus. 'A rubber-stamping approach to approving COVID boosters in perpetuity without updated clinical trial data under the Biden Administration is now over,' the statement said. Illinois health leaders making plans Illinois health care leaders and pharmacies — where many people typically receive COVID-19 vaccines — say they're moving forward with plans to administer updated COVID-19 vaccines but won't know exactly how that will look until they receive further guidance. The Chicago Department of Public Health hopes to administer updated COVID-19 vaccines to anyone who wants them, said Dr. Alexander Sloboda, medical director of immunizations and emergency preparedness for the Chicago Department of Public Health. 'At this time, we don't plan to limit (the vaccine) to any particular groups, really anyone 6 months and older should be getting the updated vaccine, but there are some unknowns at the federal level of what the final recommendations will be, what will be available, what the coverage will look like,' Sloboda said. The Cook County Department of Public Health also hopes to make updated COVID-19 vaccines available to anyone ages 6 months and older, said Dr. Kiran Joshi, chief operating officer at the Cook County Department of Public Health. CVS Health said in a statement that, 'If approved (by the FDA), we plan to carry the updated COVID-19 this fall' cautioning that 'patient eligibility will be defined by the FDA and CDC.' Walgreens also plans to administer updated COVID-19 vaccines this fall, and is also awaiting guidance on who will be eligible for them, said Samantha Picking, senior director of immunizations at Walgreens. The Illinois Department of Public Health plans to release an advisory regarding COVID-19 vaccine recommendations as it gets closer to the fall respiratory season, after consulting with the state's Immunization Advisory Council, state health leaders and national experts, the state health department said in a statement. States typically follow CDC recommendations, but that could change given all the disagreement over vaccines this year. When asked whether providers could follow state recommendations rather than federal ones, if the two differ, a spokesperson for the state health department said in an email: 'Yes. As always, health care providers should use evidence-based practice and patient-centered clinical judgment to make individual patient-care decisions.' But even if providers choose to give updated COVID-19 vaccines to healthy, younger adults, questions remain about whether health insurance will cover the shots. Federal law requires insurers to cover vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and adopted by the CDC director, according to KFF, a nonprofit organization focused on health policy. It's unclear whether that committee will recommend updated COVID-19 vaccines for everyone. Without insurance, COVID-19 vaccines can cost as much as about $130 or $140 a dose, according to the CDC. The largest health insurer in Illinois, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois, said in a statement it has not made any changes to its coverage for COVID-19 vaccines, but it is monitoring 'any activity that may impact preventive care recommendations and will communicate any changes to recommendations that may impact standard coverage of preventive services.' Health insurance industry group AHIP said in a statement in late June that, 'We are committed to ongoing coverage of vaccines to ensure access and affordability for this respiratory virus season.' The many lingering questions have left people like Roger Naglewski, 55, wondering if they'll be able to get COVID-19 vaccines in the fall. Naglewski runs the Facebook group Chicago Vaccine Hunters, which started several years ago when finding scarce doses of COVID-19 vaccines felt akin to winning the lottery. 'I want to get one at the next opportunity I can,' Naglewski said of COVID-19 vaccines. Even though more treatments for COVID-19 are available now than several years ago, 'I just don't want to get sick for 10 days and get knocked off my feet. In addition, I don't want to have any of the issues people have had with long haul COVID.' He worries, however, that many people won't get vaccinated against COVID-19 this year, given all the confusion and upheaval. About 59% of adults surveyed by KFF say they will 'probably not' or 'definitely not' get a COVID-19 vaccine this fall. That would be in line with COVID-19 vaccination trends in recent years. As of the end of June, only about 12% of Illinois residents had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine updated for the 2024-25 season, according to the state health department. 'This administration has basically been putting out nonscientific information and what's happening is this is causing severe confusion among the public,' said Tan, with Lurie and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 'What the public needs to do is you need to speak to your health care provider that you have a good relationship with to get sound scientific information on why getting vaccinations is so important.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store