Coronavirus Updates June 2025

[missy]

"

Should You Still Recommend COVID-19 Vaccines?​

Lisa O'Mary


The CDC will no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccines for many children and pregnant people.

No details were immediately published on the CDC website, but Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a video on X that the recommendation for "healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from the CDC recommended immunization schedule." He cited lack of clinical data to support "a repeat booster strategy in children."

Still, that may not affect the advice clinicians give their patients.


Should Pregnant People Get the COVID Shot?
Kennedy's announcement did not explain why the recommendation for pregnant women changed. Previously, the CDC advised pregnant people to get COVID vaccines every 6 months – just like others at high risk of severe illness.

There have been about 70 studies of COVID vaccination in pregnant people, and the evidence shows the shots are safe and provide important protection to both mother and baby during pregnancy and after birth, according to Kevin Ault, MD, a practicing OB/GYN and former CDC COVID vaccine adviser.

"I'm disappointed because there's no new data to support the change that I'm aware of, and if there is data, it should be discussed publicly," said Ault, a professor at the Western Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine in Kalamazoo.


He said he will continue to advise his pregnant patients to get vaccinated. During an interview with WebMD, he became notably emotional and said he worried for his patients on Medicaid if the program stops covering vaccination. Ault was a member of the CDC expert panel that initially crafted the nation's COVID vaccine recommendations.

"Most obstetricians in their lifetimes have had a bad experience with flu and now COVID," he said. "We don't want sick people in the ICU who are pregnant. And the best way to avoid that is having those vaccines that prevent severe maternal complications."

The recommendation for pregnant women is also at odds with a plan put forward by federal officials last week in The New England Journal of Medicine, which listed pregnancy among the conditions for which COVID vaccination would be recommended.


"As ob-gyns who treat patients every day, we have seen firsthand how dangerous COVID-19 infection can be during pregnancy and for newborns who depend on maternal antibodies from the vaccine for protection," Steven J. Fleischman, MD, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in a statement. "We also understand that despite the change in recommendations from HHS, the science has not changed. It is very clear that COVID infection during pregnancy can be catastrophic and lead to major disability, and it can cause devastating consequences for families. The COVID vaccine is safe during pregnancy, and vaccination can protect our patients and their infants."

When a pregnant person gets vaccinated, antibodies travel through the placenta and are passed to the fetus, protecting the newborn during the first critical months of life. That's important because babies from newborn to 6 months old (who are not yet eligible for vaccination) are among those most often hospitalized for severe COVID. COVID vaccination during pregnancy cuts hospitalization risk by 52%.

What About Children?
Public health experts continue to emphasize that COVID-19 vaccines offer significant benefits for children. While severe illness is less common in kids than in adults, COVID-19 can still cause serious outcomes. About 1% of U.S. children – equivalent to roughly 1 million – have had long COVID, according to CDC data. Research also shows that vaccination may reduce the risk of long COVID in children.

Decisions about vaccinating healthy children have often been complex, in part because their risk of severe illness is lower than that of adults, making it harder to show clear benefits in large clinical trials. The relatively low uptake of pediatric COVID vaccines also means there's less real-world data compared to data for adults, which can complicate public messaging and policy. Experts say the decision often comes down to individual risk. For children with health conditions, vaccination is more strongly recommended due to a higher risk of complications. But for otherwise healthy kids – especially those who've already had COVID – the benefits can appear less clear-cut, even if vaccination remains safe and reasonable.

Pediatric infectious disease expert Sean O'Leary, MD, MPH, said in a statement that research has demonstrated that children, babies, and pregnant people are "at higher risk of hospitalization from COVID, and the safety of the COVID vaccine has been widely demonstrated."

Previously, the recommendation was for COVID vaccines to begin when a child turns 6 months old.

"By removing the recommendation, the decision could strip families of choice. Those who want to vaccinate may no longer be able to, as the implications for insurance coverage remain unclear," said O'Leary, on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics. "It's also unclear whether health care workers would be eligible to be vaccinated."


Just 13% of children ages 6 months old to 17 years old are up to date with COVID vaccination, and another 7% of parents said they definitely planned to get their child vaccinated. Just over 14% of pregnant women have received a COVID vaccine since the latest version came out last fall, according to CDC data.

"

 

[missy]

"

SARS-CoV-2 Origin: Lab Leak Hypothesis Gains Momentum​

Barbara Zenz

The question of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 continues to occupy scientists, the media, and the public intensely even 5 years after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Where the virus came from, when and where humans were first infected, and whether the spread could have been prevented — these questions are more than just of epidemiological interest. After all, pandemic-related measures such as lockdowns, mask mandates, and school closures have faced significant resistance from parts of the population, and the repercussions still persist today.

While it is crucial to investigate the causes and to identify errors in the communication and implementation of these measures, the spread of unfounded assumptions about the origin of the pandemic-triggering virus is not helpful. However, this is precisely what happens with remarkable regularity: Recently, reports about previously withheld assessments from the German Federal Intelligence Service suggested that SARS-CoV-2 might be a genetically modified virus from a Chinese laboratory, garnering media attention. Ultimately, no new insights emerged from this, as the expert group involved could not provide source data for scientific evaluation.

Reports like these influence public opinion on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 even without solid new data and reinforce long-standing proponents of the lab leak hypothesis. This hypothesis can be politically leveraged to deepen the existing divide between a science-oriented audience and a science-skeptical or hostile public. A corresponding positioning has been evident since mid-April on several official US government websites that previously informed about COVID-19, testing options, and vaccinations. Objective and reliable information about the disease and the virus is no longer available. This does not contribute to a factual discussion of the different approaches to the debate about the origin of SARS-CoV-2.


Different Scenarios, Few Evidence
The discourse on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is primarily shaped by two assumptions: The first is that the virus jumped to humans through natural means — most likely from a bat via another animal acting as an intermediate host. This assumption is still shared by the majority of the scientific community. The second hypothesis posits an origin in a laboratory. Here, two lines of argument have developed: SARS-CoV-2 could be a newly isolated virus modified for research purposes that was accidentally released, or an unknown virus could have infected individuals during sampling from bats or during laboratory investigations, who then unknowingly carried the pathogen outside. In the latter case, one cannot strictly speak of a laboratory accident, as no modifications to the virus occurred in this scenario.

What evidence supports the current assumptions about the origin of the virus? To prove a zoonotic origin, an animal intermediate host must be identified through which SARS-CoV-2 jumped to humans, or a direct predecessor of the virus must be found in a bat population. The laboratory accident theory could be confirmed by demonstrably infected employees or by protocols documenting the presence of the virus in a laboratory before the pandemic began. Neither assumption is currently sufficiently substantiated — however, the available evidence for each hypothesis can be weighed.



From Nature or the Laboratory?
Early investigations of environmental samples pointed to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market — one of four markets in Wuhan where live wild animals are sold — as the starting point of the pandemic. Since the first SARS-CoV pandemic in 2003, it has been known that wild animals traded in such markets can carry potentially human-pathogenic pathogens. However, according to Chinese health authorities, samples from living animals present at the market were not taken at the time of the outbreak. Very quickly, citing infection control, the entire animal stock was culled, cages and market stalls were disinfected, and the market was closed.


Whether swabs from living animals were taken and stored contrary to official statements remains unknown to this day. What is certain, however, is that viral sequences of SARS-CoV-2 have been detected in all four wild animal markets in Wuhan. Particularly striking are sequence data that demonstrate both genetic material from SARS-CoV-2 and from the raccoon dogs traded there. Raccoon dogs are susceptible to the virus and were already considered potential intermediate hosts for SARS-CoV-2 before the discovery of the genetic mixtures at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market.

The sequences come from cage swabs taken at the beginning of the pandemic by employees of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. The animals were kept in cages in the southwestern part of the market. There, and in the immediate vicinity, around 150 of the first infection cases from the early phase of the pandemic were identified.

Spillover Events
The raw data from these swabs were only made accessible on the genomic data platform Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data in 2023 and could be analyzed by a team led by Canadian virologist Angela Rasmussen. This analysis represents the most compelling evidence to date for a zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2. Many other findings from recent years also support the assumption that the virus — similar to the first SARS pandemic in 2003 — jumped from bats to humans via an animal intermediate host.


One of the most significant findings is the early presence of two lineages (A and B) of the virus at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. Therefore, there must have been at least two spillover events before SARS-CoV-2 spread pandemic-wise through lineage B.

Not only raccoon dogs but also other illegally traded wild animals could have been intermediate hosts of the virus. A 2021 study listed 38 species, 31 of which are protected, that were known to have been offered at the markets in Wuhan between May 2017 and November 2019. Among them are neither bats nor pangolins, which were temporarily suspected of being transmitters, but many other animals known to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2. Furthermore, the breeding of raccoon dogs for fur production is legal in China, according to the authors of the study. However, prices for such products have fallen in recent years, leading to bred animals often being sold alongside wild animals at markets.


Proponents of the lab leak theory sometimes argue that the strong spread of the virus at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market could also have resulted from a superspreader event — meaning an infected person caused a particularly high number of additional infections.

In this scenario, SARS-CoV-2 would not have jumped from animal to human first but rather the other way around: An infected employee of a laboratory could have unknowingly spread the virus at the market or in its immediate vicinity. However, this would have to have occurred twice — otherwise, the early presence of two lineages in the market area would be difficult to explain. It also remains unclear why a similar early concentration of infections was not observed at more obvious locations, such as around the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) or the residences of laboratory personnel.

Recent investigations of genetic data from early environmental samples largely confirm previous findings. In the southwestern area of the market, wild animals that are considered potential intermediate hosts were present in the early phase of the outbreak, and “hotspots” of virus concentrations were identified in the southwestern part of the market where the animals were sold. Genetic traces of these animals were found in several SARS-CoV-2–positive samples. Epidemiological research on SARS-CoV-2 and its spread has provided another important indication of a natural origin of the virus: We now know that spillover events occur much more frequently than previously assumed. Superspreader events, on the other hand, are relatively rare.


Laboratory Safety
In the search for the origin of SARS-CoV-2, another debate has gained momentum: An increasingly unsettled public and many media outlets are now addressing issues such as genetic modification of viruses and inadequate laboratory biosafety levels — often without sufficient differentiation and with alarmist undertones. The term “gain-of-function research” encompasses any type of functional modification of viruses or viral sequences, without placing the term in the correct context: Namely, that this type of modification has been part of scientific methodology in virology for decades and is not inherently associated with an increase in virulence. Without it, there would be no flu vaccines, and the COVID-19 vaccines now available could not have been developed so quickly.

In professional circles, the conditions under which research on potentially dangerous zoonotic viruses takes place, as well as individual techniques used in this research, have long been critically discussed. In the aftermath of the pandemic, this discourse has intensified and, to some extent, become more heated. The possibility that SARS-CoV-2 could have originated in a laboratory continues to provoke sometimes heated and partially media-driven disputes. This type of discourse ultimately harms all involved researchers but does not yield any insights into the origin of SARS-CoV-2. What is certain is that in some laboratories, potentially dangerous work has been conducted under inadequate safety conditions.

Currently, Chinese virologist Zheng-Li Shi, longtime head of the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases at the WIV and known for her research on bat coronaviruses, is particularly under scrutiny. At the beginning of the pandemic, her research group faced accusations that SARS-CoV-2 had emerged from the WIV from an unknown bat coronavirus that served as a backbone for the development of SARS-CoV-2. Shi and her team have consistently denied these claims. According to Shi, none of the viral sequences present at the WIV were predecessors of SARS-CoV-2.

The trigger for the newly reignited debate was a paper authored by Shi and other scientists largely associated with the WIV, published in March this year in Cell. The article discusses a recently discovered betacoronavirus, HKU5-CoV-2, found in bats in Brazil, which is phylogenetically closely related to the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)–like HKU5-CoV identified in 2021. The virus uses the ACE2 receptor — or orthologous animal receptors — to enter host cells, as Shi and her team determined in laboratory experiments that are now under scrutiny. In a guest article published in March in The New York Times, Ian Lipkin and Ralph Baric, two renowned scientists long involved in coronavirus research, addressed research practices like those employed by Shi’s team for their work with HKU5-CoV-2.


They describe these practices as too risky to be conducted under biological safety level (BSL) 2 because they involve experiments with a new, infectious virus that has the potential to cause severe disease in humans. Such experiments would be more appropriately conducted under the significantly stricter guidelines of BSL 3. At the same time, research on such viruses is necessary to reduce the risk for future epidemics: MERS-like coronaviruses, like the one described in Shi and team’s work, have great potential for jumping to humans and should therefore be monitored epidemiologically.

There are many proposals for how to address this issue, ranging from the international standardization and better monitoring of laboratory safety standards to the refusal of scientific journals to accept publications based on research conducted under dangerous conditions.

Line Between Science and Politics
According to current knowledge, a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2 is still much more likely than a laboratory origin. Even after 5 years, there is not a single solid piece of evidence for a laboratory origin. Presenting the lab leak hypothesis as more or less established is therefore driven more by political interests than by a desire to clarify the origin of the virus. At the same time, the targeted dissemination of one-sidedly weighted information and claims that are not supported by facts causes significant harm: It unsettles, destroys trust in the integrity of scientific institutions and researchers, and weakens decision-makers and communicators in future crisis situations.


Distraction debates are thus strengthened: The search for those responsible takes center stage, while questions about the destruction of natural habitats of wild animals and poor conditions in breeding facilities — both driving factors for spillover — are pushed out of media discourse. Future pandemics are also much more likely to arise from nature than from a laboratory.

The American historian and author John M. Barry pointed out the problem back in 2020: “When you mix science with politics, you get politics.” In this debate, we would do well to keep politically motivated speculations at bay and refocus interest and reporting on what is actually the current state of science.

This story was translated from Univadis Germany.

"

 

[Daisys and Diamonds]

• The University of Auckland has been ordered to pay $205,000 in legal costs to scientist Siouxsie Wiles.
• Wiles took the university to court in 2022 saying they did not do enough to protect her from abuse and harassment during the Covid-19 pandemic.
• Wiles regularly featured in the media during the pandemic as a commentator.

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

this could have gone into a number of recent threads in this sub forum
i always found her very good to listen to durring the pandemic
the hate that gets thrown at her is apauling

 

[missy]

• The University of Auckland has been ordered to pay $205,000 in legal costs to scientist Siouxsie Wiles.
• Wiles took the university to court in 2022 saying they did not do enough to protect her from abuse and harassment during the Covid-19 pandemic.
• Wiles regularly featured in the media during the pandemic as a commentator.

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

this could have gone into a number of recent threads in this sub forum
i always found her very good to listen to durring the pandemic
the hate that gets thrown at her is apauling

Thanks Nicky. Another university failure

"During the case, the court heard that Wiles received a“ tsunami” of abuse."

Sounds familiar to what is happening in the states
Glad she got satisfaction from the courts

 

[missy]

"

An Uncertain Vaccines Market Keeps Getting Dicier​

— We may be stripping society of defense against deadly diseases​

by Richard Hughes IV, JD, MPHJune 3, 2025

It's going to become unnecessarily harder to develop and make new vaccines. I've witnessed firsthand the dynamic nature of the vaccine industry, especially during my tenure at Moderna. It's a rocky business that is dealing with a rapidly occurring negative shift.

During the COVID pandemic, companies navigated market uncertainty while rushing to develop, test, and manufacture vaccines. A big difference maker was a national demand and collective understanding of the public health need for vaccines -- we all wanted to get out of our homes and back to our daily lives. The corresponding purchase commitments those companies secured with unprecedented government partnership made it viable for them to step forward and produce vaccines in an otherwise uncertain marketplace.



That all feels like ancient history now as our nation's health officials impose new obstacles in the form of increased regulatory hurdles and misrepresentation of what exactly constitutes science. It starts with the very tropes these officials deploy, insisting on "gold-standard science" and parents "doing their own research."

But we have moved beyond mere words. Now, several developments are coalescing to create a significant degree of unpredictability in the vaccine marketplace. Recent administration actions signal increasing trouble and significant obstacles in getting vaccines onto the market.

In recent months, the foundation of America's vaccine enterprise -- development, regulation, and access -- has begun to erode. A series of quiet but seismic changes at the FDA and CDC should concern anyone who cares about public health.

The seismic shift began with the delay of the February meeting of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and the publishing of disclosures of "conflicts" for ACIP members, an unusual move that could discourage qualified experts from serving. NIH research cuts have also been implemented, including a reduction in overhead support for research institutions, the elimination of grants related to vaccine hesitancy and pandemic-related studies, and grant review pauses.



Leadership at FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) has also been destabilized. The departure of senior leaders, followed by the appointment of Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH -- a frequent critic of public health orthodoxy -- as its director, signals a marked shift in direction. The agency failed to meet critical deadlines, including the licensure decision for Novavax's COVID-19 vaccine. FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, MD, MPH, dismissed the delay, saying the agency must prioritize "gold-standard science."

Yet transparency has not been the hallmark of this new regime. In a striking departure from past practice, the FDA selected flu strains for the 2025-2026 vaccine without convening its external advisory committee for public deliberation. Meanwhile, the agency has shed more than 3,500 staff members, with implications for its scientific rigor and institutional memory.

In the span of 10 days, the administration shattered ordinary processes and procedures, blurring lines between the role of respective HHS agencies. Notably, on May 20, Makary and Prasad announced a new regulatory approachopens in a new tab or window to COVID-19 vaccine approvals in the New England Journal of Medicine, shifting to a risk-based model. This change alters the FDA-approved indication, not through CDC and ACIP recommendations, but by agency fiat.



The forceful unilateral policymaking culminated in an odd video appearanceopens in a new tab or window with HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. flanked by the heads of FDA and NIH, with no HHS public health officials in sight. The leaders directly discouraged further vaccination of pregnant persons and children and announced it was superseding the recommendations of ACIP.

In parallel, the government has canceled key vaccine contracts, including one for Moderna's H5N1 vaccineopens in a new tab or window, and is now requiring placebo-controlled trials for all new vaccine candidates -- regardless of feasibility, precedent, or deep ethical concerns.

Together, these decisions signal not just a policy shift, but a chilling retreat from the infrastructure that made the U.S. a leader in vaccine innovation and access. These shifts and the promotion of discredited safety concerns from the top not only make the already arduous task of creating and producing vaccines harder, but also erode public trust essential for widespread vaccine adoption.



Unpredictable and politically driven regulatory approaches cultivate an environment of enormous uncertainty for vaccine developers and manufacturers. These interconnected forces will eventually have a chilling effect on both public perception of the industry and the industry's willingness to stay in the game.

If the past is prologue, many vaccine manufacturers will give up the high costs and relatively low returns of vaccine market participation. In 1967, 26 manufacturers produced vaccines. That number dwindled to 17 in 1980 and 5 by 2004.

Consequently, we risk the forfeiture of the vaccines of today and tomorrow, potentially stripping our society of the tools that have for two and a quarter centuries successfully defended us against the scourge of deadly diseases.

Richard Hughes IV, JD, MPHopens in a new tab or window, is an attorney and advisor in the biopharma sector, with a particular focus on vaccines. He was vice president of public policy at Moderna during the COVID-19 pandemic and teaches vaccine law at George Washington University.

"

 

[missy]

"

CDC Drops Guidance for COVID Vaccines for Pregnancy​

Alicia Ault

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has just updated its child and adolescent immunization schedule in a way that states that parents who want to vaccinate healthy children could do so, based on shared decision making with a clinician.

The agency also updated the adult immunization schedule to say there is “no guidance” on use in pregnancy.

The update for children and adolescents seems to contradict the May 27 announcement on COVID vaccines by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. In a 58-sec video posted to X, Kennedy said the COVID vaccine was “being removed from the CDC-recommended immunization schedule” for healthy pregnant women and also for healthy children. US Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary, MD, said on the video that “there’s no evidence healthy kids need it today,” while National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya, MD, called the move “good science.”


As of press time, HHS had not issued a formal proposal or written policy to further detail the announcement, but the CDC had change its online immunization schedules.

The see-sawing of the policy announcements — without any public meetings or input — have left clinicians perplexed and fearful about availability of the COVID-19 vaccine for healthy pregnant women and healthy children in advance of what is typically a surge of infections during the summer and fall months in the US.

Linda Eckert, MD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington in Seattle, said she was “horrified” when she heard the announcement. “I was just like, why did this happen?” she told Medscape Medical News.


COVID during pregnancy “is dangerous to my patients, and when my patients don't do well, their pregnancies don't do well,” Eckert said. The virus is also very dangerous to infants during the first 6 months of life, “and maternal antibody transfer is the way that those infants are protected,” said Eckert, a member of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) immunization committee.

The announcement prompts questions, but not many answers, she said. “What are we going to do with our patients? How are we going to have these conversations now?” said Eckert.

“We're all trying to read the tea leaves as to what [Kennedy] really means,” said Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Leaving clinicians, insurers, and patients to guess is “a wholly irresponsible way to do business,” Offit told Medscape.


Offit said that Kennedy has made no secret of his intent to focus on chronic disease while reducing resources for infectious disease. The Secretary “has for 20 years been an anti-vaccine activist and science denialist,” said Offit. “He’s basically doing what he can to tear down the vaccine infrastructure in this country,” he said.

Alarms Sounded
Many professional organizations expressed alarm at Kennedy’s announcement. The HHS Secretary bypassed the traditional process for vaccine recommendations, which includes discussion of evidence for safety and effectiveness at open public meetings held by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). ACIP then makes a recommendation, which the CDC director approves or disapproves.

“It is concerning that such a significant policy change was made unilaterally outside an open, evidence-based process with no regard for the negative impact this will have on millions of Americans,” said Tina Tan, MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, in a statement.

“By removing the recommendation, the decision could strip families of choice,” said Sean O’Leary, MD, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Infectious Diseases, in a statement. “Those who want to vaccinate may no longer be able to, as the implications for insurance coverage remain unclear,” he said. “It's also unclear whether healthcare workers would be eligible to be vaccinated.”

O’Leary said that the evidence shows that pregnant women, infants, and young children are at higher risk of hospitalization from COVID and that the vaccine’s safety “has been widely demonstrated.”

“Despite the change in recommendations from HHS, the science has not changed,” said ACOG President Steven J. Fleischman, MD, in a statement. Most infants under the age of 6 months who are hospitalized for COVID are born to unvaccinated mothers, said Fleschman. Kennedy’s announcement may mean pregnant people are less likely to choose to vaccinate, he said. “We are very concerned about the potential deterioration of vaccine confidence in the future,” said Fleischman.

Jason M. Goldman, MD, president of the American College of Physicians, agreed. “The HHS announcement will likely further erode public confidence in the safety of these vaccines, despite the evidence demonstrating their benefits,” he said, in a statement. Goldman also said the policy change has “the potential to threaten insurance coverage for COVID vaccines and boosters, increasing the cost and placing them out-of-reach of individuals who do still want to be vaccinated.”


Who Will Get the COVID Vaccine?
Uptake of the vaccine has been waning, even with insurance coverage.

According to CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccination Dashboard, 14% of pregnant women had received the 2024-25 vaccine. As of late March, just under 13% of children 6 months-to-17 years had received the vaccine, the CDC reported at the ACIP’s last meeting in April.

Children under 6 months have the second highest COVID-related hospitalization rates, comparable to those of adults aged 64-75; only adults aged 75 or older have higher rates, the CDC has reported. A fifth of 1000 hospitalized infants with COVID-19 during a 2-year period were admitted to an intensive care unit; nine died while hospitalized. Vaccination of mothers has led to a decline in hospitalizations, however, said the agency. Even so, 96 children under age 4 and 56 aged 5-17 died from COVID from September 2023 to August 2024, said CDC officials at the last ACIP meeting.


COVID’s dangers during pregnancy have been documented in many studies. Researchers from George Washington University in Washington, DC, reported in a 2023 paper that pregnant women with COVID-19 experienced 7 times greater risk of dying during pregnancy or childbirth, 3 times greater risk of being admitted to the ICU, 23 times greater risk of developing pneumonia, and 5 times greater risk of thromboembolic disease.

Eckert said that, despite the dangers, fewer patients have been opting for vaccination over the last few years “because people view COVID as less of a threat.” She still talks to patients about protection. The new recommendation is going to make it more difficult to help patients stay safe, she said.

Meanwhile, as reported by Medscape, the FDA announced earlier in May that it would be calling for more studies of COVID vaccines in healthy Americans and that it would recommend against approval except for individuals with a long list of conditions that put them at risk for more severe disease. One of those conditions is pregnancy or recent pregnancy.


The COVID vaccine announcements are “at the least, confusing for patients,” Eckert said.

Will Policy Be Challenged?
It is not clear whether anyone can or will challenge the HHS policy announcement.

Normally, not even a CDC director would circumvent the ACIP’s process, said Dorit Reiss, professor of law at UC Law San Francisco. Currently, there is no acting CDC director, she said, adding that it appears that Kennedy has stepped into the role, as he reportedly approved an ACIP recommendation on a chikungunya vaccine.

While Kennedy is not violating a statute or regulation with his COVID vaccine announcement, a court could find that the decision is “arbitrary and capricious” because it was offered without evidence or a rationale, said Reiss. “These decisions are generally written out with references and a lot of data. They didn't do that,” Reiss told Medscape.

Eventually, someone might legally challenge the policy, but it could take a while, said Reiss. The policy “will have to hurt someone” for someone to make a case, she said.


Reiss and Offit pointed out that vaccines could be prescribed off-label for groups that are not covered by any of the HHS recommendations.

“Probably 70% of the drugs on our formulary are not necessarily approved for pediatrics,” said Offit. But off-label use comes with its own set of headaches, he said. Clinicians might have to seek prior authorization from insurers, for instance.

When asked whether the administration might just remove approvals altogether for COVID vaccines, Offit responded that with Kennedy in charge, “anything is possible.”


Offit reports no relevant financial relationships. Eckert disclosed that she is the author of “Enough,” a book that calls for greater cervical cancer screening.

Alicia Ault is a Saint Petersburg, Florida-based freelance journalist whose work has appeared in many health and science publications, including Smithsonian.com. You can find her on X @aliciaault and on Bluesky @aliciaault.bsky.social.

"

 

[missy]

RFK Jr. Ousts All of CDC's Vaccine Advisors

Kennedy says the move will restore trust in vaccine science; one health group called it a 'coup'

www.medpagetoday.com

 

[missy]

AMA Members Wrestle With More Medical Misinfo in Wake of Measles Outbreaks

Docs debate draft policy to counter false claims about vitamin A and measles amplified by RFK Jr.

www.medpagetoday.com

 

[missy]

Sorting Out Long COVID Symptoms in Babies

A new study has identified distinct symptom patterns of long COVID in young children.

www.medscape.com

"

Not Just a Cold: Research Suggests Distinct Long COVID Symptoms in Infants and Preschoolers​

Lara Salahi
June 06, 2025

By the time many children with lingering symptoms of COVID-19 reach Lael Yonker’s pediatric pulmonology clinic, they have likely been told those problems are “just a cold.”

“When kids come to me, they’re very frustrated. They often will cry just because I’m listening to them and I’m not questioning whether or not they have long COVID,” Yonker, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said. “I’m trying to address their symptoms.”

Often, family members bring up the possibility of long COVID, she said. That’s because when caregivers relay the symptoms of poor appetite and sleepiness, most pediatricians do not think the chronic condition could be a possible diagnosis, she said.


Until now, only small studies had been published on characterizations of the condition in infants, toddlers, and preschoolers, Yonker said.

But new research published in JAMA Pediatrics found distinct patterns of long COVID symptoms in young children.



Researchers from the NIH-funded RECOVER-Pediatrics Consortium analyzed data from over 1000 children aged 0-5 years, comparing those with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection to uninfected peers.


The study found that 14% of infected infants and toddlers and 15% of infected preschoolers had probable long COVID, similar to rates in teens and school-aged children.

For infants and toddlers, the most strongly associated and prolonged symptoms associated with a history of COVID-19 infection were poor appetite, trouble sleeping, wet and dry cough, and stuffy nose. In preschool-aged children, daytime tiredness, and dry cough were prominent. Teens and school-aged children are more likely to have memory trouble, lightheadedness, and other neurologic issues.

The findings may challenge the assumptions of clinicians that very young children are less affected by long COVID, held in part because this population often cannot describe what they are experiencing.


“There is an underappreciation among parents and pediatricians that long COVID can present in younger children,” said Suchitra Rao, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado in Aurora, who was not involved in the study. “Much of the existing literature has focused on adults, so this is an important study which can shed more light on how younger children present with lingering symptoms.”

Symptoms Often Last Months in Young Kids
Rachel Gross, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine and Bellevue Hospital Center in New York City and lead author of the new study, said identifying long COVID in very young children can be challenging.

“They have limited verbal communication, limited social skills, and even a limited understanding of what their symptoms mean to them and how they can express it,” she said.

Because of this, Gross and her colleagues relied on caregiver reports in the study.

The study included 1186 children under the age of 6 years, 670 of whom had tested positive for the virus at some point; 516 children had not been infected. Caregivers of all children completed a detailed survey about their children’s symptoms that had lasted for more than 4 weeks since the pandemic began, whether or not the problems were related to COVID-19 infection.

The researchers defined prolonged symptoms as those lasting more than 4 weeks and still present at the time of reporting. On average, infants and toddlers had symptoms that lingered for 10 months and nearly 17 months in preschool-aged children.

Building Clinician Awareness of Pediatric Long COVID
Using their findings, the researchers developed an age-specific tool to identify children likely to have long COVID. For infants and toddlers, symptoms like poor appetite and sleep problems were more common. For preschoolers, fatigue and dry cough were key signs. If a child’s score crossed a certain threshold, they were classified as “long COVID probable.”

Children with higher scores on the index “often had worse overall health, lower quality of life, and delays in development,” said Tanayott Thaweethai, PhD, associate director of Biostatistics Research and Engagement at Massachusetts General Hospital and an author of the study.

The instrument is currently applicable in research settings, not clinical practice, Thaweethai said.

“It’s not meant to be by itself a diagnostic tool,” Thaweethai said. “There very much could be children who are experiencing long COVID who may not present in exactly this way.”


Still, Thaweethai said he hopes pediatricians recognize its potential value.

“These are important signs that warrant further investigation to really determine if these symptoms for that child are attributable to a prior COVID infection,” he said.

Long COVID Rules for the Youngest
Current clinical guidelines for long COVID rely on research in adults. But across pediatric and adult medicine, the condition remains without a clinical biomarker.


“There isn’t a blood test right now or any specific test for diagnosing long COVID,” Gross said. “It really is diagnosed based on this history of prolonged symptoms.”

Gross suggested clinicians ask parents to track their children’s symptoms — documenting start date, duration, and severity.

While the study did not specifically evaluate the effects of vaccination on the risk for long COVID, Thaweethai said prior studies have suggested vaccines for the disease are protective against prolonged symptoms.


“There are essentially no treatments for long COVID, and vaccination can prevent COVID. Therefore, it’s one of our only tools for preventing long COVID,” he said.

“We really need to understand how long children are having these symptoms, how they wax and wane over time, how getting a reinfection with COVID changes the symptoms and the trajectory,” Gross said. “If we’re seeing these different symptoms in infants and toddlers and preschool aged children, what happens when those particular children enter school age? What happens to the symptoms that they have at that point? We don’t have the answers to those questions yet.”

As clinicians and researchers continue to untangle the complexities of long COVID in children, Yonker urged pediatricians to keep listening.

“Long COVID is a disease that impacts life,” she said. “Some of these kids have their lives impacted — if there’s school refusal, if they’re having post-exertional malaise and not able to participate in activities in school and learn to their potential.”

Lara Salahi is a health journalist based in Boston.

The experts quoted in this story did not report relevant disclosures. Some of the study authors not included in this story reported potential conflicts of interest, including serving on advisory boards, holding stock, and having affiliations with companies such as Pfizer, Blueprint Medicine, Gilead Sciences, and Merck, among others. The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

"