New Trump vaccine policy limits access to COVID shots to those 65+ or with demonstrated health issues; likely blocks access to others

[essentialsaltes]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration said Tuesday it will limit approval for seasonal COVID-19 shots to seniors and others at high risk pending more data on everyone else — raising questions about whether some people who want a vaccine this fall will be able to get one.

 

[probinson]

Alternate headline: Evidence-based recommendations are slowly making a comeback.

Alternate headline two: US offers COVID shots to people ten years younger than in the UK.

 

[probinson]

Here is the paper in the New England Journal of Medicine that explains this change in policy.

​

Over the past 5 years, the United States has moved toward an annual Covid-19 booster program. Each fall, Covid-19 booster shots are developed, alongside seasonal influenza vaccines, and are recommended for every American. As compared with vaccination policies in all European nations, the U.S. policy has been the most aggressive (see Figure 1).1 While all other high-income nations confine vaccine recommendations to older adults (typically those older than 65 years of age), or those at high risk for severe Covid-19, the United States has adopted a one-size-fits-all regulatory framework and has granted broad marketing authorization to all Americans over the age of 6 months.1 The U.S. policy has sometimes been justified by arguing that the American people are not sophisticated enough to understand age- and risk-based recommendations.2 We reject this view.​

​

​

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsb2506929

 

[essentialsaltes]

There is a difference between "recommended" and "approved for use".

 

[probinson]

There is a difference between "recommended" and "approved for use".

No, there really isn't, at least not in this case.

Rest assured that if you still want yet another COVID booster this year despite there being literally no evidence that it will provide you any benefit, all you have to do is claim you have one of any endless number of co-morbidities to declare yourself "high risk".

From the paper linked above:

It should be noted that the FDA policy balances competing values. First, our acceptance of immunologic end points ensures that we can provide timely approval to a broad population. The range of diseases in the CDC definition of high risk of severe disease is vast, including obesity and even mental health conditions such as depression (Figure 2).7 Estimates suggest that 100 million to 200 million Americans will have access to vaccines in this manner.8​

 

[essentialsaltes]

No, there really isn't, at least not in this case.

Rest assured that if you still want yet another COVID booster this year despite there being literally no evidence that it will provide you any benefit, all you have to do is claim you have...

Lying is a sin.

 

[probinson]

Lying is a sin.

Where's the lie? The COVID vaccine is being offered to those who are at "high risk" of "severe disease" as defined by the CDC. Have you seen that list? Nearly everyone in the country could qualify as being "high risk".

 

[essentialsaltes]

Where's the lie?

From you? The idea that withholding approval is the same as withholding a recommendation.

From RFK, the lie was his pledge to Congress not to alter the vaccine approvals framework.

Nearly everyone in the country could qualify as being "high risk".

'100 to 200 million' is not nearly everyone. People shouldn't have to lie if they opt to receive this vaccine.

 

[Larniavc]

Alternate headline: Evidence-based recommendations are slowly making a comeback.

Alternate headline two: US offers COVID shots to people ten years younger than in the UK.

That’s who ‘should’ get vaccinated. In the UK anyone can.

 

[Lukaris]

No, there really isn't, at least not in this case.

Rest assured that if you still want yet another COVID booster this year despite there being literally no evidence that it will provide you any benefit, all you have to do is claim you have one of any endless number of co-morbidities to declare yourself "high risk".

From the paper linked above:

It should be noted that the FDA policy balances competing values. First, our acceptance of immunologic end points ensures that we can provide timely approval to a broad population. The range of diseases in the CDC definition of high risk of severe disease is vast, including obesity and even mental health conditions such as depression (Figure 2).7 Estimates suggest that 100 million to 200 million Americans will have access to vaccines in this manner.8​

I tend to think these stats are in line with the percentage of people intending to have an updated vaccine like at the end 2024. It is probably intended to limit waste but allow for increased production if necessary.

60% of Americans say they probably won’t get an updated COVID-19 vaccine

Democrats and those who lean to the Democratic Party are more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to say they will get an updated COVID-19 vaccine.

www.pewresearch.org

 

[probinson]

That’s who ‘should’ get vaccinated. In the UK anyone can.

No, that's not true. I posted the link to the UK's policy in my first post in this thread. Here it is:

You can get a COVID-19 vaccine if you:

• are aged 75 or over (including those who will be 75 by 17 June 2025)
• are aged 6 months to 74 years and have a weakened immune system because of a health condition or treatment
• live in a care home for older adults

Sounds an awful lot like the new US FDA policy.

It then goes on to state:

If you're eligible for the spring COVID-19 vaccine...​

​

Do you know what "IF" means? It means there are criteria for who are eligible, they are listed above. It also means that there are people who are not eligible, i.e., everyone not on that list.

 

[BCP1928]

No, there really isn't, at least not in this case.

Rest assured that if you still want yet another COVID booster this year despite there being literally no evidence that it will provide you any benefit, all you have to do is claim you have one of any endless number of co-morbidities to declare yourself "high risk".

From the paper linked above:

It should be noted that the FDA policy balances competing values. First, our acceptance of immunologic end points ensures that we can provide timely approval to a broad population. The range of diseases in the CDC definition of high risk of severe disease is vast, including obesity and even mental health conditions such as depression (Figure 2).7 Estimates suggest that 100 million to 200 million Americans will have access to vaccines in this manner.8​

Or, step over to Mexico and get one. Why should I have to pretend I believe something I don't in order to get medical care that I want?

 

[probinson]

'100 to 200 million' is not nearly everyone. People shouldn't have to lie if they opt to receive this vaccine.

Yes, yes it is. At least everyone who might actually still want a vaccine, despite no evidence of their benefit.

Did you even read the paper? It states:

Over the past two seasons, uptake of the annual Covid-19 booster has been poor, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Less than 25% of Americans received boosters each year, ranging from less than 10% of children younger than 12 years of age in the 2024–2025 season to 50% of adults over 75 years old.4 Even health care workers remain hesitant, with less than one third participating in the 2023–2024 fall booster program.​

​

So let's do some basic math. Let's assume that everyone in the US was eligible for the COVID vaccine. If the population of the US is 347 million (per Worldometer) and only 25% of the population's been getting boosters, that means that only roughly 86,750,000 people have been getting COVID boosters (the numbers are likely lower than that, since not everyone is eligible for the vaccine.

The paper further states:

There may even be a ripple effect: public trust in vaccination in general has declined,6 resulting in a reluctance to vaccinate that is affecting even vital immunization programs such as that for measles–mumps–rubella (MMR) vaccination, which has been clearly established as safe and highly effective.​

Of course, I said this back in 2021 on this very forum, long before anyone thought RFK Jr might possibly be involved in public health. But I realizer it's much more convenient to blame him than it is to recognize that ill-advised COVID vaccine policies and mandates decreased uptake in all vaccination.

 

[probinson]

Or, step over to Mexico and get one. Why should I have to pretend I believe something I don't in order to get medical care that I want?

What are you talking about? The list of conditions the CDC has compiled that constitute "high risk" is laughably long. Are you even mildly overweight? Congratulations, you're at "high risk" of "severe disease" from COVID.

Check out the list. I'm sure you have something on there that will make you eligible for yet another vaccine if you really want one.

And it's certainly stretching credibility to call the COVID booster "medical care". To repeat, there is no evidence that repeated boosters provide any benefit. In fact, there is some evidence that would suggest that repeated doses of mRNA vaccines is associated with a HIGHER risk of infection.

 

[probinson]

In my last post, I stated that there was evidence that repeated doses of the COVID vaccine could result in a HIGHER risk of infection. Here is some of that evidence:

The association of increased risk of COVID-19 with more prior vaccine doses was unexpected. A simplistic explanation might be that those who received more doses were more likely to be individuals at higher risk of COVID-19. A small proportion of individuals may have fit this description. However, the majority of participants in this study were young, and all were eligible to have received ≥3 doses of vaccine by the study start date, which they had every opportunity to do. Therefore, those who received <3 doses (46% of individuals in the study) were not ineligible to receive the vaccine but rather chose not to follow the CDC's recommendations on remaining updated with COVID-19 vaccination, and one could reasonably expect these individuals to have been more likely to exhibit risk-taking behavior. Despite this, their risk of acquiring COVID-19 was lower than that that of participants those who received more prior vaccine doses.​

Ours is not the only study to find a possible association with more prior vaccine doses and higher risk of COVID-19. During an Omicron wave in Iceland, individuals who had previously received ≥2 doses were found to have a higher odds of reinfectionthan those who had received <2 doses, in an unadjusted analysis [21]. A large study found, in an adjusted analysis, that those who had an Omicron variant infection after previously receiving 3 doses of vaccine had a higher risk of reinfection than those who had an Omicron variant infection after previously receiving 2 doses [22]. Another study found, in multivariable analysis, that receipt of 2 or 3 doses of am mRNA vaccine following prior COVID-19 was associated with a higher risk of reinfection than receipt of a single dose [7]. Immune imprinting from prior exposure to different antigens in a prior vaccine [22, 23] and class switch toward noninflammatory spike-specific immunoglobulin G4 antibodies after repeated SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination [24] have been suggested as possible mechanisms whereby prior vaccine may provide less protection than expected. We still have a lot to learn about protection from COVID-19 vaccination, and in addition to vaccine effectiveness, it is important to examine whether multiple vaccine doses given over time may not be having the beneficial effect that is generally assumed.​

In conclusion, this study found an overall modest protective effect of the bivalent vaccine against COVID-19 while the circulating strains were represented in the vaccine and lower protection when the circulating strains were no longer represented. A significant protective effect was not found when the XBB lineages were dominant. The unexpected finding of increasing risk with increasing number of prior COVID-19 vaccine doses needs further study.​

Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Bivalent Vaccine

Among 51 017 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, the bivalent coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine was 29% and 20% effective in preventing infection while the

academic.oup.com

​

​

Repeated COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations increase SARS-CoV-2 IgG4 antibodies, indicating extensive IgG class switching following the first booster dose. This shift in IgG subclasses raises concerns due to the limited ability of IgG4 to mediate Fc-dependent effector functions.​

​

...​

​

Elevated IgG4 levels and higher ratios of non-cytophilic to cytophilic antibodies after booster vaccination were significantly associated with an increased risk of breakthrough infections (IgG4 HR[10-fold increase]=1.8, 95% CI=1.2–2.7; non-cytophilic to cytophilic ratio HR[10-fold increase]=1.5, 95% CI=1.1–1.9). Moreover, an increased non-cytophilic to cytophilic antibody ratio correlated with reduced functionality, including neutralization.​

​

...​

​

These findings suggest a potential association between IgG4 induction by mRNA vaccination and a higher risk of breakthrough infection, warranting further investigation into vaccination strategies to ensure sustained protection.​

​

https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(25)00067-2/fulltext​

​

 

[essentialsaltes]

Yes, yes it is. At least everyone who might actually still want a vaccine, despite no evidence of their benefit.

So let's do some basic math. Let's assume that everyone in the US was eligible for the COVID vaccine. If the population of the US is 347 million (per Worldometer) and only 25% of the population's been getting boosters, that means that only roughly 86,750,000 people have been getting COVID boosters (the numbers are likely lower than that, since not everyone is eligible for the vaccine.

For extra credit on your 'basic math', draw the Venn diagram of (people under 65 without relevant health issues) and those 86 million people. I don't think you'll be able to show they are disjoint, and therefore your assurance of "Yes" is actually "no".

 

[Fantine]

It's one thing not to offer the vaccine for free, but anyone who wants to pay should be able to get it.
If we can cover drugs like Viagra and Cialis we can offer Covid boosters.

 

[Bradskii]

Here is the paper in the New England Journal of Medicine that explains this change in policy.

​

Over the past 5 years, the United States has moved toward an annual Covid-19 booster program. Each fall, Covid-19 booster shots are developed, alongside seasonal influenza vaccines, and are recommended for every American. As compared with vaccination policies in all European nations, the U.S. policy has been the most aggressive (see Figure 1).1 While all other high-income nations confine vaccine recommendations to older adults (typically those older than 65 years of age), or those at high risk for severe Covid-19, the United States has adopted a one-size-fits-all regulatory framework and has granted broad marketing authorization to all Americans over the age of 6 months.1 The U.S. policy has sometimes been justified by arguing that the American people are not sophisticated enough to understand age- and risk-based recommendations.2 We reject this view.​

​

View attachment 365298​

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsb2506929

The chart is wrong as far as Australia is concerned. From here: Your 2025 guide to winter vaccines: Flu, COVID-19 and RSV | South Western Sydney PHN

'Everyone over the age of six months should have a flu vaccination every year.'

And as regards covid specifically: https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/covid-19-vaccines/covid-19-booster-eligibility-checker

'You are eligible to have a COVID-19 vaccine dose once per year.'

 

[BCP1928]

What are you talking about? The list of conditions the CDC has compiled that constitute "high risk" is laughably long. Are you even mildly overweight? Congratulations, you're at "high risk" of "severe disease" from COVID.

Check out the list. I'm sure you have something on there that will make you eligible for yet another vaccine if you really want one.

And it's certainly stretching credibility to call the COVID booster "medical care". To repeat, there is no evidence that repeated boosters provide any benefit. In fact, there is some evidence that would suggest that repeated doses of mRNA vaccines is associated with a HIGHER risk of infection.

Vaccines aren't medical care? Oh, right. You are the one who gets to decide what medical care is for the rest of us. I'll have to say, though, that you on the Right have upped your game with a much more sophisticated line of argument. I can remember when the reason we shouldn't take the Covid vaccine was because it had mind-control nanobots in it. Then it was because it was made out of dead babies. The argument that we should be refused it because it doesn't work is very subtle.

 

[BCP1928]

It's one thing not to offer the vaccine for free, but anyone who wants to pay should be able to get it.
If we can cover drugs like Viagra and Cialis we can offer Covid boosters.

Have you possibly hit on something here?