No More COVID Shots for Healthy Kids?

You may have seen headlines like “CDC Ends COVID Vaccine Recommendation for Healthy Kids and Pregnant Women,” but the details are more complicated than they first appear.

This wasn’t a new CDC guideline. The change was announced by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), bypassing the CDC’s independent vaccine advisory panel. It wasn’t accompanied by a new data report or a formal scientific briefing. And many medical professionals were caught off guard.

So what does this shift mean?

This newsletter isn’t here to spark panic–or to blindly defend. It’s here to offer clarity. Because while there’s valid debate about whether universal vaccination still makes sense for healthy kids in 2025, how we deliver that message matters. And when big policy decisions get announced without context, nuance, or planning…it creates confusion, not confidence.

Let’s walk through what changed, how evidence and clinical experience can guide personal decisions, and why the loudest voices don’t always tell the full story.

What changed, and why it matters

On May 27, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced it was no longer recommending routine COVID-19 vaccination for healthy children or pregnant individuals. The update was shared in a public press conference and posted online–but it wasn’t accompanied by new clinical data, a formal CDC update, or a review from the agency’s vaccine advisory committee which is the usual process for decisions like these.

This wasn’t a formal CDC decision–and it wasn’t based on new clinical trial data. The change bypassed the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which had been scheduled to discuss updated COVID-19 guidance this summer.

That’s part of what sparked the reaction–but not the whole story.

Many health professionals are also raising concern about the substance of the change. Because while there’s growing agreement that vaccine strategies should evolve alongside the virus, removing broad recommendations–without defining who’s considered “high-risk” or how families should decide–leaves a lot of unanswered questions.

Experts like Dr. Paul Offit have supported a more individualized approach, especially for healthy children. But even those who agree with the idea have criticized how it was rolled out. Scientific guidance is strongest when it’s backed by data and delivered through expert consensus–not politics.

Because when a federal agency changes guidance–without explanation, evidence, or expert review–it’s not just policy that changes. It’s public trust that takes the hit.

And to be clear: this is based on what we know now. If new details emerge–about the data behind the decision or who was involved–we’ll all be watching closely. But as it stands, the delivery, the lack of clarity, and the abruptness of the shift are hard to ignore.

What we know about COVID (and the research behind it)

One important piece of this conversation? The virus itself has changed.

Early in the pandemic, variants like Delta and early Omicron were more aggressive. Children were still less likely than adults to experience severe illness, but we saw more complications and hospitalizations than we do now. Today, the strains circulating in most regions tend to cause milder illness–especially in healthy, vaccinated individuals. But of course, every case is personal.

You might catch a cold and feel totally wiped out…while your kids bounce around the house like nothing happened. Same bug (probably–you’re all sharing snacks), totally different experiences. That’s how immune systems work–and it’s also why risk varies from person to person.

So yes, many healthy kids seem to be faring well with current COVID strains. That’s something I see in my own practice. But that doesn’t mean blanket guidance is the right approach. Children and pregnant individuals are still considered vulnerable for a reason. These aren’t groups we should overlook or generalize about–especially when the shift in recommendations comes without clarity.

That’s where the research still matters.

Even though COVID feels less disruptive in 2025 than it did a few years ago, studies continue to show that vaccination has benefits:

• For children under 5, vaccination reduced ER visits and hospitalizations by about 40%

• For kids ages 5–17, it showed 35–42% effectiveness against long COVID

• Vaccinated children had lower rates of post-COVID-19 condition (PCC)

• COVID-19 vaccination in children was associated with lower risk of symptomatic COVID-19, hospitalization, and MIS-C

And in pregnancy, we’ve seen real protective effects:

• COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy is safe and effective, reducing the risk of severe maternal illness and adverse neonatal outcomes

• COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy is considered safe

• Babies born to vaccinated mothers were less likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 during their first six months

Protection still exists, especially for those at higher risk. And that’s worth considering when deciding whether COVID vaccination makes sense for your child or during pregnancy.

Part of the confusion around this shift stems from how the intent of the vaccine has changed over time. In the early phases of the pandemic, vaccination was a critical tool to reduce hospitalization, death, and community transmission–especially when variants like Delta were circulating. But as the virus has changed and is less virulent in many, the primary goal of vaccination has evolved. It’s now less about stopping the spread and more about reducing the risk of complications on an individual level–including hospitalization, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), and long COVID. That purpose still matters–and for many families, it's a reason to keep vaccination on the table.

What I’d say to a parent asking about this today

If you were sitting in my office and asked, “So…should I still vaccinate my child against COVID?”–here’s what I’d say:

It depends. And I know that can feel frustrating. But your decision should be based on your child, your family’s needs, and an understanding of the current risks, not just a headline or press conference.

When I first read the announcement, I wasn’t entirely surprised. I haven’t vaccinated my own children for COVID–not out of concern for safety, but because, for our family, the benefits no longer clearly outweigh the need. Like Dr. Paul Offit has said, for healthy individuals, the COVID vaccine at this stage is “low risk, low reward.” While we acknowledge the risk is low, my husband and I take a cautious, individualized approach–we vaccinate our children when the benefits strongly outweigh any potential risks in our eyes.

But that’s our situation. I see a lot of healthy kids every day who are doing just fine after mild COVID infections. But that doesn’t mean I’d recommend the same approach to every family. For children with asthma, immunocompromising conditions, or other vulnerabilities, the vaccine may still offer meaningful protection. That’s why individual guidance matters so much.

But here’s where it gets tricky–“healthy” isn’t always clearly defined. Does that include a child with mild, well-controlled asthma? A teen with obesity? A child who recently recovered from cancer treatment? When guidance gets reduced to a blanket term like “healthy,” it puts both families and providers in a confusing spot. We need more clarity about what risk factors should still prompt a conversation about vaccination–because “healthy” is not a one-size-fits-all category.

It’s not about ignoring science. It’s about applying it thoughtfully, with each child’s needs in mind.

If your child is medically complex, has underlying health conditions, or lives with someone who’s high risk, the vaccine might still make sense. And if you’re pregnant and worried about complications from COVID, I’d want you to know the vaccine is has shown protective benefits for both you and your baby.

Pregnancy naturally alters immune function, making it harder to fight infections and increasing the risk of complications. That’s why pregnant individuals are considered a high-priority group–not just symbolically, but biologically.

So if you’re unsure right now? That’s completely fair. Talk to your pediatrician. Get the facts, not the noise. It’s about making an informed one–one that fits your child, your values, and your peace of mind.

The recommendation may have shifted, but the virus hasn’t disappeared. I’m still seeing COVID in my practice. And I’m still having conversations about the vaccine–because there are still cases where it makes sense.

Some lingering questions, and what comes next?

I’m not against changing recommendations as evidence shifts. That’s part of good science. But how we communicate those changes matters just as much as the change itself.

This announcement didn’t come from the CDC’s ACIP–the group that typically reviews data and votes on vaccine guidance. It came from the Department of HHS, without new published research, a public ACIP discussion, or a coordinated rollout.

For families trying to make informed choices, it felt abrupt. And for clinicians, it came without the materials or clarity we often rely on to guide those conversations in practice.

That doesn’t mean the idea behind the shift is wrong–but when communication misses the mark, trust suffers. And when guidance disappears without outlining what access will still look like, or how individual families should navigate the decision, we’re left with more questions than answers.

Hopefully, we’ll get more clarity in the weeks ahead: clearer language about who is still considered high-risk, updated clinical resources, and a more transparent process. Families deserve that. Providers do too.

And as we wait for that clarity, one thing should remain non-negotiable: access. Even if routine recommendations shift, vaccines need to stay available for families who want or need them–especially for medically vulnerable children or those living with high-risk family members.

Because this decision doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It affects how vaccines are distributed, what insurance will cover, and how families navigate care moving forward.

Without a clear federal recommendation, some insurers may choose not to cover the vaccine at all, or may limit coverage to only certain populations. That could leave vulnerable families in a bind–not by choice, but by cost or availability. And this could inadvertently affect populations who need it the most, but can’t afford it.

Final thoughts: What about now?

Let me be clear–I’m not panicked. I’m not even surprised. But I am frustrated.

Because this isn’t how thoughtful public health policy should be handled. Guidance like this shouldn’t be announced in a press conference, without data, without review by the CDC’s advisory committee, and without explaining what “healthy” even means. It feels like a reaction–not a process.

I absolutely believe recommendations can evolve as evidence evolves. That’s what science should do. But the rollout of this decision bypassed the usual protocol. It wasn’t transparent. And it left too many of us, both parents and professionals, scrambling for clarity.

I also want to be clear about this: access still matters. Families of medically vulnerable children, those living with high-risk loved ones, or even families who simply want the option–deserve to have it. The vaccine should remain available and accessible for those who need or want it, and the recommendation for use in pregnancy should remain unchanged given the strong safety data and protective benefits for both mother and baby.

And here's what stings the most: watching anti-vaccine advocates celebrate this change like it’s proof the vaccine was never needed in the first place. It’s not. Those same voices weren’t there during the first waves of the pandemic–when my ER doctor husband and I saw young, previously healthy patients struggle to breathe, be hospitalized, and die. The virus changed. So did the risk profile. That’s part of why we made the decision not to continue boosters for our own children–not out of fear, but with nuance and ongoing evaluation.

But abandoning protocol and letting political noise lead the message? That’s not progress. That’s erosion of trust.

So if you’re still unsure what to do next–that’s okay. What matters most now is that you have the option to decide, that access doesn’t quietly disappear, and that future guidance comes with the clarity and integrity families deserve.

A more ideal path forward is one where:

• Access remains intact for those who want it.

• “Healthy” is clearly defined.

• Recommendations, especially in pregnancy, are based on the data we do have.

• And policy decisions are made transparently, with input from the scientific community.

Because good public health isn’t just about the virus. It’s about the process, the trust, and the people.

So if you’re still figuring out what this means for your family, you’re not alone–and you’re not behind. You’re being thoughtful. You’re asking the right questions. And that’s exactly what good parenting–and good science–requires.

In the meantime, I’ll keep showing up, with the research, the context, and the kinds of questions I hear every day from parents like you!