The Brief

The CDC on Monday accepted controversial new guidelines for the updated COVID-19 vaccines that could make it harder for many people to protect themselves this winter compared with previous years.

Acting CDC Director Jim O'Neill agreed to the recommendations for the COVID shots from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s handpicked Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which met in September.

Unlike in earlier years, the new guidelines call for people to talk to a doctor, pharmacist or some other health care provider about the risks and benefits of getting vaccinated before they get a shot. This extra step is called "shared decision-making,"or "individual-based decision-making," according to the language in the news release.

The move is the final action necessary for implementing the new guidelines, which affect who can get and give the COVID shot, and whether vaccination will be covered by private and government insurance without copayments.

Final recommendations were delayed

The step came after an unusual, unexplained two-week lag between when CDC advisers issued the recommendations and the agency accepted them. The official decision allows the CDC to finally start shipping vaccines to doctors, clinics and other providers through the Vaccines for Children Program, which provides vaccines free to about 40% of all U.S. children.

"Informed consent is back," O'Neill said in a statement announcing the step. "CDC's 2022 blanket recommendation for perpetual COVID-19 boosters deterred health care providers from talking about the risks and benefits of vaccination for the individual patient or parent. That changes today."

Independent vaccine experts challenged that claim.

"There is no basis to claim that routine recommendations prevent doctors from discussing risks and benefits with patients," said Dorit Reiss, who studies vaccine policies at the University of California, San Francisco. "Doctors [have always been] required to get informed consent. Shared clinical decision-making simply signals the vaccine is not routinely recommended and decreases uptake."

Others agree O'Neill's claim is false and could undermine public confidence in the vaccines.

"The claim that the past recommendations deterred health care professionals from talking to patients about risks is completely untrue and is another example of the misinformation and made up information that this administration continues to release to the public and further creates confusion and distrust in healthcare providers and vaccines," wrote Dr. Tina Tan, the president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, in an email. "This is extremely unfortunate and critically increases the American public's risk for serious vaccine preventable diseases."

The CDC also formalized a recommendation that makes it more complicated for some parents to get their babies vaccinated against measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox.

"If that's his approach, I am concerned about [additional] childhood vaccines recommended for routine use," Reiss added in an email. "If he thinks a routine recommendation undermines informed consent — which it doesn't — that could further reduce uptake and may make the Trump-Kennedy outbreaks of measles and pertussis we are seeing even larger."

The moves guarantee continued insurance coverage for the COVID shots and allows pharmacists nationwide to keep administering the vaccines. But the changes withdraw some government coverage for the combination shot that protects against measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox and that some parents prefer.

In previous years, the COVID-19 vaccines have been easily available for free to anyone 6 months and older by simply walking into a pharmacy, doctor's office or clinic and asking for a shot.

Barriers to vaccination

But the vaccines became harder to get in August, when the Food and Drug Administration approved updated versions of the Moderna, Pfizer/BioNTech and Novavax vaccines only for people at increased risk for serious disease because they are age 65 or older or had some other health issue.

The change occurred because top Trump administration health officials say they have concerns about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines, even though there is overwhelming evidence the vaccines are very safe and highly effective. Federal health officials also argue that most people have so much immunity now that they don't necessarily need annual boosters anymore.

Many public health experts agree that COVID no longer poses the serious risk it once did to many people, especially those who are younger and otherwise healthy. Other countries have also shifted to a more "risk-based" COVID vaccination strategy.

But some healthy people still want to get vaccinated to reduce their risk of getting sick at all, missing work or school, developing long COVID or spreading the virus to vulnerable people, such as older family members and friends with other health issues.

Over the past month, the change caused anger, frustration and confusion. In states like Georgia and Utah, people had to get a prescription to get a shot and some couldn't get vaccinated at all.

The situation was further complicated because Kennedy, who has a long history of criticizing vaccines, said the government was no longer recommending the vaccines for pregnant women and healthy children, even though pregnancy is listed as a risk factor by the CDC and FDA, and COVID can still make some kids very sick.

Earlier this month, the vaccine panel, which gives influential advice to the CDC, voted to recommend the shots for anyone 6 months and older, provided they consult with a health care provider about the risks and benefits.

Confusion still reigns 

The requirement for shared clinical decision-making creates a new hurdle to getting vaccinated compared with previous years, by explicitly requiring a conversation with a provider on an individual's risks and benefits before they get one.

The new guidelines continue to ensure coverage by private and public insurers, including Medicaid, Medicare, the Vaccines for Children Program and the Children's Health Insurance Program.

The recommendation should also clarify that anyone age 6 months and older is eligible for the COVID vaccine, including healthy children, pregnant women and younger adults. (The only way to protect younger babies, who are among those who face the greatest risk from COVID, is by immunizing their mothers during pregnancy.)

But some providers may remain confused or hesitant to administer the shots because of lingering uncertainty and mixed messages, for instance, speculative safety risks presented during the CDC's advisory committee meeting that are not backed by solid evidence.

Some states and major medical groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Infectious Diseases Society of America have issued separate guidelines recommending the shots to most everyone ages 6 months and up, to protect themselves and their communities this upcoming respiratory virus season.

In addition, more doctor's offices may opt against stocking the new vaccines because of concerns the debate may further dampen demand, requiring people to go elsewhere, such as a pharmacy.

Some pharmacies may require patients to read and fill out a form that discusses the potential risks and benefits of the vaccines. But CVS, the nation's largest pharmacy chain, says people will be able to get a COVID vaccines simply by asking for one. Pharmacists won't have to require anything, including even a conversation, unless patients have questions, CVS says.

A separate shot for chickenpox is now recommended 

O'Neill also accepted the panel's vote to ban the MMRV combination shot, which protects against measles, mumps, rubella and varicella, or chickenpox, for children under 4.

Young children can gain the same protection by getting separate shots for MMR and varicella, and most of them – some 85% – already do, according to CDC data shared and discussed at the advisory committee's September meeting.

That's because the combination shot is associated with a slightly higher risk of fevers that can lead to seizures in kids under 4. Because of the risk the CDC has, for more than 15 years, preferred that children under 4 receive the shots separately. Still, some parents were choosing to get the combo shot, because it was easier or more available, and the risk associated with the potentially frightening but temporary side effect is low.

Because of the recommendation, the MMRV vaccine will no longer be covered by federal programs that offer subsidized vaccines. "This panel has made a recommendation for a practice that's essentially in place anyway, but removed the option of having those vaccines financed for those who may think this is a better option," says Dr. Katrina Kretsinger, a medical epidemiologist who worked on vaccine policy for more than a decade at CDC, before retiring from the agency in 2023, "This is effectively removing a choice from parents."

Making different policies from the same safety information that was thoroughly examined years ago will also raise mistrust among parents, Kretsinger says. "There is confusion about how to proceed, and also doubts raised by the fact that this is being re-examined," she says, "It furthers the chilling effect on vaccine uptake."

The change may also cause shortages of the separate vaccines, at least initially, until manufacturers can adjust their production to meet the new demand.

A fresh call to break up the MMR vaccine

A few hours after issuing the new vaccine guidelines, Acting CDC Director O'Neill also called on makers of the combined MMR vaccine to break it up into three separate shots for measles, mumps and rubella in a post on X.com. The post praised President Trump for his leadership and reposted his call in September that the MMR vaccine be administered as "THREE TOTALLY SEPARATE SHOTS."

The combination shot for measles, mumps and rubella has been used in the U.S. for decades.

"This really is absolutely completely ridiculous and really sets us back over 50 years in time given that the MMR vaccine was licensed here in the US in 1971," said Tan, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, in an email. "It was made as a combination vaccine to ensure that persons would receive all the vaccines that they would need as a single shot as opposed to 3 separate injections. This is crazy and continues to erode the public health system and the public trust in vaccines."

"There is no published scientific evidence that shows any benefit in separating the combination MMR vaccine into three individual shots," said a statement from Merck, which makes an MMR vaccine. "Use of the individual components of combination vaccines increases the number of injections for the individual and may result in delayed or missed immunizations."

The statement also said that evidence suggests combination vaccines improve outcomes for kids by increasing completion of recommended vaccines and getting them at the right ages. Merck also said there are no single-shot vaccines approved for use in the U.S. for measles, mumps or rubella.

"Combination vaccines play a crucial role in improving vaccination coverage rates; their safety and efficacy have been demonstrated by decades of research," said a statement from GSK, maker of the other MMR vaccine available in the U.S. "By reducing the number of separate injections required, combination vaccines allow for a simpler and more efficient immunization process, which is essential for timely protection against disease."
Copyright 2025 NPR

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Since 1977, Richard Santillan has been to every Opening Day game at Dodger Stadium. 

“The tradition goes from my father, to me, to my children and grandchildren. Some of my best memories are with my father and children here at Dodger Stadium,” Santillan told The LA Local, smiling under the shade of palm trees near the entrance to the ballpark Wednesday morning. He was there to protest the team less than 24 hours before Opening Day.

Santillan, like countless other loyal Dodgers fans, is grappling with his fan identity over the team’s decision to accept an invitation to the White House and owner Mark Walter’s ties to ICE detention facilities.

More than 30 people joined Santillan on Wednesday morning for a press conference held near 1000 Vin Scully Drive to convey a message directly to the team. 

“We are demanding the Dodgers stop participating in funding of inhumane treatment of families and do not go to the White House to celebrate with the criminal in chief,” Evelyn Escatiola told the crowd. “Together, we have the power to make a change.”

Escatiola, a former dean of East Los Angeles College and longtime community organizer, urged fans to flex their economic power by “letting the Dodgers know that we do not support repression.”

Jorge “Coqui” Rodriguez, a lifelong Dodgers fan, spoke to the crowd and called on Dodgers ownership to divest from immigration detention centers owned and operated by GEO Group and CoreCivic.

Jorge Coqui H Rodriguez speaks at a press conference outside Dodger Stadium on March 25, 2026, to demand the Dodgers not to visit the White House following their 2025 World Series win.

(

J.W. Hendricks

/

The LA Local

)

In a phone interview a day before the protest, Rodriguez told The LA Local he did not want the Dodgers using his “cheve” or beer money to fund detention centers. 

“They can’t take our parking money, our cacahuate money, our cheve money, our Dodger Dog money and invest those funds into corporations that are imprisoning people. It’s wrong,” Rodriguez said. 

Rodriguez considers the Dodgers one of the most racially diverse teams and said the players need to support fans at a time when heightened immigration enforcement has become more common across L.A.

The team’s 2025’s visit to the White House drew ire from the largely Latino fan base, citing the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on immigrants. 

In June, the team came under further scrutiny when rumors swirled online that federal immigration agents were using the stadium’s parking, which immigration authorities later denied in statements posted on social media accounts.

The team again came under fire after not releasing a statement on the impacts of ICE raids on its mostly Latino fan base at the height of immigration enforcement last summer. The team later agreed to invest $1 million to support families affected by immigration enforcement.

When he learned the Dodgers were pledging only $1 million to families in need, Rodriguez called the amount a  “slap in the face.” 

“These guys just bought the Lakers for billions of dollars and they give a million dollars to fight for legal services? That’s a joke,” Rodriguez said. “They need to have a moral backbone and not be investing in those companies.”

According to reporting from the Los Angeles Times, former Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershawsaid last week that he is looking forward to the trip.

“I went when President [Joe] Biden was in office. I’m going to go when President [Donald] Trump is in office,” Kershaw said. “To me, it’s just about getting to go to the White House. You don’t get that opportunity every day, so I’m excited to go.”

The Dodgers have yet to announce when their planned visit will take place. 

Santillan sometimes laments his decision to give up his season tickets in protest of the team. His connection to the stadium and the memories he has made there with family and friends will last a lifetime, he said. On Thursday, he will uphold his tradition and be there for the first pitch of the season, but with a heavy heart.

“It’s a family tradition, but the Dodgers have a lot of work to do,” he said.

A local favorite mom-and-pop bookshop in Eagle Rock is facing displacement due to a steep rent hike. The owners say theirs is just one of several small businesses along Eagle Rock Boulevard struggling to keep up with lease increases.

Over the past 19 years, many in the neighborhood have come to love READ Books for its eclectic collection of used titles and shop dog Florence.

Co-owner Jeremy Kaplan said it’s been a delight to grow with the community over the years.

“Like seeing kids come back in, who were in grade school and now they’re in college,” Kaplan said.

But the building where Kaplan and wife Debbie rent was recently sold, and the rent increased by more than 130% to $2,805 a month, Kaplan said. He told LAist it was an increase his small business simply could not absorb.

Kaplan said he originally was given 30 days notice of the rent increase. After some research, assistance from Councilmember Ysabel Jurado’s office and some pro-bono legal help, Kaplan said he pushed back and got the 90-day notice he’s afforded by state law.

California Senate Bill 1103 requires landlords to give businesses with five or less employees 90 days’ notice for rent increases exceeding 10%, among other protections.

Systems Real Estate, the property management company, did not immediately respond to LAist’s request for comment.

What can small businesses do? 

Nadia Segura, directing attorney of the Small Business Program at pro bono legal aid non-profit Bet Tzedek said California law does not currently allow for rent control for commercial tenancies.

Outside of the protections under SB 1103, Segura said small businesses like READ Books don’t have much other recourse. And even then, commercial landlords are not required to inform their tenants of their protections under the law.

“There’s still a lot of people that don’t know about SB 1103. And then it’s very sad that they tell them they have these rent increases and within a month they have to leave,” Segura said.

She said her group is seeing steep rent hikes like this for commercial tenants across the city.

“We are seeing this even more with the World Cup coming up, the Olympics coming up. And I will say it was very sad to see that also after the wildfires,” Segura said.

Part of Bet Tzedek’s ongoing work is to advocate for small businesses, working with landlords who are increasing rents to see if they are willing to give business owners longer leases that lock in rents.

What’s next 

After READ Books posted about their situation on social media, commenters chimed in to express their outrage and love for the little shop.

While he looks for a new spot, Kaplan says he’s forming a coalition of local businesses and activist groups to see what can be done to help other small businesses facing similar displacement. He wants to address the displacement issue for businesses like his, which have made Eagle Rock the distinctive neighborhood that it is today.

Owl Talk, a longtime Eagle Rock staple selling clothing and accessories in a unit in the same building as READ Books, is facing a “more than double” rent increase, according to a post on their Instagram account.

Kaplan said he’s been in touch with the office of state Assemblywoman Jessica Caloza and wants to explore the possibility of introducing legislation to set up protections for small businesses like his, including rent-control measures or a vacancy tax for landlords. Kaplan said he also reached out to the office of state Sen. Maria Durazo.

By his count, Kaplan said there are about a dozen businesses within surrounding blocks that are at risk of closing their doors or have shuttered due to rent increases or other struggles.

When READ Books was founded during the Great Recession, Kaplan said he knew it was a longshot to open a bookstore at the same time so many were struggling to stay in business.

“It was kind of interesting to be doing something that neighborhoods needed. That was important to me growing up, that was important to my children, that was important to my wife growing up,” Kaplan said.

“And then somebody comes in and says, ‘We’re gonna over double your rent.”

Topline:

Frozen budget: Most of the city’s Bureau of Street Lighting budget comes from an assessment that people who own property illuminated by lights pay on their county property tax bill. The amount people pay depends on the kind of property they own and how much they benefit from lighting. A typical single-family home currently pays $53 annually, and in total, the assessments bring in about $45 million annually for the city to repair and maintain streetlights. Changing the amount the Bureau of Street Lighting gets from the assessment requires a vote among property owners who benefit from the lights.

Ballots: L.A. City Council’s vote gives city staff the green light to prepare and send out those ballots. Miguel Sangalang, who oversees the bureau, said at a committee meeting earlier this month that he expects to send out ballots by April 17. Notices about the ballots will be sent out prior to the ballots themselves.

Near unanimous vote: L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez was the only “No” vote Tuesday, saying she wanted to see a more current strategic plan for the bureau. Sangalang said the bureau developed a plan in 2022 that lays out how money will be spent. Councilmember Imelda Padilla was absent for the vote.

Vote count: Votes will be weighted according to the assessment amount. Basically, the more you’re asked to pay yearly to maintain streetlights, the more your vote will count. Ballots received before June 2 will be tabulated by the L.A. City Clerk.

How much more money: According to a report, the amount needed in assessments from property owners to meet the repair and maintenance needs of the city’s streetlighting in the next fiscal year is nearly $112 million.

Use of the money: Sangalang said at a March 11 committee meeting that the extra funds would be used to double the number of staff to handle repairs and procure solar streetlights, which don’t face the threat of copper wire theft. That would all potentially reduce the time it takes to repair simple fixes down to a week. Currently, city residents wait for months to see broken streetlights repaired. The assessment would come with a three-year auditing mechanism.