Who should get the new COVID vaccines? What to know about the 2023-2024 shots

A syringe is filled with Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine by a woman in blue surgical gloves.
Updated formulas of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines have now been approved. (Image credit: Houston Chronicle/Hearst Newspapers via Getty Images / Contributor)

Like the annual flu shots, COVID-19 vaccines have been getting a yearly update each fall — and we're due for a new batch.

So who should get one this time around? What shots are approved for use, and when will they be available? 

Here's what you need to know about the 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccines.

Related: When should you get a flu shot? What to know for the 2023-2024 flu season

When will the new COVID vaccines be available?

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has now cleared new shots targeting subvariants of the coronavirus that have recently been circulating. There are two approved shots, one made by Pfizer-BioNTech and one by Moderna, and a third shot made by Novavax, which has been authorized for emergency use

The two approved vaccines were officially recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on Sept. 12 and projected to be available by later in the week. The Novavax shot was authorized in October but retroactively included in the same recommendation, CNBC reported.

Where can you get the new COVID vaccines?

To find COVID-19 vaccine locations near you, use the CDC's Vaccines.gov. You can also text your ZIP code to 438829 or call 1-800-232-0233 to learn where the vaccines are offered in your area.

Who should get the new COVID vaccines?

Everyone ages 6 months and older should get an updated COVID-19 shot to reduce the risk of severe illness, hospitalization and death from the coronavirus, the CDC says. 

The updated Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are FDA-approved for individuals ages 12 and older and are authorized under emergency use for children ages 6 months to 11 years old. The Novavax shot is authorized under emergency use for people ages 12 and older.

People ages 5 and up are eligible for one dose of an updated Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccine, regardless of whether they've been vaccinated for COVID-19 before. Unvaccinated people who opt for the Novavax shot should get two doses, spaced three weeks apart; those who have previously been vaccinated for COVID-19 only need one dose.

Children ages 6 months to 4 years old who've previously been vaccinated for COVID-19 are eligible for one or two doses of updated Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccine, depending on which vaccine brand they previously got. Unvaccinated children ages 6 months to 4 years old are eligible for three doses of the updated Pfizer-BioNTech shot or two doses of the updated Moderna shot. (These doses are spaced weeks apart, not given at the same time.)

Those with moderately or severely weakened immune systems may get additional doses of the updated COVID-19 vaccines and should talk to a health care provider about the timing of the doses and which shots to consider, the CDC says.

The COVID-19 vaccines released in 2022 protected against coronavirus subvariants that are no longer circulating; that's why new shots were formulated for this year.  (Image credit: PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP via Getty Images)

When should you get the new COVID vaccine?

If it's been at least two months since their last COVID-19 vaccination, individuals can get an updated shot right away, the FDA and CDC say.

If you've recently had COVID-19, though, you may consider delaying your next vaccine dose by three months from the time your symptoms started, or if you had no symptoms, from the time you first tested positive for the virus, the CDC advises. That's because reinfection is generally less likely in the weeks to months immediately after an initial infection. 

But for people with a high risk of severe COVID-19 and those who have close contacts at high risk, it may be best to get the shots sooner rather than later, regardless of if they've had a recent case, the CDC adds.  

People who are currently sick with COVID-19 should wait to get the updated shots until after their isolation period is up, to avoid exposing medical providers to the virus, the CDC stresses

Can you get a COVID vaccine and flu shot at the same time?

Yes, you can get the new COVID-19 vaccine and this year's flu shot at the same time. The CDC says you can either get both shots in the same arm, at least an inch apart, or one shot in each arm. If you choose to get the shots at different times, there's no recommended waiting period — you can schedule one appointment shortly after the other.

Studies suggest that getting the shots together comes with a similar risk of side effects as getting a COVID-19 vaccine on its own; common side effects include headache, muscle ache and fatigue. The same research suggests that getting the shots together does not undermine the effectiveness of either vaccine. 

What's different about the new COVID vaccines?

This year's COVID-19 vaccines offer protection against a subvariant called XBB.1.5 and its close relatives, which stem from a branch of the omicron family tree called "XBB."

Members of the XBB lineage generally have very similar spike proteins to one another; spike proteins are the pointy projections on the coronavirus' surface. Because of this, the new XBB.1.5-based vaccines are expected to offer broad protection against many XBB viruses. This expectation is backed by evidence gathered in recent animal studies and small human trials of the new vaccines, the FDA said.

Like their predecessors, the new Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech shots contain a molecule called mRNA that carries blueprints for the coronavirus spike protein. Once in the body, this mRNA tells cells to build spike proteins and thus trains the immune system to recognize the coronavirus. That said, unlike the 2022-2023 shots that contained instructions for multiple SARS-CoV-2 spikes, this year's vaccines only code for XBB.1.5 spikes. That means they're considered "monovalent" instead of "bivalent."

The Novavax shot is based on different technology. It contains nanoparticles made out of lab-made spike proteins — so the spike proteins are made by cells in a lab, rather than inside the human body. It also contains an "adjuvant," a substance that revs up the immune system to mount a stronger response to the vaccine.

Related: Coronavirus variants: Facts about omicron, delta and other SARS-CoV-2 mutants

The updated vaccines should be covered by insurance, or available at no cost through government programs for those who are uninsured or underinsured. (Image credit: Milan Markovic via Getty Images)

Will the COVID vaccines work against new variants?

The FDA noted that data suggest the updated mRNA shots will work well against EG.5, an XBB family member that's recently dominated in the U.S. and spawned "Eris," an unofficially nicknamed subvariant.  The Novavax shot is also expected to work well against XBB.1.5 and its close relatives, based on data from manufacturing and on non-clinical experiments designed to measure immune responses.   

The FDA has also said the updated shots should work against BA.2.86, or "Pirola," another XBB spinoff that health officials have been keeping an eye on. The CDC released a report on Sept. 8 stating that data suggest antibodies from recent infections and the new vaccines should both protect against BA.2.86, but more data are being collected.

"Real-world data are needed to fully understand the impact given the complexities of the immune response to this variant," the CDC wrote of BA.2.86, which is not yet widespread. "Additional studies on this are ongoing, and we expect to learn more in upcoming weeks."

Are COVID vaccines still free in the U.S.?

Most people with health insurance plans, including those provided by private insurers and by government programs like Medicare or Medicaid, can get COVID-19 vaccines from in-network providers at no cost, according to the CDC.

Adults without health insurance and those whose plans don't cover all costs of vaccines can get COVID-19 shots at no cost through the CDC's Bridge Access Program. These free vaccines are available at state and local health departments, federally supported health centers and participating retail pharmacy chains, including CVS, Walgreens and eTrueNorth. To find local vaccine sites participating in the Bridge Access Program, enter your ZIP code at Vaccine.gov and then check the box that says "Participating in Bridge Access Program."

Children eligible for the Vaccines for Children program, such as those who are uninsured or Medicaid-ineligible, can get no-cost COVID-19 vaccines through providers enrolled in that program.

Will there be new COVID vaccines again next year?

Most likely, yes. Unless a particularly dangerous new variant emerges before that point, "the FDA anticipates that the composition of COVID-19 vaccines may need to be updated annually, as is done for the seasonal influenza vaccine," the agency wrote in its approval of the 2023-2024 shots.

This article is for informational purposes only and is not meant to offer medical advice.

Editor's note: This story was updated on Oct. 4, 2023 after the authorization of the Novavax shot. It was first published on Sept. 13.

Nicoletta Lanese
Channel Editor, Health

Nicoletta Lanese is the health channel editor at Live Science and was previously a news editor and staff writer at the site. She holds a graduate certificate in science communication from UC Santa Cruz and degrees in neuroscience and dance from the University of Florida. Her work has appeared in The Scientist, Science News, the Mercury News, Mongabay and Stanford Medicine Magazine, among other outlets. Based in NYC, she also remains heavily involved in dance and performs in local choreographers' work.

  • Debed
    Feel free to trust the data https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37626783/
    Reply
  • Roj5
    If you don;t want the vaccine, don;t have it... If you want it, have it...

    It should be of no concern to you what my personal decisions are within law and/ or correct treatment of others including but not limited to humans.
    Reply
  • Debed
    Roj5 said:
    If you don;t want the vaccine, don;t have it... If you want it, have it...

    It should be of no concern to you what my personal decisions are within law and/ or correct treatment of others including but not limited to humans.
    Is it not better to make an informed decision?
    There is plenty of warnings regarding tobacco smoking, so you can not claim ignorance if you chose to smoke.
    There are studies of the vaccine, but they are not illuminated so that you can make an informed choice.
    Whether you take the vaccine or not, is your problem, not mine.
    My pet peeve is the lack of transparency on the available information..
    Reply
  • Roj5
    Debed said:
    Is it not better to make an informed decision?
    There is plenty of warnings regarding tobacco smoking, so you can not claim ignorance if you chose to smoke.
    There are studies of the vaccine, but they are not illuminated so that you can make an informed choice.
    Whether you take the vaccine or not, is your problem, not mine.
    My pet peeve is the lack of transparency on the available information..

    I've looked into the pros and cons and my decision is personal to an individual as it should be to all individuals as to whether they wish to have the vaccine or not have the vaccine... It is not right for others to sway the population on a one-to-one basis.
    Reply
  • SHaines
    Debed said:
    Feel free to trust the data https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37626783/
    Be sure to read the disclaimer on the site you linked.

    "The presence of any article, book, or document in these databases does not imply an endorsement of, or concurrence with, the contents by NLM, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), or the U.S. Federal Government."

    Just because a paper was published and stored here, doesn't mean it's verifiably accurate.

    Debed said:
    Is it not better to make an informed decision?
    There is plenty of warnings regarding tobacco smoking, so you can not claim ignorance if you chose to smoke.
    There are studies of the vaccine, but they are not illuminated so that you can make an informed choice.
    Whether you take the vaccine or not, is your problem, not mine.
    My pet peeve is the lack of transparency on the available information..

    Can you clarify what you're asking here? There is a metric ton of support from scientists globally about the efficacy of vaccines. Your argument is that because people exist that doubt the science, the question is unresolved?

    What transparency exactly are you looking for? What piece of the puzzle do you believe is missing, specifically?
    Reply
  • Debed
    SHaines said:
    Be sure to read the disclaimer on the site you linked.

    "The presence of any article, book, or document in these databases does not imply an endorsement of, or concurrence with, the contents by NLM, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), or the U.S. Federal Government."

    Just because a paper was published and stored here, doesn't mean it's verifiably accurate.



    Can you clarify what you're asking here? There is a metric ton of support from scientists globally about the efficacy of vaccines. Your argument is that because people exist that doubt the science, the question is unresolved?

    What transparency exactly are you looking for? What piece of the puzzle do you believe is missing, specifically?
    The disclaimer simply states that while documents seems to correspond with the research, it does not imply that they (NIH, NLM etc.) have endorsed it publicly.
    Quite common to put such disclaimers, so I fail to see how you somehow manage to arrive at the wrong train station in regard to your thought processing.

    There is a »metric ton» of empirical evidence supporting Albert Einstein’s GR. But scientists still conduct experiments in the hopes of finding a crack they can wedge open.
    And if that so happens one day, that «one person» would not be told that she/he is wrong, because there is a »metric ton» of empirical evidence saying that GR is right.
    The person would instead be lauded and get a nobel prize in physics.
    So consensus in science does not work. Facts do not care about consensus.

    So, you say there is a lot of support from scientists regarding the efficacy of the mRNA vaccine.
    I would not really say that a ~0.84% (Yes, that is indeed a zero at the front there) efficency is much to write home about.
    But feel free to disprove it.
    Reply
  • SHaines
    Debed said:
    The disclaimer simply states that while documents seems to correspond with the research, it does not imply that they (NIH, NLM etc.) have endorsed it publicly.
    Quite common to put such disclaimers, so I fail to see how you somehow manage to arrive at the wrong train station in regard to your thought processing.

    There is a »metric ton» of empirical evidence supporting Albert Einstein’s GR. But scientists still conduct experiments in the hopes of finding a crack they can wedge open.
    And if that so happens one day, that «one person» would not be told that she/he is wrong, because there is a »metric ton» of empirical evidence saying that GR is right.
    The person would instead be lauded and get a nobel prize in physics.
    So consensus in science does not work. Facts do not care about consensus.

    So, you say there is a lot of support from scientists regarding the efficacy of the mRNA vaccine.
    I would not really say that a ~0.84% (Yes, that is indeed a zero at the front there) efficency is much to write home about.
    But feel free to disprove it.
    It's important not to come to a conclusion, then try to dig up supporting evidence after the fact. This isn't a thread on general relativity, but just to close that door, general relativity is a theory. What vast quantities of empirical evidence prove the theory correct?

    If it's been proven correct, why is it a theory? The answer is, it's a theory because it hasn't been proven. We've tested many aspects of it and have found many tests have indicated it could be true, but the theory of general relativity isn't in any way correlated with the science behind vaccines.

    Please avoid derailing discussions just to try to inject some other topic where you might feel more comfortable.

    What is the specific source for your claim of ~0.84% vaccine efficacy? Is that for this specific vaccine, or all vaccines in the world? People like to feel informed by quoting numbers, but all that matters is where the number comes from and how it was derived. Context is everything, so please avoid making claims and citing random numbers without providing any additional context (I've added the link to the CDC numbers in my previous comment, for reference).
    Reply
  • Debed
    So you admit that you have never seen or heard any of the media quote said number then.
    Which basically proves my point.

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext
    See the date. Media had access to it, yet it was never mentioned that the efficency of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was a measly 0.84%.
    Instead the media said it was 90% effective, they forgot to mention that the vaccine was 90% more effective than the human immune system, which was/is ~0.43% effective.
    Why wasn’t the media transparent on this?
    Reply