Healthy children and teens likely don’t need COVID-19 vaccinations, according to updated guidance posted on the website of the World Health Organization (WHO) on Tuesday.

WHO’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) met last week to create a revised roadmap for COVID vaccinations. 

The new roadmap defines three priority groups — high, medium and low — based on the "risk of severe disease and death" when contracting the virus. 

Healthy kids between 6 months and 17 years old are now deemed low priority.

PRIOR COVID INFECTION PROVIDES JUST AS MUCH PROTECTION AS VACCINES, NEW STUDY FINDS

The agency said that for this group, "traditional essential vaccines" for illnesses like rotavirus, measles, polio and pneumococcal conjugate have a greater impact.

In the new roadmap, the agency also released updated guidance on COVID booster doses.

"Updated to reflect that much of the population is either vaccinated or previously infected with COVID-19, or both, the revised roadmap reemphasizes the importance of vaccinating those still at-risk of severe disease, mostly older adults and those with underlying conditions, including with additional boosters," stated SAGE Chair Dr. Hanna Nohynek in a press release on the WHO website. 

"Countries should consider their specific context in deciding whether to continue vaccinating low-risk groups, like healthy children and adolescents, while not compromising the routine vaccines that are so crucial for the health and well-being of this age group," the doctor continued.

In the press release, SAGE encourages countries to consider factors including "disease burden, cost-effectiveness, and other health or programmatic priorities and opportunity costs" when making decisions about vaccine requirements for healthy children and teens.

Children who have compromised immune systems or existing health conditions should still get the COVID vaccine due to the higher risk of severe disease, the agency said.

COVID VACCINE UPDATE: FDA AUTHORIZES PFIZER BOOSTER FOR SOME CHILDREN UNDER AGE FIVE

Additionally, it’s recommended that infants under 6 months should receive the vaccine due to burden of severe COVID-19 effects. 

The guidance also calls for pregnant women to be fully vaccinated for full protection of the mother and fetus.

Dr. Marc Siegel, clinical professor of medicine at NYU Langone Medical Center and a Fox News medical contributor, agreed that children and teens are lower priority for this vaccine unless they have obesity or other chronic illnesses or are specifically at risk.

"However, this change in prioritization is not the same thing as saying that they shouldn't have the COVID vaccines," he told Fox News Digital.

"The question that has emerged recently is how many COVID shots is enough," Dr. Siegel continued. 

"The difficulty with universities mandating it is that the vaccine you had two or more years ago may have almost completely worn off by now."

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR HEALTH NEWSLETTER

"Natural immunity following infection must be included in counting immune protection, as well as the amount of COVID still around," he added.

Additionally, vaccination has recently been shown to decrease risks of long COVID symptoms in all ages, Dr. Siegel pointed out. 

"This means vaccine remains a valuable tool," he said.

Last month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a few updates to its child and adolescent immunization schedule, including the addition of COVID-19 vaccines.

Attorney General Merrick Garland said Wednesday he is open to testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, after Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, subpoenaed him to appear last month.

At a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing, Rep. Ben Cline, R-Va., asked on Jordan’s behalf if Garland would ever reply to Jordan’s January request to testify.

"My chairman, Mr. Jordan, has asked me to ask you about a letter he sent back in January, asking you to appear before his committee," Cline said. "He has not gotten a response to that letter. Can I get a commitment from you to respond to him in the immediate future…?"

DOJ FIRES BACK AT JIM JORDAN OVER WRAY, GARLAND SUBPOENAS

"Of course I’m going to appear before the House Judiciary Committee," Garland replied. "I understand there are discussions about scheduling that have been going on. I don’t think there’s any problem in that respect."

"There’s been no response to the letter, so I think there’s some question about whether you would be willing to appear," Cline said. "So getting your commitment to appear is helpful."

"I am willing. More than willing," Garland said.

WHITE HOUSE PLEDGES TO WORK IN ‘GOOD FAITH’ WITH GOP AS IT INVESTIGATES DOJ TARGETING OF PARENTS

In early February, Jordan subpoenaed Garland and other Biden administration officials to testify on the government’s "misuse of federal criminal and counterterrorism resources" to target parents at school board meetings.

The Justice Department called Jordan’s subpoena "premature" and said it has offered to engage with the committee.

"We have offered to engage with the Committee and provide information voluntarily, so a subpoena is premature," wrote Carlos Felipe Uriarte, assistant attorney general for the Office of Legislative Affairs.

In today’s hearing, Garland defended the Justice Department’s memo that called for a closer look at threats of violence against school administrators. The memo was motivated in part by a National School Boards Association letter that said threats from parents might be seen as a form of domestic terrorism, and Republicans say DOJ inappropriately took a step in that direction with its memo.

DURHAM REPORT ON TRUMP RUSSIA PROBE ORIGINS SHOULD BE FINISHED ‘RELATIVELY SOON,' GARLAND SAYS

But Garland said the memo was only aimed at violent threats, not parents with complaints about how their schools are run.

"The memo was aimed at violence and threats of violence, it was not aimed at parents protesting to their school board," he said. "It was very clear in the second sentence that that is constitutionally protected. The memo was not aimed at parents in any respect, it was aimed at violence and threats of violence against school administrators and teachers."