40-somethings fucked again (no booster)

[HJ40]

Too old for Pfizer, too young for a booster. Yet again feeling like we're bottom of the pile.

Not having a flu jab is your choice. I have one every year (through my employer but I'd happily pay in Boots), I don't have time to get sick if I can possibly help it! Would also rather not run the risk of long Covid if avoidable.

40 something 3rd booster vs Octogenarian on ZERO doses in a poor country.

@MarshaBradyo

I’ve just had second this will be long after first people vaccinated

Why would we need it so soon again?

Because buying up vaccines and shoving them in peoples arms is the only thing this government can do well.

[quote HJ40]@MarshaBradyo The BBC news article which pp have quoted talks of current available data showing that vaccines are thought to protect people from serious illness for at least six months. [/quote]
Ok thanks but as in pp this is just the data we have, likely to last longer

I think using six months as any indication isn’t correct atm because it’s at least

I've been reading the replies and thank you for those who have given measured replies and additional data.

I'm a little more reassured now that things will continue to be reviewed.

To be clear, not that I ever said it, I do not think we should be prioritised ahead of another group. Certainly not.

But as the group that was the last to have AZ en masse and the first not to be included for a booster in the first round, my gut reaction to the news headlines still stands that we are falling in a gap. Hopefully a gap that won't last too long.

I had my first jab March an second in may, so on the over 50s timeframe despite being 40s, so selfishly I hope they do it by the order people got vaccinated or I'm a bit exposed potentially !!

I agree though that the vaccines should last longer than 6 months, the older groups are slightly different as the vaccines may not work as well on them , so a booster is important. Under 70s may not even need for much longer so no need to worry.

I'd like to see kids given it before me tbh just to end the madness

@MarshaBradyo That's a very fair point that they only have six months of data. The reason it concerned me was adding that on top of the news that a booster is needed for winter, plus that 50+etc groups are being targeted due to the timings of their 1st & 2nd left me thinking that surely anyone who'd had their second within six months of winter should have a booster.

(Sorry I've explained that terribly, hope you can follow)

People seem to think the protection only lasts 6 months. This isn’t correct... they have just only got 6 months of data to work from. The expectation is that protection lasts far longer.

THIS

Plus, there is absoluetely no point in making a decision on under 50 pre-Christmas because there is no way they can get us done before then anyway.

The reason they are saying they are going to to this for the over 50s and vulnerable, now is because they need to start the planning on this.

This gives them more time to look at the data and decide what to do for younger age groups and assess if protection is lasting longer (which it may do, but we have no data to demonstrate this).

They HAVE to start moving forward for the oldest groups because the danger is that older groups are more likely to have shorter immunity, and if it is time limited the last thing they want is for the immunity of the over 80s to start timing out in November with no plan in place.

This is still 'crisis management' decision making.

The under 50s because we are into a longer time frame, fall more into medium term planning and decision making, because they can kick the tin can on the decision down the road by some months.

They are not completely ruling out boosters for under 50s. Its just that they willl still be covered over most of the winter as they will have had their second jabs in June / July (or later) AND the system will be busy giving all the older / more vulnerable groups their booster over the Autumn anyway.

Honestly, THINK about this.

Its not a slight or over sight for anyone.

Its just cold hard practical realities of time and how long it takes to vaccinate people.

This is just madness! Why do you need a booster?! Are you vulnerable (no because if you were you would be getting one) so why are you desperate to have a third vaccine in the space of a year? Do you feel this hard done by when you don’t qualify for a free flu vaccine? Honestly with this and the talk of vaccinating children I feel like the world has gone mad!

Don't meant to derail but do we think boosters will bring side effects again? Second jab didn't but I didn't enjoy the day after the first ...

As a carer I've never been offered a flu jab but perhaps that's my crap GP.

@olivethegreat

I had my first jab March an second in may, so on the over 50s timeframe despite being 40s, so selfishly I hope they do it by the order people got vaccinated or I'm a bit exposed potentially !!

The data will start coming through in late autumn on this.

If they start to suspect that there is a time limit on this and under 50s are at risk, they will start to push through the first vaccinated under 50s.

The thing is, they don't have to make this decision yet and they can afford to wait for the data for a while longer.

The issue really lies with the pressing need to make a decision on the most vulnerable groups now, in the absence of this data because they will only have limited information before they need to make that decision.

Again this comes down to crisis v medium/long term planning and how we are effectively at the cusp of moving from one to the other (and thus are in a bit of a no mans land between the two right now).

Totally agree @Katie517 thank god for some common sense! The fact is that as per official guidance the majority will be fine so if you catch covid you are likely to be ok and gave natural immunity which seems conveniently forgotten . The risk of an experimental vaccine to travel or because it’s due the greater good when you can still transmit . And as for them saying because it reduces the symptoms then it’s reduces transmissions well why the narrative on asymptomatic transmission

WHY are people STILL seeing data that is only 6 months old & going ‘oh shit, vaccines only last 6 months’ .. THEY DONT KNOW. We need real world data. We will continue to study an anti-body response past 6 months and let us all know probably around the 12 month mark.. bearing in mind AZ got going in what late Jan, early Feb? They’ll also need to look to see if immunity wains, does it do so differently in different ages. There’s so much to still investigate as time goes on!

This is bizarre logic. Under 50s are not a priority for a booster because they’re more recently vaccinated so don’t need a boost. You don’t need to feel envious of younger people like me. Studies showed that a significant number (24%) of people with my disease died due to Covid.
I feel incredibly fortunate to have been vaccinated. It is a privilege and people should show some gratitude.

Considering that this time last year we didn't even have any kind of vaccine available to the public and that worldwide there are more people unvaccinated than vaccinated, I'd say it's not the worst position to be in: in your 40s with 2 vaccinations under your belt come winter time. Which would still offer substantial protection at that stage.
I know it can feel frustrating but you will not be in a bad position really.
One thing you could consider perhaps is to book the flu vaccine. If it is effective, then at least your body will have one less infection to fight from scratch in a potential scenario.

Maybe irrelevant if we (well anyone with kids) catches it the next few weeks or before xmas.

Also a early 40 with kids in primary and 75+ parents...
Most of the parents are at least 35yo.

AZ for delta was only 60% effective against symptoms.
(Which probably contributes to uk (and india) having so many cases comparatively. )
Also if the next variant has the SA changes.

40yo women have highest Lc risk. And that of asthmatics is higher too

Australian data now shows the highest rate of blood clots is in the 40-49 year olds, so we were shafted there too. (MHRA data gives 40-49 as highest number of deaths but steadfastly refuses to report incidence rates by age, I wonder why?)

You're NOT wrong.

Going a bit off topic, it's not just with Covid actually.

The 40-49 age group is often overlooked, ignored, or done over.

An example is the earlier Help to Buy ISAs. Meant to help first time buyers, yet restricted to under 40s. (Despite the retirement age rising, so a 20-25 year mortgage should be available to 40 somethings).

@Tealightsandd

Going a bit off topic, it's not just with Covid actually.

The 40-49 age group is often overlooked, ignored, or done over.

An example is the earlier Help to Buy ISAs. Meant to help first time buyers, yet restricted to under 40s. (Despite the retirement age rising, so a 20-25 year mortgage should be available to 40 somethings).

Ofgs.

If you are in the 40 - 49 year old age group you had a much better chance of getting on the housing ladder without needing schemes like Help to Buy which were brought try and mitigate the problems which were particular to those younger age groups.

There is a line in the sand which roughly falls at those now 39 and under due to when the 2008 crash occured which affected long term employment opportunities and earning potential which had a knock on to home ownership.

The idea that we were somehow hard done by is bullshit.

Jesus. I am starting to think that 40 - 49 year olds have some kid of
'middle sibling' jealously complex and are just fucking desparate to get special attention.

Honestly, some of these comments whinging really are just bloody desparate 'arguments' (and I put that in inverted commas for good bloody reason).

Just wondering (aged 54 and having had 2 Pfizer jabs), what vaccines might be on offer for my third dose? Not sure I fancy having an AZ now TBH, although I would have been very happy with it when I had my first jab back in feb.

you are in the 40 - 49 year old age group you had a much better chance of getting on the housing ladder without needing schemes like Help to Buy which were brought try and mitigate the problems which were particular to those younger age groups.

Except that not everybody has the same life opportunities or experiences. Unexpected illness, family issues domestic abuse, disability.

It's not as if there's the alternative of social housing available anymore.

Why the problem with over 40s having the same taxpayer funded support with accessing stable housing?

And when it comes to Covid, there's the very real issue of increased risk. From 45 for hospitalisation or death, and from 40 for Long Covid (particularly for women).

Other countries did their first phase vaccinations from 40 or 45. For a reason. It was about level of risk.

And now there's the recent news that AZ products much lower antibodies against Delta than the mRNA. It's entirely reasonable for a group (40-49) who are at higher risk to want a mRNA booster.

It actually seems arrange that others seem so angry about a perfectly reasonable concern. If we're going to use analogies, it's like an older sibling needs an operation and the younger one is jealous that their sibling is getting 'attention' from a doctor.

When the AZ blood clot news was big, when the guidance changed, 40-49s were told they shouldn't wait for Pfizer or Moderna... because, unlike under 40s, their risk from Covid was higher.

Lower risk under 40s are getting the possibly better protection of mRNA vaccines. But higher risk over 40s are unreasonable for wanting a mRNA booster? No. It's completely understandable why they'd want it.