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.

Just out of curiosity Tealightsandd, which vaccine did you have and have you had both jabs?

AZ both jabs. Very grateful (but would definitely take a mRNA booster if offered).

I didn't have any major side effects (flu like for a few days after first but that's it).

Not hugely concerned for myself but I think I've had Covid already, and (touch wood) no sign of Long Covid. Others won't be so lucky.

And you?

But we don't need as much attention from the doctor as those most like to end up in fucking ICU.

This is called 'triage' and its not rocket science.

The whining doesn't make your argument more coherent.

I've had Pfizer now but I'd happily have taken any that was on offer.

Ohh woe is poor 40 year old me. Get a grip. You are in a very privileged, first world country. You got to isolate in your warm & comfortable house with plentiful food. You got two doses of a really decent vaccine. You don’t need a booster as quickly as the 50+ because you’ve more recently had the vaccine. It makes complete sense to work back down the categories. You’ll probably get one later. & even if AZ is 60% effective, that’s against hospitalisation & death. It’s far higher against getting serious disease. You’ll likely just feel naff for a few days. The Delta variant is presenting more like a cold anyway. Just get out & enjoy life.

Many of my friends had AZ. Chatting to them yesterday, none of them expected a booster. They figured boosters would revert to the flu jab list. I agree.

I would actually be less bothered if the booster list was the flu list, but given it isn't and 50+ is the magic cut off, that's what's got to me. The need is perceived to be far greater than only those in need of the flu jab.

Anyway, as already said, it's wait and see.

How long do people really think this constant cycles of vaccines for initially the elderly and vulnerable then the over 50, then the over 40 etc will go on for.

Compliance of getting appointments will go down with every run as well, my parents in their 70s have already said they aren’t going back a third time.

I think the way it's being presented is possibly the problem.

"Boosters for everyone but in order of risk and need" - would be fine, absolutely right and proper to go in that order.
"Boosters for everyone once immunity has significantly waned (and we are keeping an eye on that)" - also fine, all very sensible.
"Boosters for however many people we have doses for, which may not be everyone, in order of risk and need" - again, as above.

And I hope that is what the grown ups are planning for in the background. As opposed to the nagging sense that it's going to be too burdensome to continue vaccinating everyone and under 50s won't be able to access any vaccination going forward.

The rhetoric is - we are prioritising everyone who needs a booster. Which is not very nuanced. Gets translated as - if you're not on the list, you're not at risk. Stop whining.

I don't think it's fair to rip into people who are simply saying we would like some reassurance that it will be our turn for a booster once all the group 1-9 people have had one, and once 6 months or whatever longer period immunity lasts for has elapsed, whichever is later, and to tell us we're selfish, irrational, whining and hysterical for wanting a booster at all, cos hey, who even bothers with a flu jab under 50.

Yes, we know others are more at risk - we expect and want to wait our turn.

Yes, we know it's unlikely to kill us, even more unlikely if we're not one of those comfortingly expendable people with an "underlying condition" (which is very broad category, Group 6 it ain't).

The CFR for 40-49 is what, 0.25%, 0.4%, something like that? And 0.7%-1%ish for 50-59? Various figures floating about but we're all more way likely to survive than not.

0.25% is still, say, 1 or 2 kids at your school losing a parent or one of the teachers if it ripped through everyone. Maybe that's OK, cos it won't overwhelm the NHS and it's a small percentage. But by that logic, perhaps every one of us who gets their kids vaccinated for measles, or takes them for their MMR booster, is overreacting and shouldn't bother - measles only kills 1 or 2 in a 1000 ie 0.1-0.2%, after all.

I recognise the global social justice arguments that other countries' need is greater. These are structural issues. But I don't see our government doing much about it in case in upsets the voters. Didn't they just cut the aid budget? And those arguments don't stop us taking our kids for their MMR, despite the measles death rates in the developing world...

We aren't saying we expect to be prioritised over those older or more at risk, we aren't saying we expect to have any booster if there isn't enough to go to round and it's being rationed. We are just fed up with simplistic rhetoric that tells people we aren't at risk and don't need to be in the queue at all.

@Itsprobablynotcominghome

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

I agree. It’s uncomfortable hearing healthy 40 year olds wonder about a booster compared to other countries. As a CEV person who I assume will he offered a booster, it sits very uncomfortably with me. We are not safe until the world is safe. We are indeed doing a fantastic job with vaccinating the UK but we mustn’t forget the rest of the world.

I agree. It’s uncomfortable hearing healthy 40 year olds wonder about a booster compared to other countries. As a CEV person who I assume will he offered a booster, it sits very uncomfortably with me. We are not safe until the world is safe. We are indeed doing a fantastic job with vaccinating the UK but we mustn’t forget the rest of the world

100%. I’m in my 40’s. I would happily not have had any vaccination until those at far higher risk than me around the world were vaccinated.

"We are indeed doing a fantastic job with vaccinating the UK but we mustn’t forget the rest of the world".

This. Seems crazy that by September in the UK, a 20 year old health care admin worker with no health conditions who has had asymptomatic covid plus two doses of Pfizer will likely be prioritised for a booster while older and vulnerable people accross the world are left completely unprotected and often with no access to health care.

Well i think that depends on how healthy a 40yo you are. Maybe having mild asthma or pcos (50% of whom get t2 diabetes by 40 and are higher risk but not recognised)!
or if say you had covid back in apr 2020 with no treatment available and then couldn't breath for 3-4m. Then have insomnia, muscles twitches daily, pins and needles, brain fog. Same goes for kids vaxs as although i dont think dc1 has LC both kids did cough for 5+weeks and then a few months later now dc1 complains of issues with breathing when running. When having no issues prior to last apr. Another dc i know has had a lot of odd days off since parents had confirmed covid so it may well have caused their new digestive issues.

@HSHorror

Well i think that depends on how healthy a 40yo you are. Maybe having mild asthma or pcos (50% of whom get t2 diabetes by 40 and are higher risk but not recognised)! or if say you had covid back in apr 2020 with no treatment available and then couldn't breath for 3-4m. Then have insomnia, muscles twitches daily, pins and needles, brain fog. Same goes for kids vaxs as although i dont think dc1 has LC both kids did cough for 5+weeks and then a few months later now dc1 complains of issues with breathing when running. When having no issues prior to last apr. Another dc i know has had a lot of odd days off since parents had confirmed covid so it may well have caused their new digestive issues.

If you have asthma you are eligible for the flu jab.

This is the thing, if you are in your 40s and have health issues you are more than likely to fall under the catergorisation of being eligible due to your health.

If you don't have these health issue then you fall below the level of risk of those who are older, because age is regarded as pretty much the number 1 thing in terms of your covid risk after very specific health issues.

It comes back to risk and being lower risk.

There are very few people who will actually fall between the cracks due to the way this is being done based on your risk.

Plus everyone in this age group who hasn't worked in health or been identified as having a health risk will still be more or less within the timeframe we know about for antibodies (which may indeed be longer) and won't actually need a booster until the new year at the earliest - at which point there will be a review anyway to decide whether its needed, but they could physically give this group a booster quicker anyway (because they've been busy doing the older age groups and ones with health issues).

So unless people are suggesting that 40 - 49 year old should go ahead of those more at risk, I do not see what the issue is here apart from a chip on the shoulder or anxiety which isn't proportionate or justified.

Ultimately, the risk of death is the priority here.

Do people not understand the need for / point of prioritisation in the haze of their own selfishness or something?

And I hope that is what the grown ups are planning for in the background. As opposed to the nagging sense that it's going to be too burdensome to continue vaccinating everyone and under 50s won't be able to access any vaccination going forward.

The rhetoric is - we are prioritising everyone who needs a booster. Which is not very nuanced. Gets translated as - if you're not on the list, you're not at risk. Stop whining.

Except the very point is that the recommendation is at the moment to do the priority groups on the basis of risk with younger groups to be reviewed at a later point.

This is prudent and much more scientifically and ethnically correct.

We have the opportunity to gather more data. So thats what they are doing before making a decision.

Its the media and numpties on MN who are misreporting and misunderstanding this (largely do to the reporting).

There is not and has not been anything which says under 50s will not get a booster. Just 'no plans to give a booster at this stage'.

By the time it gets around to the possibility of vaccination clinics being free to give boosters we will have more data. If the data says actually it possibly would be harmful or pointless to give most in this age group another shot, should they just go ahead and do it???

Remember a lot of the decision making is due to the need to plan and get the infrustructure for a booster scheme rolling. Its stuff like making sure there is the staff to do it.

If younger people do need this, then you are looking at more firms decisions needing to be made in November not July. So why do it in the absence of crucial data?

Honestly I swear sometimes people on MN just like the fucking drama and desire to be outraged for absoluetely fuck all because they can't be arsed to read the details because they are too bloody lazy.

@HSHorror

Well i think that depends on how healthy a 40yo you are. Maybe having mild asthma or pcos (50% of whom get t2 diabetes by 40 and are higher risk but not recognised)! or if say you had covid back in apr 2020 with no treatment available and then couldn't breath for 3-4m. Then have insomnia, muscles twitches daily, pins and needles, brain fog. Same goes for kids vaxs as although i dont think dc1 has LC both kids did cough for 5+weeks and then a few months later now dc1 complains of issues with breathing when running. When having no issues prior to last apr. Another dc i know has had a lot of odd days off since parents had confirmed covid so it may well have caused their new digestive issues.

Interestingly, I have both PCOS and asthma. Also another auto immune condition. This puts me at a slightly higher risk, but not significantly higher. I am fine with that, I am still at a far lower risk than an 80 year old in another country with no access to vaccinations and poor healthcare provision. They can have my booster.

You’re fed up of being so statistically unlikely to suffer serious ill health that…..what? You want maximum protection ahead of those at greater risk than you?

THIS!! I can't actually believe the audacity of some people on this thread. You're whinging that you won't be getting a third dose of a vaccine that's not even available to high risk people and healthcare workers in the rest of the world, and not even expected to be until 2023!

Do yourself a massive favour and go on the University of Oxford's Qcovid site, fill out your details, and assure yourself that in the vast, vast majority of cases, you are extremely unlikely to catch covid and die.

I read some example calculations and saved them for future "dispel the hysterical" use.

At 30 with no underlying conditions, at the height of the pandemic, your risk to life was 0.0005%. At 60, 0.0108%.
At 30 with diabetes, 0.0022%
At 60 with diabetes, 0.0435%
At 80 with diabetes, 0.4031%
At 30 with asthma, 0.0005%
At 60 with asthma, 0.0091%
At 80 with asthma, 0.0846%
At 70 with diabetes, COPD, and epilepsy, risk of death at the height of the pandemic is 0.3298%.

Between the ages of 65 and 74, your risk of death in the next year in the UK is 1.5385%.

Unless you are on the list of people who are to be given a booster, you do not need a booster.

@Tealightsandd It's possible everyone who has had AZ will need a mRNA booster. Given the recent reports.

Extremely worrying if true. How exactly are they going to conclude research on long term effects of AZ if everyone who had it is jabbed again with a Pfizer less than a year later? Where is the control group for AZ? How will anyone know if adverse effects are being caused by AZ, Pfizer, or mixing them?

The first group of pregnant women who were vaccinated in their first trimester (mostly healthcare workers between December and February) are still pregnant. I can’t believe anyone who understands one of the fundamental principles of science - the importance of variables in a controlled experiment - would think wide-scale mixing and matching of different vaccine technologies is in any way sensible. If it has to be done for those who are at most risk, or suffering from anxiety, then that’s understandable. But encouraging this for everyone, regardless of risk factors, in the near future is madness.

My issue is that you don't suddenly move from high risk to low risk of covid above 50. Nor do you suddenly move from high risk of blood clots to low risk above 40. In both cases the risks will be a continuum. So yes, I do have a chip on my shoulder that for one data set I am too old and for another I am too young, particularly when in other countries this wouldn't be the case.

To repeat, I have never said 40s should be prioritised ahead of other groups so I think coming on here without adding to the conversation and just calling us selfish is baseless.

I agree there are gross global inequalities, but frankly that's a different conversation. We could say the same about vaccinating our own 20 year olds even once before the elderly in other countries.

We could say the same about vaccinating our own 20 year olds even once before the elderly in other countries

Yes we could, and I do. Regularly.

My issue is that you don't suddenly move from high risk to low risk of covid above 50. Nor do you suddenly move from high risk of blood clots to low risk above 40. In both cases the risks will be a continuum. So yes, I do have a chip on my shoulder that for one data set I am too old and for another I am too young, particularly when in other countries this wouldn't be the case.

You've made your issue clear, repeatedly, and I still think it's nonsense.

Of course you don't suddenly become more high risk when the clock strikes midnight on your 50th birthday. But you don't become suddenly able to drink responsibly at midnight on your 18th. You're not completely fit to work the day before state pension age and then absolutely needing to retire the day after.

Blanket age restrictions are just the easiest way to manage things.

I'm assuming you do actually agree with blanket age restrictions, you just want the blanket age to be 40 rather than 50? What difference is being 39 and 11 months to being 40?

You say the chip on your shoulder is about datasets, but they're two completely different datasets.

The "too old" dataset has weighed 40-49 general risks of serious disease from covid against 40-49 general risks of a rare clotting disorder from the AZ vaccine. The data said 40-49 were more at risk from covid. Do you agree with the assessment? If not, why did you go and get the vaccine?

The "too young" dataset has weighed vaccinated 40-49 risks of serious disease from covid against the pros and cons of including them in the initial booster rollout. The pros and cons likely include how that would affect every other cohort, the costs, the availability, the effectiveness of a booster, the additional risk of adverse effects from yet another jab, and presumably the impact of removing that group from the 'second' control group (the unvaccinated being the first control group).

But the key point is surely that if the cutoff for AZ blood clot risk VS unvaccinated is 40, then it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the cutoff for AZ blood clot risk VS already vaccinated could easily be 50.

It was reported on Sky News three days ago, specifically about AZ, that: Data from Public Health England show two doses of the vaccine prevent more than 90% of serious infections from the Delta variant that is currently sweeping the UK

So you want to take the risk of adverse side effects from having another vaccine to protect you against a disease that your original vaccine prevents serious infection from in over 90% of cases....

Yep. Still failing to see your issue or the need to have a chip on your shoulder over this. As has been said many times, anyone U50 who needs a booster will be given one. If you're so desperate to be included you could try chainsmoking and gaining weight.

Gosh it's a wonder there's any room at the bottom of the pile judging by how many different groups feel like that's where they are.

"Old people vote Tory " "Losing out to the baby boomers" How can you write this ?
Posters who write such things are you really saying people in their 40s who mostly have recently received their vaccine should be prioritised over the elderly and vulnerable? According to a poster you are the ones giving so much to society , by working and looking after children and elderly parents. The rest of us presumably are sitting with our feet up doing nothing. Baby boomers are working , caring for children in their roles in schools and combining this with looking after very elderly parents.
We all deserve boosters if we want/ need them and I'm sure it will be organised in much the same way it has been over the last few months. In order of need.

The old people vote Tory thing was obviously silly. It's the young (under 40s) who've been given the most effective vaccine.

Of course 40-49s are being a little done over.

AZ less effective. Particularly bearing in mind we're told AZ doesn't prevent less severe infection... So, risk of Long Covid remains.... Something women in their 40s are at increased risk of.

Very simple facts.

• Worldwide data shows risk of serious illness and death increases from 45.

Hence other countries prioritising vaccines for 40/45+.

• In the UK, it's been reported that 50+ will get boosters.

• In the UK, under 40s given the more effective mRNA vaccines.

• In the UK, 40-49s are higher risk (Long Covid included)...but given less effective vaccine AND not getting the booster.

It's obviously an issue of supply. UK government didn't order enough mRNA.

That's why, unlike most other developed countries, we're not yet vaccinating over 12s. (And it's looking like we'll have to choose between children versus giving a mRNA booster to the vulnerable).

Obvious boosters should go in order of vulnerability. So first the over 70s, frontline health and social care workers, and extremely vulnerable including cancer, heart issues, and diabetes.

But, the point is that the next stage of boosters should include 40+.

But, the point is that the next stage of boosters should include 40+.

And if the evidence shows it’s needed, and it’s possible to obtain the supplies, it will be offered.

As for the Government not ordering enough mRNA vaccines, for goodness sake, they ordered SIX different vaccines, enough doses in total to do everyone 2 or 3 times over, before they knew whether any of them worked.

They didn’t pick on the 40-49’s to get a shit deal. They spent an absolute fortune to overbuy many different vaccines, and when it transpired they all worked, they then set about administering them as quickly as they could, in order of the priority set by JCVI. They have adjusted the policy on who gets what and when in response to changing evidence. That is what they are still doing.

Hi Sajid.