In the UK the JCVI say this:
"For the development of advice relating to COVID-19 vaccination from autumn 2025, JCVI has resumed the use of a standard cost-effectiveness assessment, in line with other routine vaccinations in the national immunisation programme and the JCVI code of practice. The advice is based on modelling of the impact and cost-effectiveness of vaccination where clinical outcomes are stratified by age, high-risk clinical disease groups and patients with immunosuppression."
"The use of cost-effectiveness is a key pillar in the consideration of immunisation programmes, ensuring that the substantial investments in the programmes are a good use of public money, and that those funds would not be better spent on other healthcare interventions. This has led to a more refined approach to the targeting of the COVID-19 immunisation programme, with a focus on individuals where there is good evidence of a high risk of hospitalisation and/or mortality."
As I understand it, the costs of covid they take into account, as well as mortality, are limited to immediate NHS/social care ones only like the costs of hospitalisation. That's why we're getting a reduced programme this year.
The costs to individuals or to society of workers needing lots of time off work or of people leaving the workforce due to long covid, heart attacks, strokes and so on (higher risks after covid) aren't in there at all as far as I can see. Possibly it's just too hard to model.
In any case, in no sense is their decision a sign that the JCVI think the rest of us wouldn't benefit from the vaccine - it's just that they think short-term cost savings to the NHS by us having it won't be enough to outweigh the price, so the NHS won't be paying for it.