alt Hacker NewsI also had it in my 30's (and now again in my 40's) so I get it.
But there's a whole "evidence based medicine" thing that many of us usually try to champion, and it turns out the collecting such evidence is something expensive and priority-constrained. Due to lack of suitably targeted studies, there's just not formal evidence that the vaccine will be effective or lasting for us, or on what risks might apply to younger people with more robust immune systems.
There's also just a consideration about rationing the drug itself (it's seen shortages), and so prioritizing availability to more at-risk populations is not totally unreasonable.
All that said, it's not like it's impossible or illegal to get. You just need to find a prescriber who'll sign off for it (they exist), and you might need to pay cash rate for it at the pharmacy.
So, I understand this, and I absolutely support evidence-based medicine. I guess I'm at a loss as to why decades of giving this vaccine to folks 50+ is not sufficient to assess risk for people under that age, or never inspired more study into side effects. I also think that people who are 50+ are living long enough these days that we could probably make a good assessment as to how long the vaccine lasts (if we're not assessing that, I'd be kind of surprised and concerned as to why not).
Prioritizing drugs in the event of shortages is totally understandable, though pretty easily fixable if you give the manufacturers time to plan for general availability (hopefully they would see it as an opportunity to make money by broadening market share, not an opportunity to make money by restricting supply).