Etats-Unis : l’agence fédérale de santé décide que les plus de 65 ans ne seront pas prioritaires pour le vaccin, car les vieux sont disproportionnellement plus blancs, et les prioriser serait donc raciste

This is based on the slide pack below.

This takes for granted that healthcare workers will be first-in-line. The question is whether the next group should be other essential workers, the over-65s or adults with high-risk conditions.https://t.co/r9QDsMZt5E

— David Algonquin (@surplustakes) December 17, 2020

First, Science.

The authors rely on modelling of the deaths prevented by prioritising each of the three groups, for both a "disease-blocking" and an "infection-blocking" vaccine scenario.

— David Algonquin (@surplustakes) December 17, 2020

Despite this, the authors conclude that the "Differences among 3 strategies is minimal" (sic). Each strategy is thus awarded 3 out of 3 marks.

Implementation is considered easier for the elderly than the other two groups, resulting in the scores below: pic.twitter.com/DpQwiu72Rd

— David Algonquin (@surplustakes) December 17, 2020

Other considerations that seem important are:

i) adults with high-risk medical conditions must have been diagnosed which implies that they have access to healthcare (which counts against them)
ii) essential workers are unable to work from home

— David Algonquin (@surplustakes) December 17, 2020

This is translated to a mark of 1/3 in the overall assessment, meaning that Essential Workers pip the elderly to the post by one mark.

What drama! pic.twitter.com/ZPGJaax3Hc

— David Algonquin (@surplustakes) December 17, 2020

This seems to me a clearly wrong decision and is out of line with what the UK, for example, is doing.

I am also sceptical of the modelling results given the vastly greater risks faced by the elderly (the below graph showing this is also from the report). pic.twitter.com/uKcMqvOVnt

— David Algonquin (@surplustakes) December 17, 2020