> But no, this is someone suggesting celebrities and billionaires should be the first people we protect. I don't think that's what it's saying though. It's say

> But no, this is someone suggesting celebrities and billionaires should be the first people we protect. I don't think that's what it's saying though. It's saying by allocating ~500k vaccines (or as few as ~100k), we can raise $50 billion dollars, and show people that other "influential" people see the vaccine not only as safe, but as something that should be sought after. In the grand scheme of things, that represents a very small portion of the total supply, and hence I'd argue the upside ($50B + more people getting the vaccine) would be worth it.