You can view the rubric here: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2020-11/COVID-04-Dooling.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetin

You can view the rubric here: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2020-11/COVID-04-Dooling.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-... Key slides: 23, Population-Wide Averted Deaths: Targetting the elderly over essential workers averts up to 6.5% additional deaths (~12% compared to ~5%). This accounts for network effects. That's hundreds of deaths per day. 31, ethics scoring rubric: diversity concerns net the essential worker approach two additional points over the elderly approach, not one as you claimed. 33, overall rubric: the elderly approach was favored until ethics was considered, where, driven by diversity concerns, the essential worker approach was granted 3 overall points as opposed to 1 for the elderly approach. And the craziest thing is, at no point in the rubric is "fewer people will die" considered a pro on the part of the elderly-first approach. Preventing deaths has been the goal from the very beginning. This abrupt switch from "we have to save as many lives as possible" to "who cares about total deaths?" is exactly the kind of "progressive" political advocacy that you denied existed at the very beginning of this thread. For the record, I'm on the side of "save as many lives as possible" and have been since the very beginning.