> But my impression is this decision has been too hard to defend, since it would necessarily mean more deaths in risk groups while the vaccination campaign is o

> But my impression is this decision has been too hard to defend, since it would necessarily mean more deaths in risk groups while the vaccination campaign is ongoing. You may be right about their motivation, but it does not follow that it would necessarily increase deaths in high-risk groups. To become infected you must first be both susceptible and exposed. I think there was a clear argument for reserving vaccine doses for high-risk groups when those populations were totally naive to the virus. At this point, though, the marginal returns on the population susceptible-exposed product (i.e. infections) are so low, focusing on targeting the most likely community spreaders--regardless of age or individual risk profile--might have an even greater impact on mortality in high-risk groups. Vaccinating yourself lowers your susceptibility to infection. Vaccinating others lowers your probability of exposure to the virus. It's not super clear exactly where the best trade-off lies, but I think at this point we need to focus on reducing incidence in the entire community.