> But the question is not "whether they will accomplish great things," but rather, "whether they will make the best use of the limited care we can provide." Ma

> But the question is not "whether they will accomplish great things," but rather, "whether they will make the best use of the limited care we can provide." Maybe I'm being dense, but I don't see how these aren't the same thing. What does it mean to make the best use of medical care then? I was assuming best use meant something like return on investment of resources (which is certainly a cold way to look at human lives, but I don't know how else to read that). I can think of a couple potential metrics there - years lived after, "value" added to society - but I don't see how vaccine status could be reasonably expected to predict those metrics. I'm also taking your word that we choose transplant patients this way, since I have no knowledge there. Reading about it a little, it sounds like its not so cut and dry. Are we really disqualifying these people because they have specific conditions, or are we doing it because of some metric like years lived after or odds of the procedure working?