drrich2
Contributor
I would have preferred that the old and vulnerable people in Indonesia would have received the vaccines before the young and healthy working in tourism would have gotten the shots.
That reminds me of the approach taken in the U.S.; priority was given to the elderly on the grounds they were most vulnerable, and health care workers - on the grounds they were high risk for exposure, engaged in essential occupations and in a position to transmit it to others, including vulnerable people. But then other people engaged in occupations deemed essential were also prioritized.
Unfortunately in many countries the people do not have access to the mRNA vaccines. Anyway, until there are more peer reviewed studies it is much safer if everybody assume they can still be infected and transmit.
From a strict infectious disease standpoint, that is true. But is it safest economically for a society that needs to get money coming in? Yes, a resurgence of some vaccine-bypassing variant is a potential economic risk, but how long can large sections of economies be put on hold waiting for the situation to look 'safe enough' to suit everybody?
I don't pretend to have the answers to these hard questions. In my mind, I see a cartoonist's picture of a bunch of destitute people sitting around a shanty town, dated 2023, and one guy says to the next 'Well, at least COVID-19 didn't get us.' But you could follow up with tomb stones in a graveyard in the background, with a thought balloon from one grave saying 'Well, good for you, buddy!'