There is a solid practical argument to be made that if we want to put a serious dent in the upward curve of the virus, we should prioritize vaccinations for the self-centered jackwagons who are incapable of declining an opportunity for holiday socialization.
It may seem morally indefensible to reward these halfwit elbow-rubbers with early access to the vaccine, but from a purely utilitarian standpoint, it does make sense. They’ve amply demonstrated they have neither the intelligence nor the sense of social responsibility to modify their behavior. If your only goal is to ameliorate the crisis, they should be getting the early needle.
How many of those jackwagons believe covid is a hoax or are anti-vaxxers who would have to be forcibly held down to be vaccinated (I have an image of them being fed into cattle squeeze chutes used to immobilize farm animals while they’re vaccinated).
In specific cases like these, I would not be opposed to applying a cattle brand as a tradeoff for early access to the vaccine, so others can benefit from knowing what kind of people they are.
It won’t work, though. The majority of people will generally be patient and wait their turn if the method of distribution seems fair. This would include anything up to completely random and arbitrary, but fair, distribution like drawing birthdates, I think.
But if it were expressly tied to “bad” behavior, then I think a lot of people would just figure that jumping the queue is fair game. They would either genuinely engage in the bad behavior in order to qualify, or just say that they did. I think there are multiple ways that distribution could work, but, even if it would make scientific sense, I think this idea would create more trouble than it would be worth on a practical level.
If we can identify them then we can prohibit them from getting the vaccine. They won’t mind, they don’t think they’re in danger of contracting the disease and probably wouldn’t bother to take the vaccine even if offered to them.
But that’s my point. You don’t want to prohibit them from being vaccinated, because they aren’t changing their behavior and they are contributing to superspreader events. From a standpoint of pure practicality (ethics/morals aside), vaccinating the party-hoppers will be a major factor in stabilizing society.
And to eschrodinger’s point, you can eliminate the incentive by attaching a financial penalty to it. “If you are a congenital party animal, that’s fine, you will go to the head of the line for the needle, but every time you’re caught before then, the fine is half your monthly income.”
But none has demonstrated that it prevents infection altogether, or reduces the spread of the virus in a population. This leaves open the chance that those who are vaccinated could remain susceptible to asymptomatic infection — and could transmit that infection to others who remain vulnerable. “In the worst-case scenario, you have people walking around feeling fine, but shedding virus everywhere,” says virologist Stephen Griffin at the University of Leeds, UK.
And then promptly fine them and throw them in jail for having to waste a dose. That money goes straight into vaccine distribution and they won’t be spreading the virus in jail because they’re vaccinated. Win-win!
They’d have to be jailed for at least 3 or 4 weeks, depending on which vaccine they get, to ensure that the second dose is administered, too. Because you know they’ll think one is enough or that they shouldn’t have to take any.
Arrest 'em, vaccinate them, jail them, give them the second dose, then let them go after charging them for food, shelter, and all the other things keeping them in jail costs.
As has been pointed out on other threads, this article just notes that we just have NO DATA YET on how well the vaccines prevent transmission from vaccinated people. And therefore, for the time being, people who are vaccinated should continue to wear masks and follow social distancing guidelines.
But this is only because data on transmission from vaccinated people data are difficult data to obtain from trials. A priori, since we know that the vaccines induce a robust immune response, we have every reason to think that they will reduce transmission as well as reduce disease. We just don’t have proof yet.
As has been noted, we know these vaccinations have >90% efficacy in preventing disease. But we have no data on how well they prevent transmission from the person being vaccinated. It’s unlikely that we will find that there is no reduction in transmission, but it could easily be a much smaller number than 90%.
In any event, a significant portion of the benefit from vaccination accrues to the person being vaccinated, not to society at large.
I don’t know if the OP is meant seriously or not, but the serious answer is that we should be punishing irresponsible behavior, not rewarding it.
So we’re “rewarding” old people by targeting them for early vaccination? I don’t see what needs explaining. Vaccine rollout is planned to curb deaths, not reward people.
My OP is not a completely serious suggestion, mostly because it would never fly. But it is worth thinking about that basic underlying assumption: If your goal is a broad improvement in public health, then your most effective target is the cohort of selfish assholes who are making things worse for everyone else.