• As some of you are bound to know, a reccomndation for how vaccines should be spread through the US (at least I believe it was just for the US) if a deadly pandemic of bird flu broke out. This then brings up the question of how would you ration a limited supply to the world? I'll link to the article in a bit if I remember.
  
  --------------------
  
  Here are the circumstances. These are not real, but if they were and you were the only world leader with vaccines, how would you distribute it?
  
  You have enough vaccine for 15% of the world population.
  You must decide who to give the vaccine to and in what order of importance.
  Will you distribute it to the rest of the world? If so, what countries might you give it to?
  
  Assume that the disease is present in all 6 major habitated continents. Assume that there is a 30-40% death rate for those in good health and ages 12-65. Also, there would be a death rate of 70% for those ages 0-11 and 65+. One more thing. Your budget is NOT unlimited.
  
  I would hope that everyone's first choice would be something like medical workers for they would be the ones giving out the vaccine. If you find any other variables, then please point them out to me.
  
  
  Please, give answers that aren't idiotic like saying that you'd only vaccinate your family or something like that. I might post my list if someone asks.

There is an option that stands out at me at first glance. Healthy doctors and physicians aged 12-65 would probably be the most important in a dangerous and chaotic situation. I would select his group of people if the world was in eminent danger.

However, If the disease was not spreading as fast as in my above situation, healthy political leaders aged 12-65 would be of the utmost priority.

These people ARE the ones who sort out the next actions in chaotic situations like these. Without them, how would doctors distribute vaccinations? They would be unable to decide which group of people to give them out to.

Although this seems like a valid decision, what are the ethical issues with choosing solely this group of people?

Surely the elderly and the children are of major importance?

Only the governent can decide whether or not they are the most important in a situation like this.

This isn't really relevant unless we were genuinely talking bird flu, but I find it interesting so I'll write it up anyway.

In the previous flu pandemics (this is the one around wartime, it might have been swine flu, but no I think it started in chickens...) those most at risk were able-bodied people in their prime.

Why? Because the bird flu virus has a protein coating that enables it to penetrate cells deep, deep in the lungs which would usually remain unaffected in normal flu. When the cell releases the new viruses to the original's orders and infects other cells, so much that the immune system is prompted into action, it overreacts and starts to kill off all those cells. Even uninfected ones. Healthy young people have the strongest immune systems, they suffer the most inflamation, the most burst capillaries... their lungs fill up with blood faster to drown on.

x__x Or so the channel four programme on it a while back said. Scary stuff.

The group most at risk are the ones that would be doing the re-populating after the bug's taken it's toll -- I would vaccinate them. Though that doesn't fit in with your scheme of things.

it is a hard choice.

Medical professionals who would be giving out the vacine should be first, as well as a team of researchers to try to find other solutions to the problems as well.

Next i would give it to families with children, mother/father/lifeparter (what ever) and their kids. After making sure that families were safe, because children are important to the growth of the population again, just saving adults to re-popualte isn't really a smart idea.

After that I would save (and this sounds like noah's ark) at least one to 2 people in each of the major service industires - electrical, power, sewre... there would be no one left to actually work on keeping the people alive if they were not saved.

The elderly, and alot of single adults would most likly be scarificed for the more healthy younger population... I know it sounds mean, but if they have a greater chance for living they have a better chance of surving the epedimic. Cancer pacients, termanaly ill pacients, those with incurable deseases would probably be scarificed as well. They are not less important but if a person would be dying in the next year whay use the vacnination that could save a child who could live for another 80+ years?

God, hard choice to make. I suppose the first people you'd give it to are the ones you're most likely to need around - the medical professionals and probably the police and other security workers, along with the scientists producing the vaccine and researching other t
methods of containing the disease.
Beyond those, however, if there's any left, it's hard to say who's most important. Should people with families be favoured over those without? Which jobs are considered most vital? It's tricky.
Almost inevitably, the rich would get their hands on a stash, and I imagine everyone in government (at least the higher echelons) would get given some as well.

Ah well. As the 1918 bird flu pandemic showed, enough people would survive to keep things going without too much damage to society in general. That's not to say things would be at all pleasant, and a lot of people would die, but things would carry on much as normal after the disease had passed.

All NATO leaders, (Most)Medical workers, (some)scientists, (some) Military, (some)Engineers, (Some)Teachers, (Some) working class, and then everyone who will pay for it.
Mainly limiting the countries to NATO. This way Humanity doesn't back slide as easily.