With the limited initial availability of COVID-19 vaccines in the first months of 2021, decision-makers had to determine the order in which different groups were prioritized. Our aim was to find out what normative approaches to the allocation of scarce preventive resources were embedded in the national COVID-19 vaccination schedules. We systematically reviewed and compared prioritization regulations in 27 members of the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Israel. We differentiated between two types of priority categories: groups that have increased infection fatality rate (IFR) compared to the average for the general population and groups chosen because their members experience increased risk of being infected (ROI). Our findings show a clear trend: all researched schedules prioritized criteria referring to IFR (being over 65 years old and coexisting health conditions) over the ROI criteria (eg occupation and housing conditions). This is surprising since, in the context of treatment, it is common and justifiable to adopt different allocation principles (eg introducing a saving more life-year approach or prioritizing younger patients). We discuss how utilitarian, prioritarian, and egalitarian principles can be applied to interpret normative differences between the allocation of curative and preventive interventions.

中文翻译：

---

欧洲 COVID-19 疫苗接种计划中的价值选择：疫苗接种优先顺序与其他形式的优先顺序设置有何不同。

由于 2021 年头几个月 COVID-19 疫苗的初始供应有限，决策者必须确定不同群体的优先顺序。我们的目标是找出在国家 COVID-19 疫苗接种计划中嵌入了哪些用于分配稀缺预防资源的规范方法。我们系统地审查和比较了欧盟、英国和以色列的 27 个成员国的优先级规定。我们区分了两种类型的优先类别：与普通人群的平均水平相比感染死亡率 (IFR) 增加的群体，以及因为其成员的感染风险增加 (ROI) 而选择的群体。我们的研究结果显示了一个明显的趋势：所有研究的时间表都优先考虑 IFR（超过 65 岁和并存的健康状况）的标准，而不是 ROI 标准（例如职业和住房条件）。这是令人惊讶的，因为在治疗的背景下，采用不同的分配原则是常见且合理的（例如引入挽救更多生命年的方法或优先考虑年轻患者）。我们讨论了如何应用功利主义、优先主义和平等主义原则来解释治疗性干预措施和预防性干预措施分配之间的规范差异。采用不同的分配原则是常见且合理的（例如引入挽救更多生命年的方法或优先考虑年轻患者）。我们讨论了如何应用功利主义、优先主义和平等主义原则来解释治疗性干预措施和预防性干预措施分配之间的规范差异。采用不同的分配原则是常见且合理的（例如引入挽救更多生命年的方法或优先考虑年轻患者）。我们讨论了如何应用功利主义、优先主义和平等主义原则来解释治疗性干预措施和预防性干预措施分配之间的规范差异。