Sure and here is a
more balanced analysis which suggests that my larger point stands. The entire ethical lens they're using just seems subjective (or even unscientific). From a public health perspective surely the primary goal of a vaccination rollout should be to save the most lives (like the UK's policy) and not to promote justice?
There are two key variables within the ethical criteria: general health inequities and the wider effects of this specific pandemic. They are quantifiable and based on very reliable evidence. It's not just a bunch of people's opinions.
In any case ethics, which includes subjective evaluations, is an absolutely fundamental part of science. A history of unethical practices that have helped create those inequities is largely based around subjective decisions. To remove the ethical lens would be unscientific. They've just made it explicit in a different way.
How you weigh up those criteria and decide on the priorities is to some degree subjective, not just the ethical criteria but the other two. That's the nature of working with limited evidence on an urgent timescale with variable objectives.
The primary goal should be to minimise harm. Even exclusively from a medical perspective that requires your own evaluation of harm. Minimising death therefore means you are not minimising the spread which exposes potentially more people to more harm. You have to make judgments about what those knock on effects will be. We don't actually have a concrete answer to that, just estimates based on a set of assumptions and limited assessments, including the effect the vaccines will have.
There is debate over who to vaccinate first in the UK too, btw. Which involves that same component of what is fair and appropriate, with different views and displeasure about the current set of choices from one side.
In other words, characterising that as PC gone made is a bit silly. Yes you can criticise the decisions, but tarring it with that label is a bullshit politicisation of the process.