During 2020, Coronavirus (COVID) has been spread across the world, with more than 47 million confirmed cases in 190 countries and about 1.2 million deaths. More recently, the virus is surging in many regions and countries that had apparent success in suppressing initial outbreaks are also seeing infections rise again. Since the vast majority of people are still vulnerable to a coronavirus infection, an effective COVID vaccine, alongside better treatments, is the exit strategy that can bring our lives to get back to normal, and prevent more people from dying. Vaccines safely teach our bodies to fight the infection. This can either stop us catching coronavirus in the first place or at least make Covid less deadly. However, it is understandable that, at the early stage, there will not be enough vaccine available to the general public. Thus, experts are calling on the Federal Government to release details of how it intends to distribute approved COVID-19 vaccines across the country, saying Australians deserve information about who is likely to get the drug first. Health, ethics and economics experts are advising governments around the world on how to fairly distribute a COVID-19 vaccine. There are tricky decisions to be made. Even if you know you will eventually have enough supply of the drug to cover everyone, how do you roll it out to 25 million people across a country as large as Australia in a fair and equitable way? For example, should prison populations receive the vaccine first? They're a vulnerable group, if an outbreak happened in a prison, it would probably lead to a high rate of death, but the community may be resistant to that. Among people with co-morbidities, who should receive priority? People with diabetes or people with a heart condition? For example, some experts suggest that the top tier should included those most essential in sustaining the ongoing COVID-19 response, including healthcare workers, and those at greatest risk of severe illness and death and their caregivers However, some scientists have provided a differing opinion, saying those more likely to be "super spreaders" should be a priority. After taking care of essential workers, vaccinations should be given to the biggest transmitters of the virus mostly the young and only then to the most vulnerable. There is also advice to the government recommended that for "patients with similar prognoses, equality should be operationalised by random allocation" and that means a lottery. When there is not enough supply to vaccinate everyone at the same priority level at the same time, a lottery system can be used to determine who gets the drug. The lottery suggestion is also in sharp contrast to the priority COVID tests observed widely in the US. For example, the US National Basketball Association (NBA) and its personnel have been considered Priority 1 on COVID tests (average turnarounds of one day), compared to 4-6 day average turnarounds on COVID-19 tests for populations that do not fall into the "Priority 1" group. That normal group includes hospital patients, pre-operative patients in acute care settings and symptomatic healthcare workers. Questions: 1. According to utilitarianism, who should be put into the priority group? 2. From the perspective of justice and fairness, who should be put into the priority group? 3. According to utilitarianism, should people who contribute to making life enjoyable, such as entertainers and NBA athletes, be put into the priority group based on utilitarianism? Based on the perspective of justice and fairness, should they be put into the the priority group? 4. Suppose you are the boss of the firm manufacturing the COVID vaccine, would you ensure that all your employees were inoculated first, or would you recommend that they wait in line