The author of the article, Sharon Begley, reports on a paper that questions the conventional wisdom on the issue:
What do you guys think? If you only have a certain number of vaccines, who should get first priority?
In May, scientists at the National Institutes of Health stirred things up with a paper calling into question the policy that aims to save the most lives by first vaccinating the old, the very young and the sick, putting last those who are two to 64 years of age.
The value of a life, they argued, depends on age. A 60-year-old has invested a lot (measured by education and experience) in his life, but has also reaped most of the returns. A child has minimal investment. A 20-year-old has great investment but has reaped almost none of the returns. Conclusion: To maximize investment in a life plus years of life left, 13- to 40-year-olds should have first claim on rationed vaccine, explains NIH's Ezekiel Emanuel.
This is a pretty controversial question, so I urge you to read the whole article before commenting and to keep the comments civil and well thought-out.
(Source: Greg Mankiw's Blog)