The plan is developed more generically. I think Dr. Spika highlighted that it provides the framework to make the decision on prioritization, but it doesn't spell out which groups will be first, second, and third. You have to wait until you see it unfold and gather the evidence. Most of us who have access to a public health lab had the results in the morning from the testing that was being done the day before. We were able to keep a rolling tally. We were sharing that information across the country. People in Nova Scotia knew what was going on in Alberta, and vice versa, on an almost real-time basis. That was quite a feat and can only get better as we improve our information systems. Then the decisions are made.
If we had found out, for example, that as in 1918-19 the greatest mortality was in young adults, people 20 to 35 years old, the prioritization would have been quite different from what we ended up doing. We saw that pregnant women were getting very seriously ill, very young children were ending up in the ICU, and first nations people were being affected disproportionately, as we saw in the news. The final list was prepared using the framework, but with an outcome that might have been different had it been a different virus or a different pattern of illness.