The framework is interesting in that it doesn't prioritize per se. It actually identifies factors, both ethical and epidemiological, that one would want to consider at the time of a pandemic as to whether or not certain groups would be included in the priority list. From that standpoint we've talked about the epidemiology, those who are most affected by the disease, but also those who are taking care of people. Clearly, health care workers, people with direct contact with patients who are providing patient care, would be high on the list. You want to maintain at least that care component. You don't want to be turning people away at the emergency rooms.
The interesting thing from the firefighter perspective is whether you consider them first responders or part of the basic societal infrastructure. Depending on the jurisdiction and their responsibilities, they could be considered both.
Again, it's a matter of balancing, in this case what the Public Health Network was doing. Where was most of the burden of disease occurring as compared to who was perhaps most likely to get ill? That was an important distinction, and it's why all jurisdictions then identified pregnant women, people in remote and isolated communities, young children, who we were seeing had a lot of serious diseases. Then there was that flexibility to adapt to some of the other groups as they saw them on the ground in the jurisdiction.