This represents a very interesting public understanding of science issue.
Scientifically, the choice of who to vaccinate for the flu, in the face of tight supplies, is the person who acts as a "hub" -- who has contact with many others, and therefore more opportunity to infect. Yet, the current answer to the problem is something entirely different: vaccinate those most likely to suffer/die from the flu, the old and very young.
The choice for the latter was made by public policy based on an ethics which post author Stowe Boyd says is outdated.
But, it is an ethics the public readily understands. They don't question it because it fits their worldview. They don't have an understanding of the science of disease spread. They honestly don't care. They just want to be protected themselves, and if they can't, at least their baby/parent can.
So, in the name of status quo ethics, a bad decision is made, that, in the end, could mean more people will die. Yet, how could a politician deny the vaccine to a baby? He/she would be pilloried.
On a short time frame, such as with the vaccine problem, the decision made was probably the correct one in order to maintain calm in the populace. But, public heath officials now have a two-fold duty. First is to do the best they can to make sure supplies of needed vaccines are available. Second, they need to begin educating people about the scientifically correct way to vaccinate and prepare them for the next time, when public vaccination practices will be different.