Question: What do we know about fair allocation of resources in countries with COVID-19

Answer passage (source: WHO):
page_title: Q&A: Ethics and COVID-19: resource allocation and priority setting
section_headers: What conclusions can we draw about the fair allocation of scarce resources within countries during the COVID-19 outbreak?
section_content: 
Health care workers (caring for patients) and first responders can justifiably be prioritized when allocating some resources because of their contribution to the health and well-being of the community. Their health helps preserve the health of others.
Participants of research aimed at developing vaccines, therapies or other critical resources should receive some priority in receiving those resources because they have also helped save others by their participation. This is not an absolute priority – for example, it should not take precedence over giving priority to those most at risk in the case of resources such as vaccines.
While the principle of first come, first served is often applied when allocating resources in health care settings, it is rarely appropriate in an emergency. In practice, it is very likely to favour certain groups, such as those closest to a distribution centre, those with access to better information, or those who are most well-off.
Younger populations appear to be at lower risk in the COVID-19 context. Consequently, the principle of youngest first should have low priority for vaccine, but perhaps may have more weight if they do become sick and need critical care resources.
The allocation of different resources may find ethical justification in different principles or values. For instance, if a novel vaccine is found to be safe and effective, a lottery-based allocation may be justified among those as highest risk, the old and those with co-morbidities, if they outnumber available vaccines.
Maximizing utility should be balanced with the principle of priority to the worst-off: centralizing the availability of resources in larger centres may extend their benefits to more people, but may exclude isolated populations and challenge our concern for those at highest risk.


Reviewer feedback on this answer:
Resource allocation is being referred to in terms of the U.S. in general and the populations therein as well as their locations but there is no mention of other countries or how they are handling resource allocation.
This information isn't bad.  I don't really see how it addresses the issue as it relates to other countries though.

Reviewer ratings:
Could be Improved
Acceptable

Answer passage (source: WHO):
page_title: Q&A: Ethics and COVID-19: resource allocation and priority setting
section_headers: How should decision-makers make considered ethical judgements about these matters, given the likelihood that there will not be enough of a resource? Who should be involved in decision-making on scarce resources?
section_content: For most decisions, multiple ethical values and principles will be relevant to
deliberations about how to allocate resources. This is likely to generate some
disagreement, because different people may weigh the values differently. Some
may prioritize equality while others might put more emphasis on best outcomes
or prioritization of the worst-off. For this reason, it is imperative that the
different values be weighed and applied to specific allocation issues using a
fair process.
A fair process for allocating scarce resources must promote certain ethical
values:

Transparency. In a transparent process, the decisions and their justifications should be made public. This means that the population should be informed about the criteria guiding the decisions.
Inclusiveness. Those affected by allocation decisions – including individuals, communities or countries – should be able to exert at least some influence over the decision-making process as well as the decision itself. This also means that decisions 4 should be open to challenge and potentially revisable, perhaps through an appeal process. 
Consistency. Decisions should be consistent so that all persons in the same categories are treated in the same way. This means that favouritism towards one’s own family, religious or political compatriots, or otherwise, is not appropriate. All forms of corruption that are at variance with this principle should be challenged and condemned. 
Accountability. Those making decisions about allocation must be accountable for those decisions – that is, they should justify their decisions and be held responsible for them. A fair process means that allocation decisions should not be made by individuals, by individual pharmaceutical companies, or, in the case of allocation between countries, by a single country. Resources such as vaccines and therapies should not be stockpiled outside the system of fair allocation.

The fair allocation of resources is one that is valuable in itself precisely
because it is fair. However, it may also be valuable because a fair system
engenders solidarity and trust, which are vital to the successful and
sustained collective response necessary for dealing effectively with any
outbreak.

Reviewer feedback on this answer:
No mention is made regarding what is happening in other countries that have COVID-19 but there is a detailed list that CDC has provided in regards to the U.S. Assuming the U.S. didn't have any shortages one would have to imagine that donations would be made to less fortunate countries but it is impossible to know since they are not mentioned here.
This answer is good.  The first sentence in the paragraph is starting to address the allocation of the resources asked in the question.

Reviewer ratings:
Could be Improved
Excellent

Answer passage (source: WHO):
page_title: Q&A: Ethics and COVID-19: resource allocation and priority setting
section_headers: Can I adapt previous frameworks for pandemic influenza to guide resource allocation for COVID-19?
section_content: Many ethical frameworks have been produced for resource allocation, some of
which have been included in pandemic plans. Those frameworks provide useful
guidance in the current scenario. Yet, when applying them, we must take into
account the type of health care resource, the context, and the stage of the
pandemic. That is, while the ethical principles that apply to resource
allocation might be the same in different pandemics, they can lead to
different decisions, given contextual circumstances. For example, this
pandemic appears to significantly impact older adults (those 60 years of age
or older), and such characteristics are relevant to shaping priorities for the
allocation of resources during COVID-19. As a result, it may be inappropriate
to use critical care triage guidelines that have age cut-offs that
deprioritize or exclude those aged over 60 years.
When applying ethical guidelines for resource allocation, we should consider
the extent to which resources are overwhelmed in the current context. It would
be inappropriate, for instance, to exclude population groups from being
allocated a resource (for example, ventilators) at the outset of a pandemic
when capacity remains. When resources are scarce, though – when there is an
insufficient supply to meet everyone’s needs – resource allocation should be
guided by well established, broadly applicable ethical principles, unless
there are characteristics of the outbreak that justify different courses of
action. Irrelevant characteristics of populations within countries, such as
ethnicity, race or creed, should play no role in any resource allocation in
any pandemic. This reflects our commitment to treating people with equal
respect.

Reviewer feedback on this answer:
Answer concerns itself more with resource allocation on the basis of the types of patients and refers to "ethical principles" but all of these would really only apply within the U.S. itself and there is no mention of other countries.
This seems like a good answer.  It goes into depth explaining the ethical allocation of resources.

Reviewer ratings:
Could be Improved
Excellent