Either way, the elderly have already lived their life, isn't it better to focus on the younger people when a choice must be made?
[edit] also, do things for whom? To what end if not to build experience?
In other words I'm saying that's a silly analogy
Worshipping youth in its ignorance and speed while discarding the wisdom of elders is called fascism. The right question would be what can civilization hope to achieve besides a reversion to barbarism and "Lord of the Flies" if it doesn't hold its oldest, most vulnerable and most wise members, and their experience, in the highest regard?
The young have always been proud and disposable. And if they don't die young, they get old. Then maybe they have something more interesting to say.
You're putting the wrong lens on this. My argument is that we are to deliberately harm the young to possibly protect the old and ill (which in this case isn't so as the vaccines don't guarantee prevention), rather than leaving them alone in the hope of protecting the old and ill as-is. Not 'let the old die for the young.'