Yes, your definition of justice and theirs is different. You think it is a bullshit PC word, but it is a concept validated with quantitative data, explained in their commentary at various points. They've just used one word which triggered people, so I gave you the actual meaning of it; it relates to the wider effects of this specific pandemic. Those things have been distributed unequally, and there's correlations between the historial medical inequities and the current non-medical inequities of this particular pandemic, which demonstrably apply to some groups more than others. The data on that front is really straightforward.
And conclusively their analysis does not say that non-medical reasons take precedence over medical reasons. They've said that on the "science" side of things, both groups are on essentially an even footing, so the other factors then help decide how to split them. The reason for that is because minimising harm is not a binary choice, what you think is the right medical priority and what others - experts - think is the right medical priority is different. That is not PC gone mad that is a normal part of evaluating compliated situations with imperfect evidence and a variety of fast-moving external factors that influence the forecasting.
It's all good to disagree with their opinion but no it doesn't fit into that little box that the Twitter commentator would like it to.
