I think we're talking slightly at cross purposes though, aren't we?
I fully understand that logic and that argument, and in many respects think it makes more sense than our approach. If you can be that granular with the logistics, and I guess the Pfizer temp reqs might make that hard, it sounds sensible.
But, if, the limiting factor is, as we're told it is, the manufacture of the vaccines themselves then it stands to reason you're going to use up the most of the one you are using the most of which, given the demographics of the priority groups getting vaccinated, would be Pfizer if it was resolved for 65+ – assuming a 50/50 split, I think in reality we may have more AZ but I don't know where I heard that.
At that point surely you're left with a choice which is sub-optimal of either rolling AZ out to groups we don't have much data for or leaving 65+ unvaccinated whilst vaccinating younger people at which point, does the reality of the pot luck approach really look substantially different? If you're over 65 your chances of getting AZ or Pfizer just become a question of when you get your letter, rather than what they happen to have on the day when you turn up.
Either way, it seems stupid to use Pfizer on people <65 when the date from AZ is more robust there, and maybe I'm too caught up in the hypothetical of running out of Pfizer when we don't really know what our limits are.