So "vaccinating people who are the most likely to get sick" is the only option supported by the evidence. Or preferably vaccinate people most likely to become moderately to severey ill, or die.
At this time we should not be "vaccinating people who are the most likely to spread the virus". We don't know if approved vaccines will help with this.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210203-why-vaccinated-p...
I think this is an oversimplification. We are living in our rooms because we choose to; many who don't work in retail that could be living in their rooms are not, and are voluntarily engaging in 1000s of exposures per day. If those people are young and not in healthcare (mostly true), such potential superspreaders are not priorities for vaccination due to this convoluted priority system.
1. Vaccinating people who are the most likely to get sick
2. Vaccinating people who are the most likely to spread the virus
Option 1 makes the death and hospitalization rates fall quicker, so that anyone we miss is more likely to still have a hospital bed to get treated in. Option 2 reduces the total number of people exposed to the virus.
The whole point of vaccination is to keep people from having to go to the hospital or dying - protecting the weakest first achieves that better than random vaccinations. Someone like me who basically lives in his room and works remotely can afford to wait for shots - someone who works in retail and has 1000s of exposures per day needs their shots yesterday.