Public health tends to take the view that access to antibiotics is already too high, not too low.

Not in the example given there.

It is, it's preferable to have no antibiotics than not enough antibiotics. This only creates resistant strains and doesn't heal people.

Is it preferable to have none or enough?

Enough is obviously good, there's plenty of stuff where you need antibiotics to heal. Enough can be bad if abused, since some doctors overprescribe antibiotics for cases where it's not warranted, e.g. a cold. Most colds are viral in any case, so all you're doing is weakening the patient even more. Aside from that there may be severe side-effects, so it's best only to use antibiotics if you know you have a bacterial issue that can be solved with them.

None is preferable to partial treatments, since a partial treatment will create resistant strains and not much else.

Working as an infectious disease epidemiologist in global health, that’s not the take.

The inappropriate use of antibiotics is too high, and simultaneously there are very real issues of access.

Vaccines are sometimes very effective. But against "over 200 known types of strep A, distinguished by their unique M proteins"?

Has there been a vaccine like that?

There’s lots of multi-valent vaccines, the HPV vaccine being a good example. There’s also potential non-M protein targets.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41541-023-00609-x