I give up, you're moving the goalposts - and you clearly did not read fully the articles, which do discuss that there is peer-reviewed research, informed by experience with previous vaccines. It was not a perfect decision - it was a somewhat risky one, which subsequently seems to have proven out, but was definitely targetted at maximizing public health benefits.France is not a good example in termes of vaccination, but I pointed the fact how it's easy to get your second dose in France, regardless of how the campaign is efficient or not. Let's forget France, and let's compare US with Canada. You might argue that Pfizer is produced in States, fair enough, let's compare Canada with Mongolia/Israel/ UAE.
Being fully vaccinated is, obvisouly, a better strategy, especially for elderly. Canada didn't start its vaccination campaign earlier. Why ?
"subsequent studies have mostly shown it was the right decision" : it's not about the numbers, but about the reproducibility and if it's peer reviewed -even though it has been criticized for many reasons; there's a long discussion in the epistemology books.
My point was: you asked why Canada is not prioritizing second shots. A child with an ipad could find the answer to that. It was a deliberate decision. (And the right one). Not to mention - you brought up France, not me - and then throwing in more countries, my claim was not "rah Canada", nor that Canada has outperformed all other countries, but "your specific criticism here is dumb."
As I noted - lots of things to criticise; Canada did start late; etc. Some strategic decisions - like buying a lot of all the potential vaccines, as opposed to buying very large orders of the Pfizer vaccine (like USA), were arguably better strategies ex ante - but the USA 'bet' on Pfizer paid off (for reasons like manufacturing that probably couldn't have been foreseen). Lots of other factors that I'd criticise, too - just some examples; Canada's performance in covid (all levels of government together) may be better than some other countries, but overall far too many failings.
But if you have to change the terms of your criticism (because, hint, uninformed and unaware), that points to just bad faith. I'm sure there's a parking-lot preacher happy to argue theology with you - not interested.