I'm not really proposing a solution, I'm just in agreement that we should consider multiple factors when we do deploy the vaccine.
I think just deploying the vaccine and encouraging people to take it would work fine imo. It's a strategy that is not controversial and would fix 99% of the problem.
In one way paying for giving the vaccine makes sense, on the other I'm not sure it's needed or that it'd be seen in a favoritable light (there's already a lot of controversy about how the pandemic was handled economically).
EDIT: to backup why I don't think it's needed; I haven't found the study from the article you linked, but according to https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-00451-5 about 70% of people need to be immune. I don't think that's a hard number to get (but I may be wrong), but assuming there is some immunity when you get the virus (which seems supported), you don't need to vaccinate 70%, you need 70% either vacicnated or having already gotten the virus (which is 10% of the population as of now). I understand it's not insanely supported take, but that's why from curosry look I don't think it's needed. Not a firm belief though.
There's already going to be a big PR campaign to encourage people to have the vaccine.
Do you want to delay it and do more trials?
Actually I did hear one good idea which was to pay people $1000 to get vaccinated. In economic terms, its a bargain.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaharziv/2020/12/01/proposal-p...