In much of the developed world, vaccine orders are soaring into the billions of doses, coronavirus cases are easing and economies are poised to roar back to life. In many less developed nations, though, the virus is raging on, while vaccinations are far too slow to protect even the most vulnerable.
The problems go well beyond the availability of vaccines to deep-seated logistical problems and vaccine hesitancy.
The stuttering global rollout is having calamitous consequences. Unvaccinated nations are being walloped by the virus. New variants could emerge in reservoirs of untamed infections, prolonging the pandemic for rich and poor nations alike.
This is an excerpt from the NYTimes article, and I'm having difficulty understanding the meaning and usage of "to" marked in bold.
To me it sounds like 1) the availability of vaccines 2) deep-seated logistical problems 3) vaccine hesistancy are all different, separate issues. But I'm probably missing something here because 1) and 2) is liked with "to" and 2) and 3) is linked with "and", which I guess would mean the right way to structure this sentence is
"the problems go well beyond [1) & 2)] and [3)]."
but then I don't know how to understand "the availability of vaccines to deep-seated logistical problems" especially because "to" has so many different meanings. Can anyone explain to me the grammatical role of "to" here and the meaning of the entire sentence it's included? Thank you in advance.
