The problem complexity of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) has been raised in the distribution of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, which required solid and robust MCDM methods. Compared with other MCDM methods, the fuzzy-weighted zero-inconsistency (FWZIC) method and fuzzy decision by opinion score method (FDOSM) have demonstrated their solidity in solving different MCDM challenges. However, the fuzzy sets used in these methods have neglected the refusal concept and limited the restrictions on their constants. To end this, considering the advantage of the T-spherical fuzzy sets (T-SFSs) in handling the uncertainty in the data and obtaining information with more degree of freedom, this study has extended FWZIC and FDOSM methods into the T-SFSs environment (called T-SFWZIC and T-SFDOSM) to be used in the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines. The methodology was formulated on the basis of decision matrix adoption and development phases. The first phase described the adopted decision matrix used in the COVID-19 vaccine distribution. The second phase presented the sequential formulation steps of T-SFWZIC used for weighting the distribution criteria followed by T-SFDOSM utilised for prioritising the vaccine recipients. Results revealed the following: (1) T-SFWZIC effectively weighted the vaccine distribution criteria based on several parameters including T = 2, T = 4, T = 6, T = 8, and T = 10. Amongst all parameters, the age criterion received the highest weight, whereas the geographic locations severity criterion has the lowest weight. (2) According to the T parameters, a considerable variance has occurred on the vaccine recipient orders, indicating that the existence of T values affected the vaccine distribution. (3) In the individual context of T-SFDOSM, no unique prioritisation was observed based on the obtained opinions of each expert. (4) The group context of T-SFDOSM used in the prioritisation of vaccine recipients was considered the final distribution result as it unified the differences found in an individual context. The evaluation was performed based on systematic ranking assessment and sensitivity analysis. This evaluation showed that the prioritisation results based on each T parameter were subject to a systematic ranking that is supported by high correlation results over all discussed scenarios of changing criteria weights values.