>if they're relatively low-skilled and straightforwardly replaceable
narrator: "they aren't".
narrator: "they aren't".
My argument might be more subtle than my comment makes it seem; if so, that's my fault, because I wrote downthread as well and probably assumed people read both comments. A very large cohort of the workers in a regional health chain are not medical professionals, but rather support staff. Those are the employees that I'm saying are relatively low-skilled and replaceable. What's more, our current economic conditions make it straightforward for them to hop to other jobs right now.
What you're saying seems pretty unlikely, given the demographics of vaccination.
This claim was always implausible on its face, but having so adamantly claimed this, public health does not now get to claim that huge numbers of workers can be trivially hired and trained within a few weeks. If that actually is the case then the justification for lockdowns evaporates.
Which is only putting more stress on the ones who stayed, and it's getting to where they are getting burnt out, having gone through a year and a half of COVID and now taking to the slack due to the shortages.
No telling what's going to happen when the vaccine mandate kicks in next month for most of the nurses.
The normal overnight staffing where my wife works is usually one doctor, 3-mid levels and 6 nurses.
They've been down to one doctor and 1-2 nurses for most of the last month.
What makes you more qualified than the people who actually have professional education, training, and experience in running a hospital?