This is caused by staffing shortages. Our hospitals thought it was a good idea to fire nurses and staff over the summer.
I wonder if the race to the bottom is inherent in free market or if there's a truly free market solution to this issue with hospital staffing.
To have a 'truly free market', there wouldn't be government licensing (a similar role would likely be carried out by third party certification).
I don't think that eliminating licensing would improve anything, but the regulation of nurse training absolutely needs to be included in the discussion of the problem.
You are seeing it happen. People do not accept current labor prices for healthcare work, politicians come under political fire for not providing sufficient level of healthcare, politicians increase funding to healthcare to increase pay, possibly requiring increasing taxes if they cannot figure out how to punt them to future generations.
Or insufficient number of voters want to direct more resources to healthcare to those that cannot afford it out of their own pocket, and they get less or lower quality healthcare. Maybe society decides it is not worth the cost of supporting people past 90, or even 80.
Total time from high school to nurse can be as low as 16 months, plus however long to get government paperwork.
https://bestaccreditedcolleges.org/articles/how-long-does-it...
A case can be made for doctors who have limited residency spots effectively capping new yearly supply, but what possible argument could there be for nurses other than nurse pay is not high enough to attract more people to nursing?
People changing bedpans get paid $10 to $15 per hour in many states, who wants to do that unless they have zero other options?
Hundreds of people applying for dozens of slots. The trainers that are training are not well compensated.
> The trainers that are training are not well compensated.
This is just another insufficient pay scenario.
And it isn't just an insufficient pay scenario. Hospitals just pass on the high cost of nursing to patients instead of subsidizing training programs. Patients don't see the supply as part of the cost problem and don't demand that more money be devoted to education.
But the root of the problem remains the disparity in people’s expectations of the services they will receive with the amount those service providers are getting paid.
A truely free market solution would be to train people specially to deal with COVID-19 cases and build a specialized hospital to deal with that. It would also bring the cost down.
Is there compelling research that shows this is actually true? There is elevated risk of heart inflammation, but in my understanding that is not an unprecedented vaccine side effect. I haven’t seen an in depth comparison to established vaccines though
As for neurological side effects, I just read this a morning this large study from uk comparing risks between the conventional platform ChadOx, the BioNTech mRNA platform, and actual coronavirus infection. The two vaccine platforms seen at least on par with each other, and both favorable to infection