3 ms·

I agree. However it's not possible: she's a pharmacist and because of the flu they're both really busy and low staffed. As long as she can just about handle it

• foresterh 7y ago
  Seems like pharmacists, who are constantly in contact with sick people, should be the first to not work if they're sick.
• ryan_j_naughton 7y ago
  Pharmacists clearly seem like a huge potential vector for disease transmission. The pharmacy itself should have policies preventing sick employees from attending work and have generous paid sick leave. We could reduce disease transmission and thus social cost dramatically if we reduced transmission in medical contexts (e.g. hospitals are one of the main places people GET sick -- from other patients). It would ultimately save money if there was overstaffing requirements and stringent no sick staff allowed in any medical context. The problem is that cost reduction is at a societal level while individual firms don't have the incentive to do this. But socialized healthcare systems should be able to solve this easily.
  • radicalbyte 7y ago
    They do have generous sick leave, that's why there are so many people ill at the moment. Sure they could have more staff, but someone has to pay for that. In her situation her staffing levels are above the norms used by Den Haag (we put patient service above profit). I really wish that the situation could be better but unfortunately the huge cuts made since the financial crisis have made that impossible. Doctors have the same problem.