Hospital exec says employees are walking off the job

My intuition is on the money vs happiness curve, the first derivative is always positive unless “your spending it wrong”. The second derivative might be positive for lower values of money but probably has negative values that might highlight a diminishing returns effect.

I should have qualified in my parent post that it assumes all else being equal.

Posting prices online is infeasible because the system has been structured such that the price is different for everyone, depending not only on which health insurance company they use, if any, but also on which of that particular company's plans they have. And it's ever-shifting. Maintaining an online price sheet that is even accurate, let alone navigable, would only be feasible for large corporate entities, so expecting something like that to happen would only further advantage the oligarchy and undermine what remains of the free market in this sector.

But what you can absolutely do is call and ask. Assuming you have the time to do so, of course. Urgent care does have a distressing tendency to be urgent.

And it is wise to do so when you can. For a really pedestrian example, it's worth asking your pharmacist about the retail price of a drug before paying. If the retail price is lower than your prescription plan's copay - something that happens quite often - then there's no sense putting it on your insurance. And no, I don't think it's the pharmacist's job to keep track of that. The elephant in the room in this discussion is that American culture already does way too much shitting on service industry workers. We need less of that, not more.

There's nothing more useless than a person who does nothing but point out "logical fallacies" instead of thinking critically about an issue. That's you.

Your link is missing vital information.

From [1] page 13:

> Efficacy is being assessed throughout a participant’s follow-up in the study through surveillance for potential cases of COVID-19. If, at any time, a participant develops acute respiratory illness, an illness visit occurs. Assessments for illness visits include a nasal (midturbinate) swab, which is tested at a central laboratory using a reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test (e.g., Cepheid; FDA authorized under EUA), or other sufficiently validated nucleic acid amplification-based test (NAAT), to detect SARS-CoV-2.

So, if you didn't present symptoms of an acute respiratory infection, you weren't PCR tested in the trial. Since we know that the vast majority of PCR positive tests come from asymptomatic and very mild cases, this trial can't be used to draw any conclusions about it's ability to prevent infection.

Here's another interesting bit from page 42:

> Among 3410 total cases of suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group. Suspected COVID-19 cases that occurred within 7 days after any vaccination were 409 in the vaccine group vs. 287 in the placebo group. It is possible that the imbalance in suspected COVID-19 cases occurring in the 7 days postvaccination represents vaccine reactogenicity with symptoms that overlap with those of COVID-19. Overall though, these data do not raise a concern that protocol-specified reporting of suspected, but unconfirmed COVID-19 cases could have masked clinically significant adverse events that would not have otherwise been detected

The document doesn't outline what 'suspected' cases are.

Here is the paragraph that specific states data is limited around transmission (page 48):

> Vaccine effectiveness against transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Data are limited to assess the effect of the vaccine against transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from individuals who are infected despite vaccination. Demonstrated high efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 may translate to overall prevention of transmission in populations with high enough vaccine uptake, though it is possible that if efficacy against asymptomatic infection were lower than efficacy against symptomatic infection, asymptomatic cases in combination with reduced mask-wearing and social distancing could result in significant continued transmission. Additional evaluations including data from clinical trials and from vaccine use post-authorization will be needed to assess the effect of the vaccine in preventing virus shedding and transmission, in particular in individuals with asymptomatic infection.

Now, this is if you take the studies at face value, which I don't. We know Pfizer and the FDA are full of frauds and grifters.

1: https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download

Yes, lets also de-prioritize people with STDs, paedophiles, violent criminals, etc...