Are there any fallacies in this internet meme?

“IF THIS WAS A REAL PANDEMIC THEY WOULDN’T BE FIRING EXPERIENCED HEALTHCARE WORKERS FOR THEIR REFUSAL TO TAKE THE JAB.” 

This appears to be an unsupported claim rather than an argument. If it were fitted into an argument, we might have a false premise or at least a premise that is unsupported.

p1. In real pandemics, every single healthcare worker would take the vaccine created to end the pandemic.

p2. Every single healthcare worker is not taking the vaccine.

C. Therefore, this isn't a real pandemic.

This isn't an argument; the claim needs buttressing though. It's suggesting that, if the pandemic were such an emergency, then the healthcare system would need all the help it can get - and you certainly don't start by firing essential, experienced workers for refusing get vaccinated when you need all the help you can get...

...or do you? Well, you might, if you consider those workers to be a risk to the patients they're caring for. While vaccination isn't perfect, it's demonstrably cut transmission rates (yes, including the Super Mega Death variants the media talks about, even if by considerably less) as well as reducing hospitalisation and fatalities. If frontline workers choose not to take a vaccine, they're more likely to spread infection to others. Thus, it makes sense to drop people who are presenting this risk to patients.

That is, from one point of view. But as the above entails, the statement requires support.