mycrofft
Still crazy but elsewhere
- 11,322
- 49
- 48
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/22/local/la-me-ems-response-20131223
Yes, they're talking about taking steps to remove casualities out under fire or from "warm zones" near but not under fire (notice no concrete steps outlined),buit there is another aspect here, and I quote:
The new imperative, experts say, is to reach those with life-threatening wounds quickly, stem their bleeding and get them to trauma centers as fast as possible.
"They need a surgeon," said Battalion Chief Jeff Adams of the Orange County Fire Authority, which has rewritten procedures and retrained hundreds of rescuers in revised emergency response tactics being championed by the Obama administration.
Recommendations issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in September call for fire department medics, working with police, to enter "warm zones" — areas near active shooters where a threat might exist — before the attackers have been fully contained."
This "increasing menace" is based on 250 people shot and killed, in public by strangers in so-called "mass shootings" nationwide over a 15 year period, or about 17 a year; very close to the number killed by snakebites in such a time frame. 29 shootings are identified.
That means , in rounded terms, eight and a fraction killed per incident, slightly over 16 killed a year in nearly two shootings a year, nationwide.
In the LAX instance, the victim took 12 rounds from a "high powered rifle" (a Smith and Wesson .223 M&P) in the chest and abdomen and there was a 15 minute delay (per the LA Times) between police being notified and responding; they removed him in a wheelchair.
My take: a politically/publicity motivated vague response in the case where the victim was beyond help once the trigger was pulled.
And once more a case where, had the victim not been destroyed at once, most on-scene measures (as for most abdominal and thoracic hits by big velocity hunting or war rounds) would be of a nature to keep the victim alive in the short run because it requires a surgeon to save** these lives. Maybe a good case for grab and treat on the go?
*Mass shootings since 1999 in the USA:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/14/1337221/a-timeline-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us-since-columbine/
**Let's make a distinction between keeping a pt alive, or "maintaining" them, and saving lives, meaning definitive treatment.
Yes, they're talking about taking steps to remove casualities out under fire or from "warm zones" near but not under fire (notice no concrete steps outlined),buit there is another aspect here, and I quote:
The new imperative, experts say, is to reach those with life-threatening wounds quickly, stem their bleeding and get them to trauma centers as fast as possible.
"They need a surgeon," said Battalion Chief Jeff Adams of the Orange County Fire Authority, which has rewritten procedures and retrained hundreds of rescuers in revised emergency response tactics being championed by the Obama administration.
Recommendations issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in September call for fire department medics, working with police, to enter "warm zones" — areas near active shooters where a threat might exist — before the attackers have been fully contained."
This "increasing menace" is based on 250 people shot and killed, in public by strangers in so-called "mass shootings" nationwide over a 15 year period, or about 17 a year; very close to the number killed by snakebites in such a time frame. 29 shootings are identified.
That means , in rounded terms, eight and a fraction killed per incident, slightly over 16 killed a year in nearly two shootings a year, nationwide.
In the LAX instance, the victim took 12 rounds from a "high powered rifle" (a Smith and Wesson .223 M&P) in the chest and abdomen and there was a 15 minute delay (per the LA Times) between police being notified and responding; they removed him in a wheelchair.
My take: a politically/publicity motivated vague response in the case where the victim was beyond help once the trigger was pulled.
And once more a case where, had the victim not been destroyed at once, most on-scene measures (as for most abdominal and thoracic hits by big velocity hunting or war rounds) would be of a nature to keep the victim alive in the short run because it requires a surgeon to save** these lives. Maybe a good case for grab and treat on the go?
*Mass shootings since 1999 in the USA:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/14/1337221/a-timeline-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us-since-columbine/
**Let's make a distinction between keeping a pt alive, or "maintaining" them, and saving lives, meaning definitive treatment.
h34r