Terror attack first aid.

[Obelix]

Why so batey Obelix?

 

Because I'm sick to death as I said of people deciding to ignore what was said, and strut their "outrage" at when they think is said in order to boast how right on they are.

[ratter71]

Because I'm sick to death as I said of people deciding to ignore what was said, and strut their "outrage" at when they think is said in order to boast how right on they are.

 

Where is the outrage, where is the "right on" boasting. I answered your concerns. You appear to be throwing your teddy out.

[Bob Arctor]

Because I'm sick to death as I said of people deciding to ignore what was said, and strut their "outrage" at when they think is said in order to boast how right on they are.

 

Didn't see any of that, sorry. You don't seem very happy lately, is everything ok?

[Cyclone]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38495234

 

Now it's all very laudable this first aid business and not one for people to ignore.

 

But then... "They say people need to know how to help each other because it could take some time before it is deemed safe for paramedics to arrive on the scene. "

 

So it's OK for joe public but not the paramedics?

 

Now I'm sorry but if you are working in the blue light services, I would expect a certain amount of risk to go with the job. Nothing is perfectly safe but are we perhaps being a bit too cautious in not asking people to go into a situation?

 

Take Derrik Bird and his little shootfest in Cumbria. How many people bled to death because they were sat for hours at the roadside whilst paramedics stood uselessly a few hundred meters away because the control desk wouldn't let them attend the incident? As I recall a lot of people get to hospital eventually by private cars.

 

So are we being a bit too cautious? Is the balance moving a bit too far to one side or not?

 

Probably someone has said this already, but it might take time for paramedics to reach people, but other members of the public are already there and can do first aid.

 

The whole initiative seems daft to me, I don't think they've made any enquiry about the level of first aid training already out there.

Practically everyone I know has some first aid training. Through hobbies, through work, through profession. I suspect that if you canvassed people on the street maybe a 3rd would already have some training.

 

---------- Post added 07-01-2017 at 09:55 ----------

 

You appear to misinterpreting what I have said.

 

But it's Sheffield forum where the synthetic outrage runs rife...

 

I interpreted it the same way...

In fact I've bolded the sentence. No, it's not "okay" for the public to go rushing in, nobody suggested it was. However if you're hiding from the gunman in a room, and you have a casualty with you, you're already there and the paramedics aren't. They can't get to you (gunman still at large), you can do first aid.

Edited January 7, 2017 by Cyclone

[Hopkins]

It may be somewhat of a side issue to the point our OP is making, but isn't 'terror attack first aid' just first aid?

If you're minus a leg, or full of holes, it doesn't really matter whether you got caught in machinery, smashed up in a car, have fallen through a plate glass window, or been bombed; the actions you need to take are the same.

Yes but if you're caught in machinery it a very unlikely to be a terrorist attack that comes with possibility of further attacks or booby traps.

The most important person at the scene is the rescuer.

[ANGELFIRE1]

Rather be a Fireman or Ambulance driver than a soldier. They help their injured in the face of death. Period.

 

Angel1.

[Hopkins]

Rather be a Fireman or Ambulance driver than a soldier. They help their injured in the face of death. Period.

 

Angel1.

 

So do soldiers, most often when under fire.