Worst case scenario

[Laurentius]

Amen!

Was really only Walt hunting.

Out


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh and here was I about to tell you how I got out alive when Charlie shot down my Huey back in Nam, with only a box of matches and a piece of chewing gum

Very clever those VC not at all easy to shoot down a helicopter with a box of matches and piece of chewing gum.

 

[Tonyuk]

Granular hemo is gone, its a pad and wadding now, much better.

Tonyuk

 

[MountainGoat]

Granular hemo is gone, its a pad and wadding now, much better.

Tonyuk

Of course.

I'm still curious on our enthusiastic poster's thoughts on the stuff, though.

 

[Greg]

MountainGoat...what are your thoughts on the Heamostat Granules?

 

[MountainGoat]

MountainGoat...what are your thoughts on the Heamostat Granules?

I was hoping our enthusiastic friend would reply first. But, to answer your question:

We were given a promotional video RE the granules, but the demo was on a pig that had all but bled out i.e. blood flow was minimal. In a real-life situation the granules are washed out of the wound.

Forces also not keen to use them due to the fact that the granules generally blow about the place. There was an incident once where the granules became airborne, and what was a one-man situation became a 5-man situation, as 4 others had granules in their eyes (all 4 required hospital treatment). Very nasty stuff.

There's more can be said RE granular haemostats, but that'll do for now.

 

[santaman2000]

No-one has mentioned the psychological aspect of terrorist attacks/mass casualty situations.....

1st you'd have to believe such ideas as PTSD are real rather than just a cop-out.

 

[ScarletPimpernel]

Ambulances take time to arrive in situations where every second counts.

That's true, and in the case of terrorist attacks the police (who have primacy), must first ensure that the area is safe before allowing ambulance staff to treat patients. This may mean some delay in reaching patients, but last thing that's needed is emergency service personnel being taken out by a secondary device (either remotely initiated, or a second attacker); 'come-ons' have been standard terrorist tactics for years. Anyone who can self-evacuate would be instructed to do so at this point. So the few minutes it takes for ambulances to arrive on scene don't really have a significant effect on survival rates.

I specialise in Wilderness First Aid and Ship Board First Aid. I'm trained in techniques that make me self reliant and frankly even where I live I can't count on Nanny State. It makes me perhaps a-typical in response to this kind of scenario. I'm not going to evacuate past a kid with their legs blown off. The police can order me out but until then I'd fight tooth and nail to keep them alive.

I am not sure if you are virtue-signalling, or really believe that some wilderness/boaty first aid makes you immune to the psychological effects of being caught up in a critical incident. But in my experience the people who are over-confident in their abilities to manage in critical incidents are the ones who subsequently struggle more with the inevitable psychological reaction. A number of very experienced emergency service personnel involved in recent major incidents have spoken of feeling overwhelmed - this is a normal reaction.

I think you place too much faith in the ability of our services to react.

1 Ambulance per casualty, 100 Ambulances required in Manchester. Tick Tock!

Your statement about the number of ambulances required in Manchester is incorrect as to fact. Indeed, you seem to be taking a very simplistic view of the medical response. It isn't just a case of putting people into ambulances and taking them off to hospital. The ambulance service can deploy a range of assets to meet the need.

North West Ambulance Service deployed 60 ambulances - plus HART and a number of doctors, senior paramedics and officers. They conveyed 59 patients to a number of different hospitals based upon clinical need and the need to prevent hospitals being overwhelmed. A similar number of patients were treated on scene. Some of the most seriously injured patients will have required significant clinical input involving more than one ambulance crew (for the same reason, ambulance EOCs usually dispatch more than one asset to some situations such as cardiac arrest). Some of these patients will have been treated on scene for some time before they were stable enough to transport; again, just getting large numbers of vehicles to the scene is not really relevant. Some patients needed one ambulance, some more than one, and some needed none at all. I have no doubt at all that if people were simply loaded into ambulances and taken to hospital, more would have died.

Whilst all this was going on, NWAS also maintained full emergency cover in their AOR and transported patients who were discharged from hospital to free up beds. They used their existing plans to utilise CFRs, voluntary aid societies and other ambulance trusts do this. There are plans for dealing with major incidents, and these are robust and sophisticated.


What do you think could have been done differently in Manchester, why, and how do you think it would have changed the outcome?

 

[ScarletPimpernel]

1st you'd have to believe such ideas as PTSD are real rather than just a cop-out.

Do you think they aren't?

Do you think that the DSM V, ICD, and all the scientific research and clinical evidence is wrong?

 

[santaman2000]

Do you think they aren't?

Do you think that the DSM V, ICD, and all the scientific research and clinical evidence is wrong?

I believe (from personal observation) that most cases are nothing more than a slacker trying to qualify for a disability. As for the "researchers" they depend on grants for their jobs; keeping the belief alive is job security.

 

[Countryman]

So to summarise

One of you teaches First Aid to civilians who you firmly believe likely incapable of rendering effective aid. Ignoring the fact that first responders, paramedics etc are just civilians and that some notable action taken by passers by were just civilians too.

There is no point in a civilian carrying or training with specialised medical kit such as CATs and Israeli Dressings.

Being an army trained medic however uniquely qualifies you to render first aid in a stressful situation.

Your experience of haemostats is limited to ineffectively using granules on an exanguinated pig

Clearly my lack of response this thread is due to my adverse reaction to the hyperarousal of your comments. I am in awe of the voracity of your arguments. Accordingly I will stop all personal development in First Aid, Refuse to teach it anymore and consider myself incapable of being useful in any stressful situation even the boaty stuff 1000 miles from other help.

I'm the arrogant one!!!!!

Clap, clap, clap.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MountainGoat]

I believe (from personal observation) that most cases are nothing more than a slacker trying to qualify for a disability.

Interesting. I'll let my mate with PTSD know he's a slacker.

Even though he doesn't claim or has ever tried to claim a benefit.

I assume from your 'personal observation' you haven't actually been involved in a high-stress situation such as a theatre of war, or have much experience of people with bits hanging off?

This thread is serving to show the lack of experience and sheer lack of knowledge of certain posters who believe they are in the right.

 

[MountainGoat]

Your experience of haemostats is limited to ineffectively using granules on an exanguinated pig

If I knew you struggled to read, I would have made my point far clearer for you.

Again, you are twisting to suit your own agenda.

I didn't say I had no experience with it.

You still haven't contributed anything useful RE the very example you raised.


I also don't know where I - or others on the same page as I - have said first aid training/experience is useless.

 

[ScarletPimpernel]

I believe (from personal observation) that most cases are nothing more than a slacker trying to qualify for a disability. As for the "researchers" they depend on grants for their jobs; keeping the belief alive is job security.

That's an interesting view; I think it's entirely wrong. There's no doubt that some people feign illnesses of various sorts for there own purposes, and I've come across a few. I don't know one person who's been properly diagnosed with PTSD (or any mental health disorder) who's chosen to be that way, or who wouldn't revert to being well again in an instant.

Why do you think that the people with PTSD who take their own lives do it? You can't claim benefits when you're dead.

 

[Countryman]

Nor will I. I should have joined the army so I could be as cool as you guys.

I am not worthy to share forum space with you clearly.

Thank you for your service.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KenThis]

I believe (from personal observation) that most cases are nothing more than a slacker trying to qualify for a disability. As for the "researchers" they depend on grants for their jobs; keeping the belief alive is job security.

I worked as a clerical assistant in a hospital for a doctor specialising in PTSD in service personnel. I saw a number of his patients with PTSD. These were all men of action, they were men who had spent a large proportion of their lives training for combat, who had been in combat and had seen things happen that their minds were having trouble dealing with. These were not men looking for a handout, trying to qualify for disability or slacking. These were men who had given a huge amount to their country already and were having trouble dealing with what they went through after the fact. To a man they didn't want money, they just wanted help with dealing with issues that would otherwise destroy relationships with their loved ones. PTSD or being 'Shell-Shocked' has been known about and recognised for 100 years since the first world war.
I personally find what you've said to be deeply offensive.
Your attitude to mental ill health is one of the main reasons that (where I live at least) the biggest killer of young men is suicide.
I suffer with depression, anxiety, agoraphobia and autism, and I do mean SUFFER. Do you believe I have actual mental health issues or am I just a slacker looking for disability as well?
As for your anti-intellectualism stance of researchers in PTSD, many of the researchers in mental health including PTSD I met had personal reasons for wanting to work in a particular field. Most scientific research is ludicrously underpaid, the majority of researchers being so qualified that they could walk into a number of other fields and double their salary. To think they'd perpetuate fraud for research grants is so ridiculous it's almost sickening.

 

[ScarletPimpernel]

Clap, clap, clap.

Sarcasm is usually the last resort of the witless.

What a shame you can't be civil and have a reasoned debate.

I'm interested in why you think you are so much more mentally resilient than people who are specially trained, or who deal with trauma day in and day out; and why you have little faith in the emergency services' ability to respond to major incidents.

 

[ScarletPimpernel]

PTSD or being 'Shell-Shocked' has been known about and recognised for 100 years since the first world war.

There are historical references to the symptoms of PTSD going back much further. It was, at one time, known as 'Soldier's Heart'. Shell Shock was the WW1 name, then came 'Lack of Moral Fibre (LMF)', now shown to have been invented as a way of using shame and guilt to keep bomber crews flying.

Suicide is indeed the biggest cause of death amongst 25-45 males in UK, and the second biggest in the 16-24 range (the biggest for them is RTCs). Interestingly, suicide rates amongst males over 64 is showing an upward trend.

I won't criticise Santaman2000 for his views, though I think they are wholly incorrect. Although it's getting better, there is still a great deal of stigma and discrimination around poor mental health. You can see someone with a broken leg, for example, and so it's easy to understand, whilst someone experiencing poor mental health may have no visible signs. There is still a great deal that's not well understood. There are so many factors that affect mental health, from neurobiology to genetics, social factors and life events.

In terms of PTSD, it's generally seen as something that affects military personnel, but in fact the prevalence is about the same amongst civilians. It's the individual's perception of an incident that makes the difference. It can affect anyone - so there but for the Grace of God, etc. And there are people who pretend to have it; it's almost become the acceptable face of poor mental health. I'm certainly aware of people who have tried to garner sympathy from others by saying they have PTSD, and some who use it to try to excuse bad behaviour. These people can rarely convince professionals, however, and it's usually quite simple to catch them out.

The idea that there is some sort of enormous conspiracy involving all the world's mental health professionals and researchers is, however, risible. An unshakeable belief in something that is patently untrue is a delusion, and delusions are a symptom of psychotic illnesses - unless, of course, they don't exist either . . .

 

[Leshy]

What on earth is going on in this forum these days...???!!

It seems like this thread and the knife carry thread are bringing out the worse in people...
Geeeeezus .
Enough already.
Bring back Janne and chill the hello out!



Bacon !
let's talk bacon ...
Surely we can all agree how we all love bacon ....and how bacon makes the world go round and how campfire bacon tastes better than "home cooked" bacon.

( Toddy , please don't .... We know you don't like the stuff...)

Morale of the story, worse case scenario we run out of bacon.....

 

[Greg]

Cheers...only asked because when I was in the forces we never had it but a mate brought some back from Afghanistan and showed me it...I havent seen it since.

 

[Greg]

I agree...Bacon is awesome..lol :You_Rock_