3 ms·

The EMTs aren't going to sit around, they are going to be performing first aid and calling the fire station for additional assistance. Do we really need to incu

by netfire 11y ago

The EMTs aren't going to sit around, they are going to be performing first aid and calling the fire station for additional assistance. Do we really need to incur such additional cost on the odd chance that first responders will need to carry someone the weight of a sumo wrestler down stairs and that whoever is calling 911 won't be able to give them a physical description of the victim.

tsotha 11y ago
>The EMTs aren't going to sit around, they are going to be performing first aid and calling the fire station for additional assistance. Right... and it's going to take that guy an extra five minutes to get to the hospital. They can't depend on what people tell them on the 911 call. The average person is completely unreliable under stress.
- netfire 11y ago
  You've got to draw the line somewhere. There's always situations where having more people/resources would have made the difference between life and death. In an ideal world, you've have a fire station on every block, dedicated traffic lanes just for emergency vehicles and you'd use a helicopter to get someone to the hospital as quickly as possible when it might be slightly quicker than regular ambulance transit. It just not reasonable to use that many resources in 1 in a million scenarios like you are mentioning (where a 1-2 police officers and 2 EMTs couldn't handle the situation, the person calling couldn't provide enough information to determine whether fire fighters were needed and making it to the hospital 5 minutes sooner would have made a significant difference in the outcome of the victim) Per the article, only 1.5% of the incidents the SFFD responded to involved fires and they had a budget of 330 million dollars. How much money could be saved by using police and EMTs in those situations? (and used in more effective programs that are actually going to help the homeless get off the street).
  - tsotha 11y ago
    I'm not sure you'd actually save much money even if you could get by with EMTs. You still need a certain number of firemen on duty in case you actually have a fire, and it's not like you don't have to pay firemen while they wait for one. Labor costs dwarf everything else for that kind of service.
    - netfire 11y ago
      It would be interesting to see a cost breakdown of the police, EMT and fire department labor, transit and equipment costs too see the potential savings (or lack thereof). Given that the SFFD is only responding 1.5% of the time to fire-related incidents, you could probably reduce the number of fire department stations, trucks and employees considerably if they only responded to fire-related emergencies.

by netfire 11y ago

tsotha 11y ago

>The EMTs aren't going to sit around, they are going to be performing first aid and calling the fire station for additional assistance. Right... and it's going to take that guy an extra five minutes to get to the hospital. They can't depend on what people tell them on the 911 call. The average person is completely unreliable under stress.

netfire 11y ago
You've got to draw the line somewhere. There's always situations where having more people/resources would have made the difference between life and death. In an ideal world, you've have a fire station on every block, dedicated traffic lanes just for emergency vehicles and you'd use a helicopter to get someone to the hospital as quickly as possible when it might be slightly quicker than regular ambulance transit. It just not reasonable to use that many resources in 1 in a million scenarios like you are mentioning (where a 1-2 police officers and 2 EMTs couldn't handle the situation, the person calling couldn't provide enough information to determine whether fire fighters were needed and making it to the hospital 5 minutes sooner would have made a significant difference in the outcome of the victim) Per the article, only 1.5% of the incidents the SFFD responded to involved fires and they had a budget of 330 million dollars. How much money could be saved by using police and EMTs in those situations? (and used in more effective programs that are actually going to help the homeless get off the street).
- tsotha 11y ago
  I'm not sure you'd actually save much money even if you could get by with EMTs. You still need a certain number of firemen on duty in case you actually have a fire, and it's not like you don't have to pay firemen while they wait for one. Labor costs dwarf everything else for that kind of service.
  - netfire 11y ago
    It would be interesting to see a cost breakdown of the police, EMT and fire department labor, transit and equipment costs too see the potential savings (or lack thereof). Given that the SFFD is only responding 1.5% of the time to fire-related incidents, you could probably reduce the number of fire department stations, trucks and employees considerably if they only responded to fire-related emergencies.