3 ms·
I don't know that it is universal, but placing self-protection first is normal in all the training I've had, or have heard about. It is the same principle as th
by __jal 11y ago
I don't know that it is universal, but placing self-protection first is normal in all the training I've had, or have heard about. It is the same principle as the patter you hear on planes about putting oxygen masks on yourself first, then assisting others.
Dead/injured/incapacitated first responders don't respond, they require assistance, which just make the situation worse.
Before you go imputing others' motives in a topic you don't know about, mayhap give some thought to learning a little first. I promise you that anyone who has any sort of first-responder training just wrote that post off as clueless.
- JshWright 11y agoMy guess is he is either a very young firefighter or a gung-ho, but fairly inexperienced, volunteer. He uses some firefighting 'slang' (referring to a call as 'a job', etc).
- TeMPOraL 11y agoI remember being surprised by this sequence of priorities when first learning them on first-aid course. I guess we like to picture people like you as heroes, bravely stepping in to save the day, ignoring the risk to themselves, but we don't stop to consider that this may not be the most effective course of action. As usual, the optimal way of doing stuff is quite different from what we see on TV.
- JshWright 11y agoYeah, it's a far more pragmatic business than many people realize... Risk a lot to save a life, risk a little to save property, risk nothing to save nothing (i.e. if it's past the point of being saved).