![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
xiphiasLis and I were listening to a news story about how FEMA is rethinking their recommendations of how to handle a mass-casualty event. The current thinking is that first responders such as firefighters and EMTs are supposed to stay out of the area until the area is secured. The logic is, if danger is still ongoing, sending more people in is just sending in more potential casualties.
However, FEMA is rethinking that, and considering the notion of a "warm zone" -- not clearly actively dangerous, but not secured, either. The danger MIGHT be over, but that's not certain. And they're now suggesting that EMTs and firefighters go in at that point -- when the active threat APPEARS to be over, but security and police are still making sure. They're looking at what went right in the Boston Marathon bombing response, and trying to figure out how to replicate it. As I've mentioned before, the Boston Marathon bombing response was the most successful disaster response in recorded history, because of both excellent skill and planning, and because of just plain dumb luck: having an instantaneous and non-ongoing mass casualty event right in front of a whole bunch of trained medical personnel is the best way a worst thing could have happened.
What that highlighted was just how critical response time is. And we see the same thing in combat medicine -- military medics don't wait for the battle to be over before starting to stabilize the wounded; they are taking just as much fire as everyone else, and they do amazing work.
EMTs are NOT combat medics, and this would require rethinking what the job of an EMT is. But FEMA is more willing to recommend that firefighters put themselves into potential harms' way by entering "warm zones", since, as they point out, running into burning buildings is already probably MORE dangerous. Their job already is "risk my life to save other people".
Their suggestion is that non-combat first responders enter as soon as the apparent immediate danger is over, and limit themselves to stopping bleeding, while armed first responders simultaneously handle the job of securing the area.
Anyway, what I actually wanted to talk about was the OTHER part of FEMA's suggestions. They believe that, besides rethinking the role of first responders, they also want to start talking to everybody in general about what to do in people-attacking-type emergencies -- fight, if you're equipped to do so; get the heck out of there; or hide.
At Thanksgiving, my brothers-in-law, both former police officers, were talking about how folks just don't know what to do in emergencies, so the idea of spending some time teaching people to do so seems like it would be a good idea.
Basically, higher organisms like us have three basic instinctive reactions to danger: fight, flight, and freeze. People talk about the "fight or flight" response, but "freeze" is ALSO a valid response in some cases. The thing is -- for organisms of our size, we need to re-train ourselves that, instead of "freeze", we "hide".
On the whole, your best move is to "flee", if possible. Getting out of the situation means that you aren't a target; you're improving the situation by not being there. As Mr Miyagi said, "Best defense is not be there." Successfully fleeing requires situational awareness: knowing where you are, where threats are, where escape routes are. So, step one of what FEMA wants people to do is to pay attention to where they are and what's going around them.
If there isn't a route out of there, you also have the option of "hiding". Not as good as getting out of there, but still better than being a target out in the open. Again, situational awareness is all: you need to be thinking about How Not To Be Seen, and how to get to that spot. Your natural response with how to hide is to freeze; we need to rethink that enough to "get somewhere at least marginally safer, and THEN freeze".
"Fight" is a last-ditch option. If you're trained and equipped for the situation... well, "retreat" or "hide and wait for backup" are STILL probably better choices than "attack on one's own". And if you're NOT trained or equipped for it, "fight" is a TERRIBLE option. But it's still on the list. It's better than "do nothing."
So that's what I was thinking. "Fight, flight, freeze" are our natural responses. But in order for them to be useful, we need, ideally, training in how to do them effectively, or, at the very least, to have given some thought to how to do it.
However, FEMA is rethinking that, and considering the notion of a "warm zone" -- not clearly actively dangerous, but not secured, either. The danger MIGHT be over, but that's not certain. And they're now suggesting that EMTs and firefighters go in at that point -- when the active threat APPEARS to be over, but security and police are still making sure. They're looking at what went right in the Boston Marathon bombing response, and trying to figure out how to replicate it. As I've mentioned before, the Boston Marathon bombing response was the most successful disaster response in recorded history, because of both excellent skill and planning, and because of just plain dumb luck: having an instantaneous and non-ongoing mass casualty event right in front of a whole bunch of trained medical personnel is the best way a worst thing could have happened.
What that highlighted was just how critical response time is. And we see the same thing in combat medicine -- military medics don't wait for the battle to be over before starting to stabilize the wounded; they are taking just as much fire as everyone else, and they do amazing work.
EMTs are NOT combat medics, and this would require rethinking what the job of an EMT is. But FEMA is more willing to recommend that firefighters put themselves into potential harms' way by entering "warm zones", since, as they point out, running into burning buildings is already probably MORE dangerous. Their job already is "risk my life to save other people".
Their suggestion is that non-combat first responders enter as soon as the apparent immediate danger is over, and limit themselves to stopping bleeding, while armed first responders simultaneously handle the job of securing the area.
Anyway, what I actually wanted to talk about was the OTHER part of FEMA's suggestions. They believe that, besides rethinking the role of first responders, they also want to start talking to everybody in general about what to do in people-attacking-type emergencies -- fight, if you're equipped to do so; get the heck out of there; or hide.
At Thanksgiving, my brothers-in-law, both former police officers, were talking about how folks just don't know what to do in emergencies, so the idea of spending some time teaching people to do so seems like it would be a good idea.
Basically, higher organisms like us have three basic instinctive reactions to danger: fight, flight, and freeze. People talk about the "fight or flight" response, but "freeze" is ALSO a valid response in some cases. The thing is -- for organisms of our size, we need to re-train ourselves that, instead of "freeze", we "hide".
On the whole, your best move is to "flee", if possible. Getting out of the situation means that you aren't a target; you're improving the situation by not being there. As Mr Miyagi said, "Best defense is not be there." Successfully fleeing requires situational awareness: knowing where you are, where threats are, where escape routes are. So, step one of what FEMA wants people to do is to pay attention to where they are and what's going around them.
If there isn't a route out of there, you also have the option of "hiding". Not as good as getting out of there, but still better than being a target out in the open. Again, situational awareness is all: you need to be thinking about How Not To Be Seen, and how to get to that spot. Your natural response with how to hide is to freeze; we need to rethink that enough to "get somewhere at least marginally safer, and THEN freeze".
"Fight" is a last-ditch option. If you're trained and equipped for the situation... well, "retreat" or "hide and wait for backup" are STILL probably better choices than "attack on one's own". And if you're NOT trained or equipped for it, "fight" is a TERRIBLE option. But it's still on the list. It's better than "do nothing."
So that's what I was thinking. "Fight, flight, freeze" are our natural responses. But in order for them to be useful, we need, ideally, training in how to do them effectively, or, at the very least, to have given some thought to how to do it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2013-12-09 06:36 pm (UTC)Culture itself is a major component of how people react. Take the crazy Israelis, for instance, who typically run TOWARDS the site of an attack.
BUT I refuse to accept the basic premise of the "problem" that FEMA is addressing, without seeing some hard studies: What percentage of "mass-casualty" events are actually "ongoing" past the initial event. In how many cases was their, in retrospect, an actual NEED to secure the area? Or is this just typical pussy-footing?
(no subject)
Date: 2013-12-09 06:46 pm (UTC)Although I do remember one bit from the London bombings: the bomb that went off accidentally on the top of the double-decker bus went off right outside a medical research facility, filled with doctors -- doctors who had been in research for the past few decades of their careers, but still doctors. They were about to rush out to help -- and one of them told them to wait for the SECOND explosion. He'd started his career in the military, and his expectation was that terrorists would set off one bomb, wait for the medical people to respond, and then set off another one... as it turned out, of course, that didn't happen there, but it IS a consideration.
It's just LESS of a risk than NOT going in.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-12-09 09:09 pm (UTC)And while yes, terrorist attacks HAVE done the double-attack trick here as well, those are a tiny subset of a small set of the total events.