Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Breaking News
posted by martyb on Tuesday January 05 2021, @07:53PM   Printer-friendly
from the so-it-has-come-to-this dept.

LA Paramedics Told Not To Transport Some Patients With Low Chance Of Survival:

The Los Angeles County Emergency Medical Services Agency issued a directive Monday that ambulance crews should only administer bottled oxygen to patients whose oxygen saturation levels fall below 90%.

In a separate memo from the county's EMS Agency, paramedic crews have been told not to transfer patients who experience cardiac arrest unless spontaneous circulation can be restored on the scene.

Both measures announced Monday, which were issued by the agency's medical director, Dr. Marianne Gausche-Hill, were taken in an attempt to get ahead of an expected surge to come following the winter holidays.

Many hospitals in the region "have reached a point of crisis and are having to make very tough decisions about patient care," Dr. Christina Ghaly, the LA County director of health services said at a briefing Monday.

[...] "We do not believe that we are yet seeing the cases that stemmed from the Christmas holiday," Ghaly added. "This, sadly, and the cases from the recent New Year's holiday, is still before us, and hospitals across the region are doing everything they can to prepare."

'We Are Not Abandoning Resuscitation': LA County Healthcare Leader Speaks Out After Memo Raises Concerns:

Los Angeles County hospitals are so inundated, officials said they're just trying to provide the best care they can for the people who need it.

The memo sent out on December 28 by the medical director of L.A. County's Emergency Medical Services agency, Dr. Marianne Gausche-Hill, addressed how first responders should treat stroke and heart attack patients, saying a patient should be treated at the scene first and have a pulse during resuscitation before transporting them to the hospital.

[...] The medical director of L.A. County's Emergency Services Agency, Dr. Marianne Gausche-Hill, assured CBS2 that officials continue to do all they can to save patients' lives at the scene and the hospital, as they always have.

"We are not abandoning resuscitation," Gausche-Hill said. "We are absolutely doing best practice resuscitation and that is do it in the field, do it right away... What we're asking is that — which is slightly different than before — is that we are emphasizing the fact that transporting these patients arrested leads to very poor outcomes.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday January 05 2021, @08:50PM (23 children)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday January 05 2021, @08:50PM (#1095188)

    Need a bed in the ICU? Just find footage of a guy with a bed having a great time at a maskless party.

    No matter how stupid folks are, I don't want to live in a world like that.
    Even if Darwin says we shouldn't, we have a responsibility to all.

    Why do we have as much responsibility to those who cause more problems for society than to those who did nothing exceptional or unwarranted to get sick?

    What about people in prison? If someone does something stupid (called a "crime"), as a society we apprehend these people, to prevent them from causing further harm to society, and we isolate them in "prisons". Bad actions carry negative consequences.

    If we're willing to throw people in prison as punishment for breaking rules, then why not do the same who flout the rules about mask-wearing and quarantining and social distancing? Why should people who break the rules get off scot-free, and worse, be allowed to murder other innocent people by taking up valuable healthcare/hospital resources they need?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @09:05PM (13 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @09:05PM (#1095205)

    You are assuming that if you of superior morality (follow all your Leader's commandments), you will never get sick. If you do get sick though, obviously it was the devil (unmasked people) who gave it to you. This is the mental response to the mental crisis caused by believing the only people to catch COVID are those who deserve it.

    Newsflash: You can still catch the virus even while wearing a mask, and with no unclean people in sight. It's a respiratory virus. Even animals have been found to harbor the virus, and nobody had yet been able to make all the dogs, cats, squirrels, and bats wear masks.

    • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @09:30PM (9 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @09:30PM (#1095228)

      Woooow you trumptarded magats are so dumb. Lovin' that "Leader's commandments" bit, as if people wearing masks are only doing so because Biden told them to and not because it is the advice of medical professionals O.o

      Newsflash: You are really stupid.

      • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @09:58PM (8 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @09:58PM (#1095244)

        Whatever pal. Respiratory viruses spread among the general population until enough people have caught it or have been vaccinated.

        Remember the goal was always to "Slow the spread", not "Stop the spread." Because the latter is not possible with little paper face masks. And if the masks really DID stop the virus, why are you worried about catching it if you always wear yours? Do admit it is WEAK SAUCE?

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @10:40PM (6 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @10:40PM (#1095284)

          You are some special kind of stupid when you are pointing out how the whole point is supposed to be "slow the spread" and this story is exactly about not enough resources because it spread too quickly.

          Funny how for over 100 years they've had to wear masks in the operating room. Who knew that after all this time that it we've been infringing upon the doctor and nurse's freedoms! Me, personally, would greatly prefer the nurse to not sneeze into my open chest cavity during surgery. Now I wonder what the similarities are between the two situations?

          As I said, you really are a special kind of stupid. Not only stupid, but very vocally proud that you're stupid. As my momma always said, . . .

          • (Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @10:58PM (5 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @10:58PM (#1095308)

            Masks in the operating room stop transfer of bacteria-laden saliva.
            Mask manufacturers specifically state they are not for the prevention of virus transmission, as viruses are many times smaller than bacteria. You have been educated fool.

            • (Score: 2, Informative) by epitaxial on Wednesday January 06 2021, @01:24AM (4 children)

              by epitaxial (3165) on Wednesday January 06 2021, @01:24AM (#1095388)

              You're a fucking moron if you think the virus itself flies through the air. The virus is contained in saliva or mucus which is easily stopped by a cloth mask.

              • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @02:43AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @02:43AM (#1095419)

                To be fair COVID is airborn as well in the breath to some degree, however even if some virus particles get through the mask it drastically reduces the radius of virus loaded exhalations. This means the people around you are less likely to inhale the virus before it disperses enough to not be a major threat, especially if people maintain social distancing. The AC is just a rabid anti-masker

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @05:57PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @05:57PM (#1095686)

                  I'm not a rabid anti-masker. I am just not a rabid pro-masker. Can you comprehend the difference?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @08:24PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @08:24PM (#1095770)

                not it's not stopped by a cloth mask because you put your grubby little paws on the mask 400 times a day and then touch everything in sight like a 5 year old at the toy store. wake up, you retarded slave.

                • (Score: 2) by epitaxial on Thursday January 07 2021, @05:31PM

                  by epitaxial (3165) on Thursday January 07 2021, @05:31PM (#1096539)

                  All of that is perfectly acceptable. But unlike you I can keep my fingers out of my mouth and nose.

        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @11:33PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @11:33PM (#1095338)

          And if the masks really DID stop the virus, why are you worried about catching it if you always wear yours? Do admit it is WEAK SAUCE?

          That's why they teach the sheep that their own virus protection depends on a third person (you) wearing a comfort rag. That it is that evil other person (you) not wearing the rag who got you testing hot / getting sick.

          Otherwise they could think that their chances may be improved by doubling or tripling up on the rags.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @11:42PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @11:42PM (#1095345)

      Even animals have been found to harbor the virus, and nobody had yet been able to make all the dogs, cats, squirrels, and bats wear masks.

      Papayas too, I heard.

    • (Score: 5, Funny) by Tork on Wednesday January 06 2021, @12:35AM

      by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 06 2021, @12:35AM (#1095368)

      Newsflash: You can still catch the virus even while wearing a mask, and with no unclean people in sight. It's a respiratory virus. Even animals have been found to harbor the virus, and nobody had yet been able to make all the dogs, cats, squirrels, and bats wear masks.

      I take it your brain doesn't support floating point math, just boolean, huh.

      --
      🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
    • (Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Wednesday January 06 2021, @01:38AM

      by Magic Oddball (3847) on Wednesday January 06 2021, @01:38AM (#1095392) Journal

      Even animals have been found to harbor the virus, and nobody had yet been able to make all the dogs, cats, squirrels, and bats wear masks.

      There's no reason to. Dogs & cats can't transmit the virus to humans in spite of being capable of catching it from us, and the solution with wild animals is just to stay away from them, which people should be doing anyway.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Tuesday January 05 2021, @09:05PM (8 children)

    by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 05 2021, @09:05PM (#1095206) Journal

    Darwin didn't say that. He said that's the way species interactions happened in nature. The "Social Darwinist"s profoundly misrepresented what he said. Many of them intentionally, and for their own profit. Some, however, seem to have done it purely because they didn't like anyone who wasn't a wealthy white male of (pick a nation, there's lots of choices).

    P.S.: Even so, Darwin profoundly underestimated the complexity of the behavioral rules. So has everyone who's written anything accessible on the topic...and many who only wrote for a professional audience. The intersection of Game Theorists, Geneticists, and Ethologists is nearly a null set...and you probably need to add a few more specialties in there to cover the full range of interactions.

    --
    Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @09:55PM (7 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @09:55PM (#1095242)

      Social Darwinists aren't always racists, many just want an excuse for their narcissism and for punishing/justifying mistreatment of the homeless, poor, race, culture. Still basic bigotry, but not always race related.

      • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @01:47AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @01:47AM (#1095397)

        I say let the southerners inbreed themselves out of the gene pool.

        Or is that racist? "Southern" is a race, right?

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @02:47AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @02:47AM (#1095422)

          It is stupid prejudiced bigotry, you don't need to stop being angry at racist assholes but delving into your own type of hatred isn't much better especially if you make the same mistake of generalizing entire populations.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @03:10AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @03:10AM (#1095438)

          There are only two races. Us and Them.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @04:05AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @04:05AM (#1095457)

        They absolutely are. Social Darwinism is pretty closely related to Naziism and eugenics. People claiming otherwise are either ignorant or liars.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @08:26PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @08:26PM (#1095772)

          "nazi" is a Jew slur and there's nothing wrong with voluntary eugenics.

      • (Score: 2) by ChrisMaple on Wednesday January 06 2021, @05:37AM (1 child)

        by ChrisMaple (6964) on Wednesday January 06 2021, @05:37AM (#1095497)

        Have you even bothered to read any of Herbert Spencer's works, or are you just spouting what your fever-fantasy image of Social Darwinism is? It's not simple and it's not vile.

        • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday January 07 2021, @01:34AM

          by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 07 2021, @01:34AM (#1096080) Journal

          You're correct, I've never bothered to read any of his works. I haven't read much on evolution written before 1960, and don't consider it likely to be worthwhile. So if you've found a "Social Darwinist" who isn't there because of some variety of bigotry, I'll accept your word for it. I only read Darwin because he was the source. Do remember that Darwin's evolution was before genetics was known outside of a monastery.

          P.S.: FWIW many people whose opinions I respect did not consider Spencer's interpretation to be sound even before the "new synthesis" put a solid foundation under "main-stream evolutionary theory". I do admit that prior to the new synthesis the theoretical interpretations of evolution were quite shaky, but the evidence hasn't changed (only expanded, deepened, and gotten richer). And his theories are reported to not follow the then existing evidence....so he must have had some other reason for them. You are free to impute any motives that you feel appropriate, but they need to be consistent with the selection of evidence that he made.

          --
          Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.