Death in Sowal

[Em]

Ya can't make chicken salad if you don't break some eggs.;-) If you think you will get a straight answer from the county with lawsuits possible you are living in a better place than the rest of us.
I still think the questions asked are reasonable.
As far as AED's your response led me to google and I found that only 5% of victims of sudden cardiac arrest survive but the survival rate goes up to 75% if an AED is used within 3 minutes of the attack. That is a pretty significant improvement. While the current sheriff apparently did not buy the Department's AED's ( SWFD did) if they are not going to use them and keep them up they should sell them.

Do you know why the success rate is only 5%? Could it be because by the time a first responder is on the scene, the neurological damage is too great for AED's to save the person. By the time someone was pulled back to the beach from the water after a heart attack, several minutes have likely passed, which means nominal chances of survival for the victim.

The greater the delay to apply the AED, the greater the damage to the brain, so even if the body survives, the brain damage may be severe. With every minute that passes, the chance of surviving without brain damage decreases by about 10%. Again, AEDs can help, if applied almost instantly after a victim goes into cardiac arrest. Otherwise, the odds are not so pretty and diminish greatly with each passing minute.

I really don't know how you read so deeply into either of those news stories, to think that the Sheriff's Office is to blame for the two unfortunate deaths.

 

[idlewind]

Do you know why the success rate is only 5%? Could it be because by the time a first responder is on the scene, the neurological damage is too great for AED's to save the person. By the time someone was pulled back to the beach from the water after a heart attack, several minutes have likely passed, which means nominal chances of survival for the victim.

The greater the delay to apply the AED, the greater the damage to the brain, so even if the body survives, the brain damage may be severe. With every minute that passes, the chance of surviving without brain damage decreases by about 10%. Again, AEDs can help, if applied almost instantly after a victim goes into cardiac arrest. Otherwise, the odds are not so pretty and diminish greatly with each passing minute.

I really don't know how you read so deeply into either of those news stories, to think that the Sheriff's Office is to blame for the two unfortunate deaths.

I am not "blaming" anyone. I do think these articles raise serious questions that I would like to know the answer to. I don't understand why you are so defensive about this. If there is no problems then explain why. If there are problems they should be identified and corrected. Blame and excuses are non-productive.
One other thing I would like to know, if AED's are so useless and ineffective then why did we expend resources to purchase them and why don't we quit throwing good money after bad?

These agencies work for us and we have every right to question their actions when things don't go as they should. There is no other way for laymen to become informed except to ask questions.

 

[scooterbug44]

If I remember correctly, didn't this incident happen on a red flag day full of sirens galore?

IMO ignoring the red flags did far more to contribute to the man's death than the WCSO or a dead battery.

 

[Em]

Two deaths in Sowal, one because the Sheriff's substation is no longer manned and one because someone can't buy batteries. Wonder what Brannon thinks about this?

I am not "blaming" anyone.... Blame and excuses are non-productive.
One other thing I would like to know, if AED's are so useless and ineffective then why did we expend resources to purchase them and why don't we quit throwing good money after bad? ...

I'm confused by your contradictions. In your first post, you link articles, which say nothing about the reasons for death. The only personal thoughts of the articles which you share are the reasons for the deaths. If that isn't blame, I don't know what is.

AEDs are indeed affective, again, only if quickly applied. Maybe the more logical place to have them would be on the lifeguard stations, with solar charging. Why not pursue that? If the AEDs were hand-me-downs from the SWFD, they are likely several years old, purchased when tax money was flowing freely.

 

[idlewind]

I'm confused by your contradictions. In your first post, you link articles, which say nothing about the reasons for death. The only personal thoughts of the articles which you share are the reasons for the deaths. If that isn't blame, I don't know what is.

AEDs are indeed affective, again, only if quickly applied. Maybe the more logical place to have them would be on the lifeguard stations, with solar charging. Why not pursue that? If the AEDs were hand-me-downs from the SWFD, they are likely several years old, purchased when tax money was flowing freely.

Reasons are reasons, responsibility is responsibility. Blame implies some intent or negligence. The reasons for the deaths are easily gleaned from the articles, responsibility has yet to be determined and it is not blame to state the obvious.

I think the AED's at lifeguard stations is a great idea. Maybe SWFD will pursue it with our encouragement. As to the existing units, I do not care how old they are they should be maintained or discarded.

 

[idlewind]

If I remember correctly, didn't this incident happen on a red flag day full of sirens galore?

IMO ignoring the red flags did far more to contribute to the man's death than the WCSO or a dead battery.

In this partricular case the individual made a poor choice that directly led to his death. We all need to educate visitors that red flags are posted for a reason and there are dire consequences if one ignors them.

The dead AED batteries are a separate issue and the problem needs correcting by whoever is responsible for maintaining the units. The deputy could have easily been responding to a cardiac victim at the Tom Thumb and the results would have been the same.

 

[Matt J]

I'm confused by your contradictions. In your first post, you link articles, which say nothing about the reasons for death. The only personal thoughts of the articles which you share are the reasons for the deaths. If that isn't blame, I don't know what is.

AEDs are indeed affective, again, only if quickly applied. Maybe the more logical place to have them would be on the lifeguard stations, with solar charging. Why not pursue that? If the AEDs were hand-me-downs from the SWFD, they are likely several years old, purchased when tax money was flowing freely.

I agree that placing them at lifeguard stations is a good idea since they are designed to be used by almost anyone with little to no prior training. However, I don't know of a single piece of medical equipment that runs on solar power. Would you want to be in an artificial lung running on wind power?

 

[Koa]

In this partricular case the individual made a poor choice that directly led to his death.

Where in the articles does it say that the person made a poor choice that led to his death? Was it from eating too much fried chicken that led to a heart attack? Was it not getting enough exercise? Or, did he go into dangerous waters and simply drown? The article didn't say, so how do you know how this person died? You sure seem to know a lot.

 

[idlewind]

Where in the articles does it say that the person made a poor choice that led to his death? Was it from eating too much fried chicken that led to a heart attack? Was it not getting enough exercise? Or, did he go into dangerous waters and simply drown? The article didn't say, so how do you know how this person died? You sure seem to know a lot.

I don't "know" anything which is why I ask questions. If you would read the earlier posts you would find that scooterbug stated the red flags were out that day. So IMHO that is a poor choice that the person made that contributed to his death. As to what "caused" his death, we will get those answers from the medical examiner.