Quote:
|
Out of the 44.6 people, 7 of them had wounds that would have been survivable had they had there been level 1 trauma care available.
|
For those of us not well versed in the terminology and not knowing where to go to look it up, would you please explain WHAT level 1 trauma care is? Is it a first aid kit? EMTs? the ER? the OR??
Quote:
|
While most may not survive, there have been many cases where someone may have survived with prompt care.
|
Quote:
|
A recent review of civilian mass shootings by the National Association of Emergency Medicine Physicians concluded about 7% of casualties in the mass shootings they examined could have been saved by immediate medical help.
|
Note the difference in the three statements, "would have been survivable" and "may have survived" and "could have been saved..."
Of the three, I think "may have survived" is the only one with validity.
Doctors (or anyone else) playing with numbers from reports and studies making flat statements about who would and would not have survived are presenting their guesses and opinions as fact.
"May have, could have, might have" are good words to use when one does not and CAN NOT know with certainty. Some might consider those words only giving "wiggle room" but I consider the use of them important so as not to create a false impression.
The problem is that people don't want to expend effort and spend money on "may have, might have, could have", but they will spend it on "will have", so despite the truth, that's how things get presented.
That is also the fallacy of gun control laws. Accepting what MIGHT be as what WILL BE, and acting on that in the direction the agenda drivers want.
We do our share of it, too.