I just showed you that the protocol applies to the swimmers. They are potential SAR EMS responders - as outlined in the duties/expectations for rescue swimmers stated in the rescue swimmers manual, and the protocol directly stated that all potential SAR EMS responders are to know the protocols.
What you posted is not protocol; it’s a statement of fact given the situation being discussed. The statement came within the context of discussing a bunch of people on a raft together and one of them has to be lifted first. Duh. Use your best judgment.
That chart goes on to say that you lift ALL the survivors on that raft. If there is any doubt as to whether there are other survivors still unaccounted for the raft should be left inflated. IOW, when you’ve got a group of survivors together, rescue them all in the order that makes the most sense, then go find other survivors in another location if there are any.
This obviously is not the same thing as you’re trying to make it out as saying - “if you find somebody who will die without immediate help, instead of spending 5 minutes to save their life, go on a fishing expedition to find who else there might be and whether they need a bandaid before coming back to rescue the one you’ve got right there.”
The best you’ve come up with is permission for a swimmer to use their best judgment to prioritize. Very pathetic if somebody’s “best judgment” says they skip the person who needs immediate CPR, in order to instead pick up somebody who is in a life jacket but tired, or holding onto somebody with a life jacket but having a cut on their head that reportedly ended up needing 3 stitches.
But Ornot did not say that protocols gave him the discretion to skip Fuddy. He said the protocols mean that he HAD to skip Fuddy. And that is just not true. The protocols make clear that Fuddy must be presumed to be able to be revived, and in the most supreme critical state. Nobody they would ever find would be in more critical need than Fuddy at that point, so there would be no other person who could possibly take priority over her.
I’ve said it before; it’s pointless to just keep repeating the same stuff. I’m not going to waste my time on it.
If you think this priority is great, then I hope your family won’t mind when you are shown that priority in your time of dire need. When you have a heart attack, I hope your family won’t mind that the emergency responders first check to see if somebody needs a bandaid before coming BACK to deal with you.
“Very pathetic if somebody’s “best judgment” says they skip the person who needs immediate CPR, in order to instead pick up somebody who is in a life jacket but tired, or holding onto somebody with a life jacket but having a cut on their head that reportedly ended up needing 3 stitches.”
____________________
You said it for me. Thanks! The others had already floated for 80 minutes and survived. She was the one in most immediate need, imo, unless those other criteria were met, which the CG guy didn’t say was the case.