ubiquitin

I am not arguing with ravshalom above

Just rewording it since it is not quite accurate. (though in practice the outcome is the same).

For counting the days of the tekufa we dont count “meis leis” and even if davening maariv before 1440 hours (60 x 24) after the tekufa, vesein tal umatar is still recited

“Therefore, 60 days from the tekufa is always December 4th, at either 3:00 am, 9:00 am, 3:00 pm, or 9:00 pm, respectively. But since the Jewish day starts in the evening, December 4th at 9:00 pm is considered the following day, December 5th.”

For counting Sixty days the time doesnt matter. 60 days after October 7th is December 5th regardless of what time the Tekufa took place. Thus on most years at the start of “halachic Dec 5th” i.e. after sunset on Dec 4th we start saying vesein tal umatar on day # 60.

EXCEPT that the year before a leap year (is civil years 2011,2015, 2019) when the tekufa is on OCtober 7th at 9:00 PM this is “halachic October 8th” So the tekufa does not occur on October 7th in those years, halachicly it is October 8th (though your calendar still says October 7th for 3 more hours). Sixty days after October 8th is December 6th, after sunset on Dec 5th (even before 9:00 PM) we say vesein tal umatar.

(interestingly, Once in 28 years evening of December 5th is Friday night the year before a leap year and we satrt saying it on the 6th)

Healt

good luck in your quest.

howevet that is NOT what you said at first. And is NOT what you said when challenged initally:

From the OP “how do you treat a patient from a 1 car accident? “

Note: as opposed to a 2 car accident, and you imply this is currently the standard. You were clearly not asking what should the new protocol be according to my chidush that I have no data for

“It’s a question to refresh people’s memories – how do you treat a patient from a 1 car accident?”

Same implication but stronger. how cna you refresh memoried about your own chidush that you havent shared yet?

“But you’re wrong. It is different than a multi-car crash!”

you meant you believe it should be treated different

“Ah, but there is a difference! Nothing to do with a MCI. This was the purpose of this thread.

Go research it & then come back and let us know what you found out.”

again how can he research a chidush that only exists in your head?

“Look there is a difference in the assessment between a 1 car accident and a multi- car crash. And I thought you were getting close. Go research it!”

ditto

“There is a difference. I’m not Mechuav to teach you medicine. I was nice enough to get you started. If you show me that you’re trying, I’ll help you out. Even if I don’t get any money from you!”

!?!?!?

“That’s not what I want. Look there is a difference in the assessment between a 1 car accident and a multi- car crash. How do you assess a pt. who’s a victim with no other cars around?”

“In any car crash, even though there’s the possibility of a medical cause, it’s Not probable! But in 1 car crash, it has to be treated as a medical call, along with trauma.”

No mention that this is your own chiddush

“The point I was making is that you evaluate for both medical & trauma at the same time. This is only for a single car accident”

Strongly Implying that with a multiple car accident you dont need to evaluate for medical and trauma(you said I was lying when I pointed this out)

“But let’s say the pt. is unconscious, in a single car situation – you’d follow the AMS protocol, but not with a multi-car crash!”

Same strong implication as above (actually I dont think this is an implication in this quote you outright said it)

“Look I have an EMS book that states -“Trauma – Are there medical causes? (e.g. diabetes, CVA, MI, etc.)””

That wasnt the discussion

Finnaly after a lot of back and forth (in reply to “” is this [ie distinguishing between number of cars] your own chiddush?:)

“My own.” ie you made it up

Then you changed your mind

here “I didn’t make this up”

and bizarrely asserted what you said you made up as fact

“”the idea that a medical cause is more likely when one car is involved,” – This is true.”

and ended with

“I’m not trying to change the protocol that EMS shouldn’t seek for medical causes at every trauma, but I’m trying to find a solution that can be feasible! The reality is that they don’t seek for medical causes at every trauma.”

that is NOt what you opened with at all!

Because 112 – 103 = 9 which is the numbe rof shevatim present at Yosef’s mechira

Health

“I didn’t make this up “

um you did.

This wasnt about medical causes leading to trauma.

This was about a difference between managing 1 vs multiple car accidents.

see this quote of yours

“”But you’re wrong. It is different than

a multi-car crash!””

or this one

“Ah, but there is a difference! Nothing to do with a MCI. This was the purpose of this thread.

Go research it & then come back and let us know what you found out.””

THAT is what we are discussing you said MULTIPLE TIMES that there is a difference between 1 car and multiple cars.

You claimed you read this in a book but cannot supply name of the book.

You finnaly admited when asked

“”Is this what the book said (what book?) or is this your own chiddush? “

That it is in fact:

“My own. “

In other words like many here suspected, the idea that a medical cuase is more likely when one car is involved, and MORE TO THE POINT only needs to be considered with one car and not with multiple cars. Or that – and i quote- “It is different than

a multi-car crash!” (with an exclamation supplied by you btw) is something that you made up.

I am confused. Wnow you say it is in the book-that-must not be named?

“Did you ever look in an EMS book?!?”

no but I always like learning new things. Please tell me which book mentions the distiction between number of cars involved in an accident.

Do you know of one whose “copy infringment” doesnt prevent you from repeating the book’s title?

Health

what book is that in? (for the third time)

to the crux of the issue:

“”There isn’t time to do it at every MVA, but it’s imperative at least to do it at a 1 car MVA!” “

Is this what the book said (what book?) or is this your own chiddush? (for the fifth time)

akuperma

all that is good and well. I was replying to the op’s blanket statement

“I think it’s best frum people stay away from politics. They never can just cater to other frum and the temptations of power can lead to all sorts of negative things. “

(as well as Joseph “Pirkei Avos had something to say on this topic. “)

That there is nothing wrong and it is in fact useful to have frum people in politics (at least on a local level) and I brought an example.

akuperma

I highly doubt it. why do you ask?

Health

“Are you involved in EMS?”

nope (you aksed that already)

” Whether is with a “h”.””

Thanks though you mean “an h” (2 can play that game).

Thanks for your reply. Very interesting. However I’m inclined to go with PBA (first time!) It think even if what you say is true it is more of a cute factoid than part of any medical algorithm.

Does any EMS actually follow this? Or do you just believe they should?

Is this written anywhere?

Health

I still dont get it. so they both get EKG’s so wether you suspect heart attack or not doesnt really matter. ITs not like either case is having troponins drawn in the field or are they?

Do you only check fingerstick with one vehicle?

If the driver has pinpoint pupils, barely breathing would you only give narcan if only one vehicle was involved?

In what way is the managment different?

“You should assume possible driver impairment as the cause of a 1 car accident.

Heart attack, stroke, drug use, drunk, suicide, etc.”

2scents said

“By maintaining and securing ABCs. Taking spinal precautions loading the pt and transporting to a trauma center.

Large bore iV in route. Other treatments would be splinting, needle d, as needed. “

I’m confused whihc of the above take precedence over ABC’s (or CAB’s)? Even if you had high suspicion of Heart attack, as far as I”m aware CAB’s still come first then you can decide whether to go to trauma center or one with PCI in the unlikely event that you cant find a facility with both.

Joseph

i’d be glad to.

Read about the immigration act of 1924. (Which while not based on communist affiliation per se, did heavily restrict immigrants from Eastern Europe)

Dont get to caught up on immigration legislation per se. Since my point was regarding the excuse. People were afraid of communists, Jews were occasionaly communists. Thus they were vary of Jews coming in. This isnt unreasonable. There is a nice wikipedia page on the First Red scare.

of course they were wrong!

Also dont just limit to communists read about the anarchist exclsuion act which became the immigration act of 1918. As you may have guessed many Jews were Anarchists (Emma Goldman comes to mind)

Joseph

sorry that is incorrect. The first red scare took place just after the Russian Revolution in 1919 Led by AG Palmer. In certainly picked up after WW2 but many laws were designed in the 20’s 30’s to prevent Communists from servinf in any fedearal office and – more to the point- prevent immigration of supected Communists

Its getting hard to keep track of all the various postitions. so here they are as I understand them.

My apolagies If Ive misunderstood you. Please correct me and feel free to add categories or add yourself

On the issue of syrian refugees

1) Let as many in as want to come

– nobody here says this

2) Lets as many is as we can safely (and practicly)

– a. Which we can do – Ubiquitin, Sam2, akuperma, Avi K

– b. but impossible – DY, Syag

3) Prevent them from coming – Health, Newbee, Joseph, flatbusher, dbrim

Again please correct me if IVe misunderstood