Revision history [back]

My 2 cents. It all very much depends on the lay person's capability to see what is there. But I think this brings us to another point: - could some lay people in "at risk locations" be trained to do fairly good assessments? - could this type of training be created to be part of some basic training for people sent to disaster areas? - could a process be created to address the 80/20 rule? If such trainees can clear (or condemn) 80% of the damaged buildings then one might be "4 times better off" (80/20=4) than waiting and condemning people to the open air while experts arrive/are available. This is a bit like training lay-women to deliver babies in remote areas where nothing else is available. Comments? 'nando

My 2 cents. It all very much depends on the lay person's capability to see what is there. But I think this brings us to another point: - point/s:

1. could some lay people in "at risk locations" be trained to do fairly good assessments? - assessments?
2. could this type of training be created to be part of some basic training for people sent to disaster areas? - areas?
3. could a process be created to address the 80/20 rule? If such trainees can clear (or condemn) 80% of the damaged buildings then one might be "4 times better off" (80/20=4) than waiting and condemning people to the open air while experts arrive/are available. available.

This is a bit like training lay-women to deliver babies in remote areas where nothing else is available. Comments? 'nando