.....he could just turn his stupid shirt inside out...
Half-normal saline would make hyponatremia substantially worse. Half-normal saline has half as much salt and is much closer to plain water. If he has water retention problems and issues with hyponatremia, he should be getting hypertonic saline which is 3% NaCl. For reference, normal saline is 0.9% NaCl, half-normal saline is 0.45% NaCl. Not enough NaCl is what can lead to "overhydration".
Edit: Also, most ambulances carry normal saline and not much else. They might have Lactated Ringers solution, but they don't have all the different concentrations of saline on the rig. There's just not enough space when the vast majority of patients just need isotonic (normal saline) fluids.
Also, I have a very strong suspicion that the medication you have on hand is Azithromycin (because very few medications come in blister packs), so here's a list of infections that a Z-pak is good for:
If it's not on this list (like pretty much any gram negative, anaerobic, or gram positive with resistant features like MRSA, among others) I wouldn't count on the Z-pak actually being useful.
The article you listed reads more like preliminary research more than anything else, and aside from medical school, I have done research into drug expiration on my own given that I have multiple complex health problems and I need to know how long I can count on my medication being effective if I needed to stockpile it. My background education in organic and general chemistry tell me that the two biggest concerns are humidity and temperature. You can also get information from the drug manufacturers about storage recommendations and cautions about efficacy following improper storage. If humidity or extreme temperatures (like where I live in Minnesota) come into play, the guidelines get a lot more fuzzy.
Also noted in there, a concern with antibiotics in particular is, that while they will retain some efficacy, the diminished effects over time can lead to more problems with resistance, and that can become important in a single individual depending on their colonization status and how often they end up needing to use the antibiotics.
Don't get me wrong, keeping a stockpile of medications is important (I'm trying to build up a buffer that I cycle out for some of my more critical medications) but it has to be done with cognizance and awareness of the pitfalls of such a practice. Personally, I would not trust my life to medication that has been expired for more than about 3 years if it is at all avoidable which is why I cycle my stockpile each time I get a refill. (i.e. putting the new meds in the storage container and taking the ones that were in there so that the storage is never more than a couple months old) I'm on a couple medications that stopping them suddenly for even a few days has the potential to put me in the hospital if not end up being lethal depending on the severity of the withdrawal.
As someone who works in medicine, I would just caution you to take that with a grain of salt, especially since they repeatedly mention the storage of said medications. Not all pill bottles are airtight, and if you keep them somewhere that isn't always less than 75 degrees Fahrenheit or so, I wouldn't trust them more than a year past the expiration date. Note also, when they say "cool, dark place" that is not accounting for freezing temperatures which can also mess with the medications.
All this to say: if you have emergency medications, cycle them out with new ones as often as possible, and store them in airtight containers in a climate controlled area of your house.
Make sure the antibiotics don't expire. Most of them just become useless when they expire, but Tetracycline becomes poisonous when it expires. Also, not all antibiotics are good for all infections, so make sure the ones you have are useful for the kinds of infections you anticipate.
Except that the sentencing keeps getting postponed.
That's the thing though...I think it is part of their due diligence to know what's going on in their own business. If they can't guarantee that it's safe, they shouldn't release it.
The c-suites have the ultimate power and therefore ultimate responsibility for whatever happens in their organization. Similar to how parents can be held criminally liable for their children's actions. It's just that much more incentive for them to make sure things are in order in their organization.
Also, Citizen's United ruled that corporations are people, so they can be held to the same standards of responsibility as other people.
I think the threshold for proving the "reasonable person" standard for companies should be extremely low. They are a complex organization that is supposed to have internal checks and reviews, so it should be very difficult for them to squirm out of liability. The C-suite should be first on the list for criminal liability so that they have a vested interest in ensuring that their products are actually safe.
I'd accept that if the makers of the self-driving cars can be tried for vehicular manslaughter the same way a human would be. Humans carry civil and criminal liability, and at the moment, the companies that produce these things only have nominal civil liability. If Musk can go to prison for his self-driving cars killing people the same way a regular driver would, I'd be willing to lower the standard.
The way that Hamas treats Palestinians is partially the responsibility of Netanyahu and the Likud given that they provided Hamas with material support to take power in the first place. Also, the fact that Israelis stormed an IDF base in protest of the punishment of IDF thugs that anally raped innocent Palestinians to death with rifles tells me a lot about what Israel thinks of all Palestinians, not just the ones that are actually part of Hamas.
Edit: Here's an article describing the way the IDF treats doctors and paramedics. (Who are not members of Hamas) https://www.democracynow.org/2024/8/27/hrw_report