nightjar wrote:
On 31/12/2020 18:36, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
David expressed precisely :
Instinct says that if you are very low on oxygen almost anything might
improve your chances.
However when the price gets towards £1,000 the sharp intake of breath
might well increase oxygen saturation anyway.

You can get digital Oxymeters quite cheaply £7. They clip on a
finger, self contained, working on batteries and show the oxygen
concentration in your blood, plus heart rate.

IME, they can give odd readings at times. Ear lobe probe meters seem to
be more reliable, but are more expensive.


They're supposed to be used at room temperature.
If you've been outside in winter, and immediately
take a PulseOX when you get inside, it might not be
accurate.

It's also not a good gadget, for someone with
Reynauds Syndrome (where many times a day, the
fingers have no blood in them). The little machine
would probably not even know it was clamped to a
finger in that case :-) It would probably think
it was scanning a sausage.

I have a PulseOX here, and it seems to be consistent.
It's never dropped below 90% on me so far. But then,
I got it well after I was having trouble. So it sits
there for "next time". I like the machine mainly because
it "looks like a cardiogram", and you can see ripple
in the blood flow waveform, that corresponds to a
fluttery feeling in the chest. It can confirm that
you've "still got a pulse" :-)

The screen output on mine looks like this. And I do
like the waveform feature, because you can see
a correspondence between the waveform, and when
you have a "fluttery feeling" in the chest.

https://www.did.ie/homedics-oxywatch...-px-101-eu-prd

I'm sure if a doctor looked at your pulseOX, he would
entirely ignore the waveform as being "irrelevant".
I like doctors. Only the tests they order are "relevant".
Your anecdotal observations are to be thrown in the
trash. Just ask some dead people, how that worked
out for them.

Paul