In message , tony sayer
writes

In an Ideal world yes maybe.

But the world if far from ideal. Remember that a design requirement as
best I remember was that a simple thing to be used by the person
afflicted and to ensure that it was with them at ALL times. If there're
OK wearing a bracelet then fine, but it seems to me that few were. I
would find that something that I may well forget about Christ sakes
sometimes I go out without my mobile even;!!..


Whereas, a bracelet would probably work well for me, if I felt the need
for one.

I wear a watch all the time, rarely taking it off, so wearing a bracelet
all the time would be quite likely to be reliable.

Ring maybe, but I

don't liek wearing rings.

Well go on be daring, get a bracelet..

I wouldn't really trust anything that relied on technology.


Yes but most all of the NHS runs on tech. How do you think that
ambulance gets its "shout"?.

How do you think people contact it in the first place?...


Context, context :-)

I'm obviously not meaning I don't trust 'anything' that relies on
technology. phones, satanavs etc. are all jolly handy when you want to
an ambulance to get to you

Rather in this context, a simple bracelet or whatever with the key info
on it/contained within is pretty foolproof - barring it being stolen.

Something relies on a mobile phone connection , esp a data connection,
has a big point of failure built right in if that network isn't
available. Which isn't hard - we live in a decent sized Cambridgeshire
village, but only have a GPRS connection, driving to my Mum's along one
of the main roads, there are bits which can have no connection at all.

As an adjunct to the bracelet it could be beneficial, but I think it
would be wrong to rely on it
--
Chris French

On Sunday, 8 March 2015 12:33:01 UTC, tony sayer wrote:
Yes but most all of the NHS runs on tech. How do you think that
ambulance gets its "shout"?.

The control room phones the station and a little man runs along a corridor with a piece of paper? Or is that only when the tech falls over?

How do you think people contact it in the first place?...

In my case, using a Tele. 332 :-)

Owain

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In an Ideal world yes maybe.

But the world if far from ideal. Remember that a design requirement as
best I remember was that a simple thing to be used by the person
afflicted and to ensure that it was with them at ALL times. If there're
OK wearing a bracelet then fine, but it seems to me that few were.

I think the answer there is to design one that can't be easily removed
that you wear the whole time and is comfortable to wear all the time.
Only used by those who have a medical condition that does need
someone to deal with the person properly for the best outcome.

Yep OK with that as long as you can get them to do that, still self
preservation might be a good encouragement..


I would find that something that I may well forget about Christ sakes
sometimes I go out without my mobile even;!!..

Yeah I do too, but I never go out without my keys, essentially
because there is no way to get the car going without them.

Yep if I'm out on site anywhere a put the things I should take with we
on the car keys sort of "interlock" as it were..


So it would be useful if the bracelet said very explicitly indeed
that the individual needs to get assistance quickly if they are
found unconscious and the problem isn't that they are prone
to getting blind drunk and to not assume its just another bender.

Harder if they are just staggering around obviously out of it
because its harder to check a bracelet in that situation and
not very many are likely to be happy to have that tattooed
on their forehead.

Good point but then again how many would approach someone who's in that
sort of state many as you say would assume still that "****" has been on
the booze or doing drugs

I think plenty who are aware of the state diabetics can get into would.

and if I go near them they might "damage" me..

That isn't usually a major consideration in that situation.

Course your average ambulance according the a friend of mine who looks
after their systems have a mobile phone or two around with them.

Yes, but that won't help Dave, because there is no mobile coverage
in quite a few places where he might be found unconscious.

Well I think we ought to suggest that Dave is accompanied around
wherever he might roan in deepest Cumbria;!!..

I'm not convinced that there is enough risk of ending
up completely unconscious with that being a life
threatening situation with Parkinson's to warrant that.

Sure that all networks haven't coverage there?..

That is certainly what he said.

Still it may well be if they wanted to they could have this info onboard
that sort of info encrypted and secure, not there now but not that
difficult if need be updated over a secure link..

In his situation it needs to be usable by a member of the public,
because an ambulance is a full hour away apparently and the
member of the public needs to know that they need to do
something fast to get the chopper called in, like run to
somewhere where the chopper can be called from.

I don’t see that there is any need for encryptions with a condition
like Parkinson's. Ebola or HIV/AIDS maybe, but he doesn’t have that.

A current trend among some mobile data systems is to have more than the
one SIM card, so if one operator hasn't good coverage there then the
other might, that has worked well for some..

Sure, but not for Dave.

Do we know that its all borked in Howhills?..

That's certainly what he said and that doesn’t surprise
me, we had a massive stink about someone who ended
up dead here in that situation just because mobile
communications where just that bad and he couldn’t
call for assistance himself and ended up dead.

Lot to be said for a bracelet that can't be easily removed for Dave.

I'd likely wear one myself even tho I never ever wear any
jewellery at all, ever, if I did have a medical condition that
could see the right sort of assistance save my life.

That might swing me if I were -that- critical I suppose..

So are we any further forward Dave?..