What Cardiologists Think About the Apple Watch's Heart-Tracking Feature (sfgate.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from SFGate: The newest Apple Watch can now flag potential problems with your heartbeat -- a feature that's been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration and that Apple is marking as a major achievement. But some doctors said that including heart-monitoring tools in such a popular consumer product could prompt unnecessary anxiety and medical visits. Physicians say the watch could be good for patients who have irregular heart rhythms but may not realize it. Some people who have atrial fibrillation, the condition for which the watch is screening, don't always have noticeable symptoms. In an ideal situation, someone who doesn't know they have a problem could get a warning from their watch and take that data to their doctor.

But there is also concern that widespread use of electrocardiograms without an equally broad education initiative could burden an already taxed health-care system. Heart rhythms naturally vary, meaning that it's likely that Apple Watch or any heart monitor could signal a problem when there isn't one -- and send someone running to the doctor for no reason. "People are scared; their heart scares them," John Mandrola, a cardiologist at Baptist Health in Louisville, said. "That leads to more interaction with the health-care system." An extra visit to your doctor may not sound like a bad thing, but Mandrola said it would potentially lead to another round of tests or even unnecessary treatment if there are other signs that can be misinterpreted. And doctors might wind up facing a crowd of anxious Apple Watch users getting false signals -- something physicians have already had to deal with as fitness trackers that monitor heart rates have become popular.

Comments

Doctor visits maybe harmful?

[khchung]

it would potentially lead to another round of tests or even unnecessary treatment if there are other signs that can be misinterpreted.

The same could be said for any visit to any doctor for any reason, so that means any visit to the doctor may be harmful?

Sound like a problem with American doctors than with anything else.

Re: Doctor visits maybe harmful?

[alvinrod]

This would in fact suggest the opposite. In a single payer system where the people visiting the doctor don't bear the direct costs, there's no incentive not to go to the doctor outside of the time spent going to the doctor. If you can't get instant access, why would you ever not go outside of a dislike of doctors or hospitals?

If you make people pay for it directly, they might be a bit more remiss to see a doctor over a reading from their gadget. I don't know much about the watch beyond some headlines, but presumably it can store the data and take several readings over time. If a person gets an odd reading once, they'll probably shrug it off. If it's consistent, maybe they are willing to pay for a doctor visit.

It's the same problem as when price controls are instituted in a shortage. People over-consume which makes the shortage worse, and there's no economic incentive for anyone on the outside to solve the problem. You're better off letting prices adjust and people will buy less in the face of higher direct cost and you'll get a better distribution of available goods. Meanwhile, increased prices single suppliers to bring more goods into that market (they want to sell where they can get more) which helps increase supply to meet the larger demand.

In a nationalized system the amount of health care is already established in advance, or has some other limitations in place. If there isn't an overwhelming demand for it, it will work reasonably well, but pressure to keep costs in check will mean that it's unlikely to be largely underutilized and capable of absorbing a large sudden spike in demand. If you get something like this that creates a sudden amount of demand, there's nothing there to cause consumers to self-regulate their behavior (outside of not wanting to deal with long waits for a limited resource) and the bureaucracy will not be able to react fast enough to the demand spike to do anything about it in the short term.

Re: Doctor visits maybe harmful?

[postbigbang]

To the point, however, more data isn't bad. It needs to be appropriately identified and indemnified. Didn't wear your watch? Uh oh. Lots of possible data points to miss.

These aren't EKG quality, and given their wearing position, are unlikely to be at that level. But they can detect a few things, and send alerts. Maybe they do blood sugar one day. Trauma. Propensity to become reactive to media currently being viewed for political analytic effect.

The boundaries are undefined, but I don't believe a preponderance of cardiologists wants to ignore valid data.

Re: Doctor visits maybe harmful?

[willy_me]

How foolish. Even with a single payer system those seeking heal care bear a cost. The costs can vary depending on the system but at the very least - it costs a pile of time. There is always an incentive to not seek medical attention.

The argument for gadgets is that costs associated with prevention (like extra visits to the doctor) are far less then the costs associated with a late diagnosis. If only 1 in 100 of the visits turns out to be a valid concern it can not only save lives but also reduce overall health care costs.

Consider the difference between the cost of a week-long hospital stay and the cost of a month-long hospital stay. You really want an early diagnosis because treatment can cost a fortune. A trip to the doctor costs 30 minutes.

Re: Doctor visits maybe harmful?

[CoolDiscoRex]

where the people visiting the doctor don't bear the direct costs, there's no incentive not to go to the doctor outside of the time spent going to the doctor. If you can't get instant access, why would you ever not go outside of a dislike of doctors or hospitals?

Wow, I want to go to your doctor! It sounds like you have such a good time with him/her.

Although I do see your point. If people could go to the doctor everyday, they surely would. Unless, of course, they had a job. Or a hobby. Or liked to do, well, anything other than go to the doctor.

Not sure why they would do anything else, though. There's just something about spending 2 hours in a waiting room (regardless of my appointed time), and another hour in the exam room, that just does it for me. Maybe it's the magazines. I don't get Woman's Day at home, but boy do I churn through it at the doctor's office. Once, they even had Cosmo, and I got a Woodrow Wilson from the cleavage on the cover that I thought would never go down. Oh yes, the doctor's office is what I imagine heaven is like, only better. I especially like the finger in my butt that the doctor assures me that I need.

Come to think of it, I'm not really sure if it's his finger. I mean, he makes me turn around and look the other way.

I need to end this. I need to take a shower. The shame. I need to wash off the shame. If i use a little extra soap, it'll come off. You'll see.

I get your point, though. If only I could, I would live at the doctor's office.

If only I could.

Stop me before I totally do it. Stop everyone!

Re:Doctor visits maybe harmful?

[Anubis IV]

Yeah, it struck me as an odd comment. I mean, suppose 9 in 10 alerts are false positives (which I'd assume is an absurdly high number). The cost for a false positive in this sort of situation is relatively low: patients go in, get some simple tests, confirm they're fine, and go home. There are no ongoing costs to the patient or the system.

But what about that 1 in 10 who isn't a false positive? If we assume that they wouldn't have otherwise had their heart problems noticed until years later after the symptoms had grown severe enough to become noticeable in more significant ways, I'd wager that catching the problem at such an early point would be SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper in the long run. After all, what would have otherwise taken heart surgeries, expensive medications, and numerous visits to fix could instead—at least in some cases—be addressed by a handful of visits and some adjustments to lifestyle. You'd be able to prevent so much harm from ever happening that you'd save a tremendous amount of time and money for each true positive.

Even if it's just 1 in 10 that it gets right, the benefit for that 1 would almost certainly be FAR more than enough to outweigh the cost of the 9. And, as I said earlier, I sincerely doubt it gets as many as 9 out of 10 wrong.

Re: Doctor visits maybe harmful?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but all those false positives are clogging up the doctors office, thatâ(TM)s were the problem is people that need the care canâ(TM)t get in because weâ(TM)ve made healthcare on the us artificially unavailable

Re: Doctor visits maybe harmful?

[shilly]

Which is why single-payer systems typically have gatekeeping mechanisms, such as GP referrals.

This is a solved problem.

Re: Doctor visits maybe harmful?

[Plumpaquatsch]

How did ignoring the doctors work out for Steve?

If they didn't care about his health: no different if he had listend to them. Gee, your straw man needs a doctor. But don't ask me, ask a doctor who actually cares about their patients.

Re: Doctor visits maybe harmful?

[Anubis IV]

Yeah but all those false positives are clogging up the doctors office, thatâ(TM)s were the problem is

No, the problem is that people who didn't catch the problem early enough are clogging up the office on an ongoing, continual, significant basis. False positives would be a drastic improvement to that situation if they helped reduce the ongoing appointments.

Re: Doctor visits maybe harmful?

[tepples]

In single-payer, who's the gatekeeper to the GP/PCP?

Re: Doctor visits maybe harmful?

[shilly]

No need for one. The problem of patients needlessly taking GPs' appointment slots is much smaller than the problem of patients on a GP's list who don't come to the practice when they really should. The UK runs free-at-point-of-use GP service where patients have no co-pays etc and can see the doctor as many times as they need to, in theory, and until the Tories decimated primary care in the last 8 years (taking it from an average 9% of NHS spend down to 6%), many practices were routinely able to provide an appointment within 48 hours to patients on their lists. I worked with a bunch of practices in an inner city who were struggling to provide good access to GP appointments for their patients, and the issue was not a lack of resource but about how they ran themselves. They all were able to achieve good access swiftly, and then they focused attention on ensuring they were bringing in the people who really needed proactive care: the frail elderly, people with mental health issues (often living chaotic lives), mums with young children, people with unstable chronic diseases, etc.

Re:Doctor visits maybe harmful?

[emmjayell]

Follow the trail of money to the overly expensive tests done on relatively inexpensive machines, funded by your premiums to in$urance companies and your copayment$.

Re:Doctor visits maybe harmful?

[BigDukeSix]

Apparently there is no such thing as a 'false positive' in Europe. Maybe you geniuses could show us stupid Americans how you pull that off. Thanks in advance.

Speaking for me and mine

[rmdingler]

It seems likely a simple majority of people would rather risk a false positive and an unnecessary visit to the doctor, than have a significant arrhythmia go undetected.

Re:Speaking for me and mine

[Ensign_Expendable]

WTF?

Re:Speaking for me and mine

[shmlco]

"Collectively, you will overburden the healthcare system."

We have a "concern" to that effect from a single doctor who hasn't been anywhere near the device in question. In fact, the software that does the heart analysis and ECG won't even ship with the product on launch, but will arrive later.

And yet there's "concern" that some as yet unknown number of "false positives" could overwhelm the health care system. As opposed to potentially reducing the number of emergency room visits due to heart attacks, the number of heart surgeries required due to late treatment of symptoms, and even deaths.

On the flip side, the head of the American Heart Association was on stage during the introduction, thrilled with the announcement and the advantages it would provide.

Let's see... head of the American Heart Association... some unknown doc from Kentucky... head of the American Heart Association... some unknown doc from Kentucky... hmmm.

mandated coverage and socialized costs

[ooloorie]

But there is also concern that widespread use of electrocardiograms without an equally broad education initiative could burden an already taxed health-care system. Heart rhythms naturally vary, meaning that it's likely that Apple Watch or any heart monitor could signal a problem when there isn't one -- and send someone running to the doctor for no reason.

Well, and that's a problem when you mandate coverage, set insurance rates, socialize costs, and have third-party payer systems: people don't apply good judgment and go to the doctor whenever they feel like it because they end up not having to pay for it.

Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs

[b0s0z0ku]

Why is that a problem? We (in the US) would have more money for healthcare and education subsidies if we stopped mass-incarceration, enforcement of victimless crimes, and military thuggery in countries we have no business intervening in.

The US needs MORE access to healthcare, not more rationing via economic means.

Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs

[King_TJ]

Well, let's be realistic here.... The funding going for things like mass incarceration and military exercise in foreign countries won't just get fully redirected to healthcare and education subsidies if you put a stop to those things. It's a powerful "selling point" to get a point across, but government funds often go to one area because of a complex underlying situation. It's not just a general pot that all the money piles up in until they decide how to divvy it up.

If you believe some of the reports about the Pentagon, alone? It claims they "lost" over 9 trillion dollars. The funds just "vanished" with no records to show where they might have gone. And while sure, Trump and others promised to "investigate"? How much uproar have you heard lately about any of it? Yeah, not much. They'll basically stall until it's forgotten about and move on. If you could just reclaim THAT money, you'd have all sorts of options of other places you could spend it. But truthfully, SOMETHING happened to it -- and probably had a lot to do with cash payments to various foreign leaders to make deals happen or not happen around the world.

Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs

[MrL0G1C]

We're fucked (humans), here in the UK we have an extremely decent guy running the Labour party, it's not in power, he probably won't win, even if he does win there will be endless shitheads causing problems for him and all the media will rail against him as it already has. He nearly won the last election despite the media putting in the boot but too many people let TV and newspapers do their thinking for them. Having an honest politician run the country is not what most people want, they want more money and they will vote for the best liar who tells them they will get more money. They won't get more money, the richest people will, same as always.

Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs

[ooloorie]

Having an honest politician run the country is not what most people want, they want more money and they will vote for the best liar who tells them they will get more money. They won't get more money, the richest people will, same as always.

Corbyn is a self-described socialist. In light of that and the history of socialism, the rest of your comment is profoundly ironic.

But Americans need object lessons in real-world socialism and fascism again, now that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany are gone. So go for it! It's not my life you're wrecking.

Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs

[serviscope_minor]

Congratulations, this is the stupidest post I've read on the internet today. It's a high par to pass but you passed it.

Your argument is: GP wants single payer healthcare. Some stupid straw man you've invented says that some people who want single payer also want open borders. OMFG GP SI TEH MORAN single healthcare means open borders.

Your post has everything:

* reactionary bigotry about anyone who disagrees on any aspect of politics
* aggresive stupidity
* entire armies of straw men
* ignoring that places other than America exist
* flagrant disregard for reality
* angrily making shit up

Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs

[MrL0G1C]

Americans and Brits take socialism to mean different things, in the US socialism seems to mean communism. I'd rather have his style of socialism any day over the dystopian capitalist dog eat dog world that is the US today with it's absurdly expensive health costs, insane prison population etc.

Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs

[samkass]

I ended up with a president that created kill lists of Americans, followed the advice of Keynesians, engaged in even more unwise military adventures, massively increased the cost of my medical insurance, created moral hazards all over the place, and for good measure accused me of having white privilege and not having built my business. So, not doing that again. (I left the Democratic party after being a lifelong Democrat.)

Go home, Russian troll.

Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs

[serviscope_minor]

God no. What we have is a duplictius, anti-semitic arsehole.

Anti semitic: no he's never said anything anti semitic. However the party under him, with him at the helm takes a strong stance against well founded accusations of antisemitism and a very gentle stance towards the anti-semites. At some point if you keep standing in the way you're part of the problem.
He's also cut from the same cloth as David Cameron, underneath. Cameron was the kind of arsehole prepared to put party before country which is why he held the referendum. Corbyn knew then and knows now that a lot of people, and the poorest especially (and many man of his voters) will be fucked by Brexit. He eventually camd down in favour but refused to share the remain platform with the Tories becase he was more concerned with putting party before country and that old party rivalry was just to important.

He's also a massive hypocrite. He was one of the most rebellious backbenchers when he had little power. Now he has power, he's really keen on using the whip and there are growing talks of delselection. Oh and the whole "we need a higher tax bracket but it should start just above what I'm earning".

Ha also. His little usual tour in front of his cheering crowds at Glastonbury. FFS. Yes he was all like rah rah policies rah to waves of cheers. Except I note that his single biggest policy: "we will follow the results of the referendum ant take Britain out of the EU" got no mention at all. Because it wasn't a politics tent it was a bloody Trump style rally.

Labour party, it's not in power, he probably won't win, even if he does win there will be endless shitheads causing problems for him and all the media will rail against him as it already has. He nearly won the last election despite the media putting in the boot but too many people let TV and newspapers do their thinking for them.

Yeah I remember the media campaign against Corbyn at the beginning. It was pretty disgusting. Lots of blatat misqoting and quoting out of conext, borderline lies etc. I was actually pretty pro corbyn for a while. I do actually like quite a lot of his policies, some of them a great deal. But I've come ot really dislike the guy.

He also seems to be somewhat stuck in the past with a vision of british industry which is barely more than teams of men in cloth caps looking serious and bashing rivets. We do have industry. That isn't it. Pretending otherwise isn't going to make it come back.

Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs

[rworne]

So you are telling me the leftist agenda does not promote (sources below are from left-leaning sites, and one centrist site):

Socialized/single payer medicine
Open borders
Controlling "Big Pharma"
Progressive taxation, especially on the rich

Because this is what the far left is pushing right now.

Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs

[serviscope_minor]

I have no idea what passes for the "leftist agenda" in your head.

What I do know is that plenty of countries have single payer healthcare and don't have open borders.

Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs

[ooloorie]

Americans and Brits take socialism to mean different things, in the US socialism seems to mean communism.

I was born in Europe, and unlike you Brits, have first-hand experience with the tender mercies of socialism, democratic and otherwise.

I'd rather have his style of socialism any day over the dystopian capitalist dog eat dog world that is the US today with it's absurdly expensive health costs, insane prison population etc.

Ah, yes, the ignorance and anti-Americanism so typical of educated Europeans. As I was saying: I encourage you to vote for Corbyn and see what happens!

Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs

[MrL0G1C]

Of course he's not anti-semitic, get real, what trash newspapers are you reading? And if you haven't noticed anyone who criticises Israel is immediately dubbed anti-semitic, take that crap with a pinch of salt.

Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs

[MrL0G1C]

US has tens of millions of people in poverty, if telling the truth is anti-American then yes I'm anti-American. US populace is so brain-washed it can't tell fake news from real news. US population is the Turkey who votes for Xmas.

Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs

[ooloorie]

Go home, Russian troll.

Actually, I moved to the US to get away from European authoritarians.

Now let's look at you: in 2011, you decided to move to Goldman Sachs, a company that had made billions from the taxpayer funded bailout at the time and lied about it to Congress, a company that was in bed with Hillary Clinton and paid her massively inflated speaking fees, getting reassurance and insider information. And then you joined Credit Suisse and moved to an enclave of the super rich and since that was long before his election, you don't even have Trump's election as an excuse. And Hillary, of course, was in bed with Swiss banks and the Swiss government too.

So spare me your self-righteous trolling about "Russian trolls". You are part of the corrupt, privileged elite of Americans that voters rebelled against, and good for them. I almost regret that I didn't vote for Trump. Almost.

Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs

[cbeaudry]

You mean crony capitalism.

Without government powers, the things you identified would not happen.

Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs

[ooloorie]

US has tens of millions of people in poverty

In 2016, 21.6% (13.4 million) of Brits lived in poverty by UK standards, whereas only 12.7% of Americans did in 2016. The US poverty rate has been below 20% since the early 1960's.

But the actual situation is a lot bleaker because "poverty" is measured relative to median income, which is considerably lower in the UK. If measured against US standards, 40% of the UK is low income. On top of that, the US has numerous benefits for people "in poverty" that aren't counted against their income. The upshot is that the US poverty rates actually greatly overestimate actual poverty.

US populace is so brain-washed it can't tell fake news from real news.

Having lived on both sides of the big pond, it's clear that it's Europeans who are brainwashed. You illustrate that with your absurd beliefs.

Brits in particular are so brainwashed that they actually trust the BBC. At least, as the same survey shows, they are not trusting their government anymore.

Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs

[rworne]

I have no idea what passes for the "leftist agenda" in your head.

Funny because I just posted a bunch of links to it.

This country does not have open borders, has universal health care, and has an ongoing problem with abuse of the system by foreigners:

Japan has a socialized medical system where people get insurance through their employers or from the government. It's a really good system as well - top notch medical treatment, safe, effective prescription drugs, and costs (unlike in the U.S.) are much lower.

The problem:
You need to be a resident of Japan (or have something more than a 90-day tourist visa) in order to "buy into" the system via insurance and/or taxes. There's an ongoing problem with medical tourism in that country. People come in for the express purpose of gaining (or faking) residency, promptly getting expensive medical treatment, and leaving without paying anything into the system.

example here

Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs

[serviscope_minor]

Funny because I just posted a bunch of links to it.

Thing is I don't really care whay your idea of the "leftist agenda" is. It's clearly blatantly stupid so precise the details of the stpidity are unimportant.

This country does not have open borders, has universal health care

WTF? S is the leftist agenda both together or not? Make up your mind.

People come in for the express purpose of gaining (or faking) residency, promptly getting expensive medical treatment, and leaving without paying anything into the system.

We have the Daily Fail complaining about that here too. Turns out it's actually negligible.

Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs

[rworne]

At least I post sources and stay on topic.

You contribute nothing except ad-hominems.

Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs

[serviscope_minor]

At least I post sources and stay on topic.

Wow you have no shame!

Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs

[Uberbah]

In light of that and the history of socialism

The history of being infinitely better for 95% of the population than capitalism - right up until the government is overthrown by the CIA.

Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs

[ooloorie]

The history of being infinitely better for 95% of the population than capitalism - right up until the government is overthrown by the CIA.

Seriously? The people of the Soviet Union, Cuba, East Germany, Poland, Hungary, all those countries were "infinitely better off" than with capitalism?

Your level of ignorance isn't just astounding, it is offensive.

Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs

[King_TJ]

Trump has nothing to do with this except for a comment from him at one point that he wanted to investigate the missing funds.

https://www.reuters.com/articl...

Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs

[Plumpaquatsch]

US has tens of millions of people in poverty

In 2016, 21.6% (13.4 million) of Brits lived in poverty by UK standards, whereas only 12.7% of Americans did in 2016.

Even ignoring the fact that the US link doesn't have your US number anywhere (you'l have to go to the Census to find that) - you are comparing two different definitions of poverty.

Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs

[ooloorie]

Even ignoring the fact that the US link doesn't have your US number anywhere (you'll have to go to the Census to find that)

It's right there in the first figure.

you are comparing two different definitions of poverty

Quite right. As I pointed out later, according to the US definition of poverty, about 40% of UK citizens live in poverty. Conversely, if you count in kind benefits in the US (which is needed to make it comparable to Europe), the US poverty rate drops even further.

So the actual discrepancy between US and UK poverty is even larger than the official numbers suggest (ditto for Germany).

Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs

[Plumpaquatsch]

Even ignoring the fact that the US link doesn't have your US number anywhere (you'll have to go to the Census to find that)

It's right there in the first figure.

Nope, it says 12.3% right there. You are not making any points.

you are comparing two different definitions of poverty

Quite right. As I pointed out later, according to the US definition of poverty, about 40% of UK citizens live in poverty.

And if you use the UK standard "starting in the 1930s, relative poverty rates have consistently exceeded those of other wealthy nations." So the US loses as do you - oh BTW: Trump is poor.

Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs

[ooloorie]

Nope, it says 12.3% right there. You are not making any points.

I gave the number for 2016 (just like UK). Notice how the figure was updated just Saturday?

And if you use the UK standard "starting in the 1930s, relative poverty rates have consistently exceeded those of other wealthy nations."

You're still confusing absolute and relative poverty, and you obviously don't understand the different ways of measuring even relative poverty.

So the US loses as do you

If that belief makes your life tolerable, I encourage you to hold on to it.

Like cardiologists are going to turn down business

[Applehu Akbar]

Now pull the other one.

Perfect for the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

This device fits the way Muricans generally think, i.e. "As long as I get mine and don't have to be considerate about anyone else, then that's just great. Who cares if I choke up the healthcare system with false positives. I won't bother me."

Improvement

[spinitch]

I think the main caution was provide some education on how to use vs slapping on and freaking out over a non std reading. Kind of expect medical professionals to figure out how to deal with users of these devices and Apple will also cooperate. In other words, No shit Sherlock. Early detection should save lives. The improvement in tracking should help reduce false negatives over time. A HRM is good for people awareness of their conditioning. Of course can do with a second hand watch and your fingers but much less convenient. Hard to do while moving.

Must complain

[Kohath]

No one will read the article unless it's about people complaining.

Sure, that’s what cardiologists say

[93 Escort Wagon]

But what does Cardi B say?

tl;dr

[beckett]

Similar effect as other fitness trackers, tags: doctor, heart, apple, watch

The Mixed Message

[Austerity Empowers]

On my first child, we did the new parent thing, went to the training sessions the Ob recommended, learned various facts and warning signs. One of which is "if the fever is above , come to the ER immediately, it's the law." So a couple years go by, and as it happens the kid gets a fever, it's shooting up over 105, we rush him to the ER. Anyway, doctor sees the kid, the kid throws up, temp comes down. Doctor diagnoses him with a stomach bug, and chastises me for an unnecessary ER visit in the most condescending way possible. And I sit there thinking "yeah I knew this, but I did what your own staff said to do. Asshole."

So I read the paragraph and it simultaneously says yeah if you have atrial fib and don't know it, it's helpful. But also, they fear all the people rushing to their doctor unnecessarily. So which is it? I'll tell you which, if it says you may have a problem, go to the goddamn doctor and let him tell you it's not. Then when you get the condescending lecture, think real loudly what an asshole he is.

Re:The Mixed Message

[Cmdln Daco]

At this point I imagine bottles of asprin say "If you have a headache while using this product, consult a physician. Do not use if you are susceptible to mortality."

At this point any over-the-counter medication has so many warnings and cautions on the label that the label wraps all the way around the bottle with warnings.

If you want to find out how many of the pill you should take (the actual usage recommendation) you need to peel the label back and scan the REST of the warnings wrapping down the BACK of the label to some small print at the very bottom that says how many pills to take.

Ruke #314,012 of Human Nature

[CoolDiscoRex]

It's always the other guy who gets too much healthcare.

Our visits are always legitimate, even if they turn up nothing, it's better to be safe than sorry.

Other people need too much peace of mind, though. Damn other people! They are they so worried about themselves? I don't get it? I mean, I'm not worried about them! Why are they???

If other people go to the doctor too much, I might be able to get an appointment when I have a (totally legitimate, mind you) concern,

Oh no, now I'm worried about me. If other people go to the doctor more than they do now, I might be effected in some way.

No, no, this is not good at all. Not good at all. What about me? Huh? Have any of you stopped being selfish for a moment and thought about me? Or have you thought about yourselves? Huh? Answer me!

Ban this Apple Watch. People should utilize healthcare perfectly like I do and if they don't, we certainly shouldn't encourage them to use it even more imperfectly!

I'm outraged.

Re:Ruke #314,012 of Human Nature

[serviscope_minor]

Our visits are always legitimate, even if they turn up nothing, it's better to be safe than sorry.

Unfortunately not. The trouble is that visits can and do turn up false positives. Those false positives inevitably end up with treatment which does come with risks.

We're starting to slowly wake up to this with poulation scale screening for certain diseases. They've always been tilted in favour of low false negatives because hey, who wants to miss cancer? The trouble is the overall outcomes are not actually the best like that.

Re: If Apple had cured cancer

[CoolDiscoRex]

You'd have assholes coming out of the woodwork bitching about how bad that is for society. People bitch and moan about shit all the time. Why should some subset of doctors be any different.

Goddammn assholes and their bitching and moaning! People are TOTALLY moaning and bitching ... bitching and moaning ... all the time. ABOUT SHIT! About shit I tell you! I mean, can you imagine? People bitching and then people moaning, and doing it about shit and doing it about shit all the time, and assholes coming out of the woodwork, THE WOODWORK, I mean hello, how about some Super Glue for the laws of physics you assholes broke ... I mean ... sigh ... I just ... I just ... I don't know man, sometimes I'm just like "Why do people have to be bitching about shit and moaning about shit and if they have to do it, like, why does it have to be all the time ...maybe go watch a movie or read a book or something ... you know?"

Assholes.

Seems a strange article...

[internet-redstar]

... my brother is a cardiologist.

He's much in favour of this and will buy this new Apple watch. So at least there is some disagreement in the medical community with respect to this very strange 'false positive' claim before the product is actually available.

Personally, I still won't buy this wrist-hanging, freedom imposing, fashion showoff piece of redundancy. I have the time on my Huawei phone, and there's nothing wrong with my heart :-)

New challenge for doctors

[TomGreenhaw]

Doctors follow a philosophy of do no harm. It will be very challenging when patients presenting no other symptoms other than an abnormal ECG seek treatment. Many if not most of these people would otherwise have led normal lives untreated, but now may demand treatment which likely will cause harm. At best initially, our already overburdened health care system will groan under the weight.

Ultimately though, vast numbers of ECG readings and other electronic health records may ultimately serve as training examples for machine learning technology that will lead to life saving outcomes for many who can afford the new technology.

Be wary

[Plumpaquatsch]

Be wary of doctors making a diagnosis based on very little information.