Or just get the vaccine. It’s free.Note to self...buy Apple Watch Series 6.
Or just get the vaccine. It’s free.Note to self...buy Apple Watch Series 6.
I think the AW6 has one sensor that the AW5 does not have - Blood O2. The Apple page for the AW6 claims the Blood O2 sensor is new.I would see if the AW6 is much better or better at all than the AW5.
Not sure where you live, but in my state, you can't just walk in and get a vaccine. The majority of the population here will need to wait out the rest of the winter and into late spring.Or just get the vaccine. It’s free.
Or just get the vaccine. It’s free.
Or just get the vaccine. It’s free.
I am inclined to upgrade my Apple Watch more often than my iPhone. I rarely use or have use for my iPad and doubt I’d ever get another unless I had a specific requirement.The Apple Watch continues to prove it is Apple’s most underrated product.
You're comparing to the general population. But when an athlete is overtraining, the trend in their own resting heartbeat is that it increases. Polar uses this in their watches as an overtraining warning.It's quite the opposite. Resting heartbeat of athletes is much lower than usual.
Ahhahahahhahahah!!!! Oh dear God, please tell me this is a troll account. Please.The Apple Watch could very well end up being one of the most significant medical devices ever made in human history
Yes it is a device of the future, But remember, It is not the only one. The Samsung watches have all the same sensors and can do the same.The Apple Watch could very well end up being one of the most significant medical devices ever made in human history, especially if they end up adding blood-sugar monitoring and more early warning diagnosis like this COVID-19 study. Could end up saving countless lives from all kinds of various conditions.
Too me it seems that the specificity of using the HRM is low.It's worth reading the paper if you want the full picture of what the researchers did. As they note, there is some published data showing that HRV may be predictive of infection, which is what prompted them to do this. They do note several limitations to their study, which is true of all research:
"First, there was a small number of participants who were diagnosed with COVID-19 in our cohort limiting our ability to determine how predictive HRV can be of infection. However, these preliminary findings support the further evaluation of HRV as a metric to identify and predict COVID-19 and warrant further study. An additional limitation is the sporadic collection of HRV by the Apple Watch. While our statistical modelling was able to account for this a denser dataset would allow for expanded evaluation of the relationship between this metric and infections/symptoms. The Apple Watch also only provides HRV in one time-domain (SDNN), limiting assessment of the relationship between other HRV parameters with COVID-19 outcomes. Lastly, an additional limitation is that we relied on self-reported data in this study, precluding independent verification of COVID-19 diagnosis."
But it's interesting and supports the need for further work on the value of wearables in detecting and monitoring disease.
Ok, I like apple a lot but you should look around for other perspectives. Oura Ring for instance, is way less intrusive, very easy to wear while sleeping and keeps a lot more useful data, like temperature. Research was done and publish about its capability to predict Covid. That is actually making NBA buying it to all of their athletes.The Apple Watch could very well end up being one of the most significant medical devices ever made in human history, especially if they end up adding blood-sugar monitoring and more early warning diagnosis like this COVID-19 study. Could end up saving countless lives from all kinds of various conditions.
The PCR is a joke. At the cycle rate they have been using your car would test positive for COVID.
This headline is misleading... The watch CANNOT predict infection a week before the swab detects covid. The watch is not more sensitive than the swab. If those folks had gotten a swab when the heart rate variability changed, they would've likely been positive on the swab. (PCR is super-sensitive.)
It's just that people who get a swab AND were wearing a watch had increased heartbeat variation
Also, it seems like what they mean by "7 days before" is a window including the 7 days before infection, not actually 7 days before the first positive test.
This makes sense as the time from exposure to symptoms is an average of only 5 days with many people experiencing symptoms 2-3 days after exposure. People I know personally had symptoms 2.5 days after exposure.
Re health, to my knowledge Apple Watches have only saved and improved the lives of every wearer.The Apple Watch could very well end up being one of the most significant medical devices ever made in human history, especially if they end up adding blood-sugar monitoring and more early warning diagnosis like this COVID-19 study. Could end up saving countless lives from all kinds of various conditions.