The part about you client’s battery being dead doesn’t surprise me. My wife doesn’t wear a watch often, but the 3 she has all have dead batteries. One of my coworkers for had a watch she wore everyday despite the fact that the Quartz movement had completely broken (the crown would no longer change the time), and I have a good friends who has a watch that he likes because his wife gave it to him that he wears despite the minute hand working but the hour hand stuck in place. Third coworker has an orient mako that he bought because he read an article saying it was a great watch. We work on 4 day work week and he only wears it to work, so it goes dead every weekend. After a while he stopped setting the day-date, then he stopped setting the time altogether. Moral of the story, for the non-WUS crowd they are wearing their watches for fashion primarily, and isn’t that uncommon to wear it past its usefulness as an accurate time telling device.
Yep. It highlights a non negligible proportion of people do wear watches as they would use simple jewelry. Hopefully, others also do for their overall usefulness, and part of those because they need to, but the former category are instructive examples.
In my experience doctors no longer check pulse rate with a watch nor do nurses anymore.
View attachment 15724394
Three questions then if I may, from your experience :
- Do the doctors wash their hands after examining you ?
- What device do they use to check your temperature ?
- Did you see them wash the portable pulse oxymeter after using it ?
From what I've seen, for doctors, it varies depending on the practitioner's specialty, degree of mobility and personal choices. A sedentary nephrologist in a hospital, with nurses around already providing the vitals constants for him on a plate will rely more often on automated measures, whereas a general practitioner alone in the country side will be more likely to check the pressure with a manual cuff. Depending on all of that,
— some will never check the vitals manually ;
— some will do it manually (with a watch and their hands) most of the time but check with the oxymeter in case of doubt or emergency ;
— some will always measure those manually (thus always with a watch).
A growing (majority ?) proportion of nurses however seem to adopt automated apparel indeed. Including wrist blood pressure device sometimes btw, which AFAIK mostly aren't validated.
I live in France though, and those points could possibly vary among countries.
While I did love the OCD in the second point in reality if you need to check the pulse on a patient old-style then you'd have to place three bare fingers on his bare wrist. Obviously not the thing to do in COVID-time. Everyone nowadays just takes the pulse with the contraption that measures pO2. Cardiologists will do an ECG. And you can't check a wristwatch if you're suited up for COVID. Its best if you don't wear a watch anymore in a ward, period. I'm thoroughly washing mine when I'm off from work (and only wear steel bracelets now at work) but I don't routinely handle patients up close so it doesn't really apply to me.
If I may, unless you're into manual colonoscopy (AKA digital fecal impaction cure 🤣), the part of your body you will use to touch your patient with will not be your wrist but the tip of your fingers, possibly your palms, occasionally the non palmar side of the hand.
Thus, as everyone is aware of that, they wash their hands each time after examining or interacting manually with the patient. And so, it doesn't matter if you touch the patient, as you will cleanse your hands right afterwards. But do they wash their tools, which also where in contact with the patient every time ? Namely, the end tip of the pulse oxymeter, which touched the finger, the patient previously used to rub his ear, which is full of staphyloccus ? Do they ?
The truth is that you don't need to touch your wristwatch while checking the pulse. No contact with yourself, nor with the patient. Contrary to the pulse oxymeter. And so bacteriologically speaking, it's WAY more contaminant to use a non disposable contact device than a non disposable non contact one. Such as a watch.
To the point I've been in a infectious diseases ward where wristwatches were allowed, at the strict condition of them being adjusted in a snug way on the wrist (and so never inadvertently get in contact with the patient). I've always thought it was kinda sexist, as it allowed the (mostly male) doctors to keep their watches while the (mostly female) nurses had pocket watches tuck-on on their outfits. Yet now I do see the logic, as contrary to jewelry bracelets, a snug watch won't move up and down your arm. And thus never make contact.
And that applies in 95% circumstances. For those actually working in a COVID ward, I believe that when available they'll use an additional semi-transparent gow, which would actually cover the wrist (and thus protect the watch).
While I did love the OCD in the second point in reality if you need to check the pulse on a patient old-style then you'd have to place three bare fingers on his bare wrist. Obviously not the thing to do in COVID-time.
I beg to differ, but doctors and digestive surgeons would be in a deep sh*t if they couldn't touch the patient anymore, as it's required for abdominal palpation, but also for parts of the respiratory and cardiovascular exam (not to mention neurological). You can't just CT scan every patient who enters a medical office. That's part of the problem of teleconsultations btw.
The thing is it's different to touch the patient in a controlled setting (when you're examining him/her), as you can wash your hands with hydro-alcoholic solution right away, and thus start clean and finish cleansed (or wearing disposable gloves in surgical applications) ; than in an uncontrolled setting (such as shaking hands). And as far as I know, SARS-CoV-2 still dies to hydro-alcoholic solutions and soap.
Yes, you're absolutely right, nobody 'needs' a particular watch because they get into a certain hobby.
But at the end of the day, isn't watch collecting just another hobby? And as such, do we really need any justification to buy a watch beyond, "I want to have it in the collection."?
I know we're all for not buying watches here in this group, but surely none of us think that this mentality should be applied to the whole industry and the whole lot of watch collectors.
That would be a bit like the guy who smokes socially five or six days a week looking down on the guy who smokes a pack a day. It's a bit hypocritical to say, "you're allowed to like watches, but only if you don't have/buy more than X."
If I may, that's the same than with most addictions. Some people will never get addicted to alcohol, and thus won't have to restrain themselves, and will mostly benefit from the enjoyable sides of it. Some however will get addicted, and some of those will lose control. They will start needing the fix just to feel normal, just to stop the craving, instead of just enjoying it. And then starts a relationship toward the addiction where the individual will get just as much suffering from it than enjoyment, and eventually more.
I think the WPAC's concept is the same extrapolated to watches. I mean, if you're buying your 150th watch, chances are you're not really enjoying the 149 others anymore, and that the dopamine shot of buying this one will only be short lived. Your control towards the addiction will be questionable, as the mere pleasure of simply using your watches might've decreased. That's where reminding you about controlled, though-on ways of collecting might help you in restoring the enjoyment on the long term.Once again, an Epicurean thought. ^^
+1 on all of the above. Nothing wrong with having watches sinply because you like them.
It's something I've noticed a few times in this thread. People get too carried away with the bashing and anti-purchasing and go to the other extreme of bashing the hobby and the enjoyment of watches altogether. That's a thought I simply can't and won't share.
Life's not binary. There's many levels between having a few hundreds watches and saying "it's a tool and you don't need more than one". If I only did what was an absolute necessity life would be painfully and unbearably boring.
I think what Wimads wanted to convey, is that the increased segmentation of the constructors products lines tend to increase the needs. For example, regarding Victorinox Swiss Army, in the 1990 they had the Lancers 100 as polyvalent GADAs : they could be used as field watches, for swiming, as beaters and even in formal occasions. Steel case, steel bracelet, average dimensions, rotatable bezel : one watch could do it all.
Nowadays, the 2019 catalog starts with a field watch with a leather strap, and then above comes a formal diver with the rotatable bezel, and even above the rugged beater. Though those watches do perform appreciably better in their individual segment (the 2019 field watch is more legible than the 1990 GADA), they are also less suited for other needs (you won't dive with the leather strap, and will be less likely to get your elegant diver beaten while tinkering). And so... they implictly encourage the user to get one watch for each circumstance/role. 🔎
Makes me wonder again why I was ever so enamoured of mechanical watches when I have to regularly remove them to do various activities. (I needed to take it off to adjust something on a bike today, and then my kiddo stepped on it. No harm, though.) But that's another topic that's been done to death probably since Seiko released the Astron...
Honestly a lot of WUS seem to never even wonder about it, but compared to quartz, mechanicals are a no go in many circumstances. Yet there is some kind of fascination to them, hence the popularity among addicts, and in luxury.