If these lot ever have a read through Visible’s daily check-in questions, they’re going to feel pretty silly spending so much time writing the same ones.
It would be great if the new patients facing this guff say “oh let me show you my data for these questions, I record it daily and my Visible app makes it into a graph. Do you want to see a week, month, year? Just scroll through the chart!”
You see I don’t mind this - it makes sense that we don’t want to be requiring people to give over live monitoring data if their lives to an agency. And all the calibration stuff from different apps.
so filling in questions where peoples answers can be informed by their own app and experience of using it is in theory a best fit work-around. If everyone is doing it and is helped to do so. Certainly in relation to other questions that social pressure hugely influences and so on.
and if those end up being the questions used in the right way and order - so they don’t switch the cart before the horse.
the thing with an app is that it can hide that something that happened after (crying) can’t have been the cause of the thing correlated with it (friend mean mean) or in our case [rested and had no other stuff] felt better—> could do more/functioned better.
and THATS what’s being lost in this method.
you have PEM which happens in the days after (maybe it goes on for a fortnight - big PEM even more)
and deterioration from cumulative overdoing - which might even be skirting triggering PEM to the extent someone notices due to the ‘feeling good from pushing limits - which hits at 6-12months.
so that would need a total fir the exertion over that entire time and then a measure of function much longer term.
I don’t get what testing one day one month later has to do with the illness AT ALL?
PS and yet I know from doing these things myself their language shows they clearly think they are being really clever and specific with that. But to a model of ‘a condition’ (I don’t think they call it illness?) that’s what?
I think sarah forgets that when she works with strokes then normally (or it should) the stroke itself has been dealt with and it’s now ‘an injury’
if you’ve an illness that has been treated like cancer it’s the same (except chemo might have played a part in said injury the cancer has been treated)
if you’ve an illness with illness-moderating drugs THEYVe stopped that underlying ‘mechanism’ from being there making things worse.
this seems like a measure missing the point that it’s a live untreated illness - and has ignored the one mechanism we know is now the cardinal feature in its design focus.
Yet seems very sure it’s doing something clever and I want to know the details of what’s behind them thinking that’s clever ie their ‘view/model’ they in their mind are actually thinking about. Transparency is important here.