September 10

When do they prick your finger and when do they use your arm?Accdude92 (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When they need a little, and when they need a lot. --Jayron32 02:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, our article blood test seems to only contemplate vein puncture and artery puncture, not a finger prick. Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When would they need a little?Accdude92 (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Blood glucose monitoring. --Daniel 02:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect practices vary a lot around the globe too. Perhaps if Accdude tells us his location, people with knowledge of what happens there may be able to help more. HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully they now have machines that can detect some features of the blood without piercing the skin, so hopefully the finger-stick is a thing of the past, at least in the USA. For testing for other stuff, like diseases or counts, they will draw a test-tube's worth from a vein. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c with Bugs) This forum explains that finger tips are used for glucose monitoring because capillary blood in the fingers shows changes in blood sugar the quickest. A general forum can't be a reliable source, but it's the same reason I heard from a friend who is diabetic. Newer tests don't require the fingertip, but it still seems to be preferred for accuracy. Frankly, I'm not sure I understand the mechanism involved, but there must be a reason why such a nerve-heavy area like the finger tips gets used. If someone finds a reliable source, our articles relating to glucose meter and Blood glucose monitoring could use some beefing up in that area. Matt Deres (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a blood donor in Australia. Before donation, a finger prick is done to determine if haemoglobin levels are high enough, but at the end of the donation a larger further sample is separated into a small container, presumably for testing for disease, etc. One still has the needle in the arm then, so no (further) pain is involved. (It really doesn't hurt.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They also do the finger prick for the cholesterol test lipid profile, at least that's what my doc told me. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 05:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Fingerstick. Outlines usual reasons for getting your finger pricked.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 06:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Obsidian Soul, for that link; I've added a brief mention of it to the blood test article. That article also would cover the awful heel prick that they do on babies at age 1 day. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why "awful?" The heelstick is arguably much less traumatic than venipuncture in a newborn would be, and newborn screening has been tremendously successful in preventing much more "awful" outcomes in untreated inborn errors of metabolism such as phenylketonuria, serious problems due to congenital hypothyroidism, and treatable forms of congenital adrenal hyperplasia, to mention only a few of the disorders that can be detected through this one little heelstick. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't doubt that it's a worthwhile procedure; I only say "awful" because when the tech pushes the punctured heel all over that card, smearing the blood all over it, the baby typically screams most pitifully. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the infant usually screaming at that point anyways? Googlemeister (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's usually a major medical concern if the newborn infant is not screaming after being birthed.--WaltCip (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, I am wondering about something. Now this is in the context of zombies, so none of this can really count as any sort of advice for the real world (I will find a desk to headdesk against if someone uses the term "medical advice" for this :p). If one were to wear a lot of male leather clothing, say leather chaps, a full leather bombardier jacket, proper leather gloves and boots. Let's say it's calf leather or goat leather or w/e (if it makes any difference) how well protected would your appendiges be from the average human bite? Protected in this case means that the zombie saliva cannot reach your bloodstream. Let's say we're dealing with Brooksian zombies who have no special abilities whatsoever and slowly decay, so their muscles break down over time, but in this case we'll say an average dude, freshly chomped who you are now running from and he gets ahold of you and is going to bite you somewhere (depending on how he got ahold of you). So, your arm is in a leather jacket , your hands are in leather gloves, you are wearing chaps and leather boots of course (what any man worth his salt should be wearing anyway, the boots that is). I noticed that Brooks never covered leather as an armor choice in either book, but it makes sense to me that these would afford your own skin some level of protection (after all, it's the teeth breaking your skin you're worried about) given the thickness of most leather clothing items (though you still have to worry about the pressure of the bite) and would be the best choice for quick encounters (if you're swarmed, you're screwed regardless of what you're wearing), is this correct? I am half-asleep btw, so this might be somewhat incoherent.

Let's say a bite on the arm, a bite on the hand, and individual finger, and on leg, how much protection would be afforded in each spot?

Please answers only from people who have actually read the books and thus have a better understanding of the type of zombie I am referring to and the other stuff I am talking about (though anyone who knows the proper PSI info or w/e is welcome too). :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 05:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main part is that much of your leather outfit leaves a lot of skin exposed, especially at the joints (e.g. between the hands and the jacket). I don't see any a priori reason though to think that leather wouldn't be an awful choice, better than some. I think Brooks' main point was that if you wanted an outfit that actually was more or less reliable, it had to be made specifically to repel teeth and couldn't be just ripped apart. And had to be mass producible on a thin budget. And not require cows. I think most leather clothing would not fit the bill too well, and producing a full army's worth of leather clothing would require a lot more access to leather supplies than is probably reasonable to assume in the WWZ environment. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was born in 1946, on my birth certificate it states that I was born in "Paddington General Hospital". Did the hospital change its name to St Marys at a later date? I have tried to research but cant find any informationMulberry4 (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go, have a look at this site and see if it helps. It doesn't explain why there is a lapse between your birth certificate and the naming of the hospital 10 years later, the hospital may well have been known locally by this name before it was offically designated. Interesting colour scheme in the nurses' home! Richard Avery (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Paddington General Hospital of 1946 was the building popularly known as the 'Lock Hospital' and located on the Harrow Road in north Paddington. The hospital was closed in the 1980s and the buildings demolished; the site is now occupied by private flats called Carlton Gate. Paddington General Hospital was administratively part of St Marys later on, but 1946 was shortly before the founding of the National Health Service and Paddington General was run by the London County Council. Incidentally I happen to know that the area has three excellent local ward councillors, perhaps one more than the others. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]