Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex D)
    I'm assuming that it's due to the congestion of blood backing up into the right side of the heart. The congestion results in an increase in preload and the atria can't contract sufficiently to pump the blood into the ventricle, therefore they just 'flutter' resulting in AF. That is just speculation atm, as I'm also trying to work through this question.
    They don't flutter, they fibrillate. Flutter is a different phenomenon. [/pedant]
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Helenia)
    They don't flutter, they fibrillate. Flutter is a different phenomenon. [/pedant]
    Being pedantic's helpful in this situation I'm just about to write this part up so I'll be sure to make sure I use fibrillate
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    Don't tell me you fell for the No2AV twoddle?
    I don't agree with some of the tactics used by either side, but AV is not a good system, and for that reson I voted no.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I know it was a while ago, but I am here to formally retract what I said earlier. I was chatting to an osteopath at work. They aren't NHS, they are very much in the private sector. There is a lot of overlap between what osteos, physios and chiros do, but they all have to take exams to stay certified to practice, so even the proper wacko ones have to be safe. He said they were all muscle manipulators, but that chiros were a bit more business-minded. They will do an initial long assessment and diagnose you, maybe using X-rays to see where your bones aren't aligned properly and correct it. They will tell you that what ever you have wrong with you will take ten sessions to fix and each time you come back they do the same treatment to you and take less time to do it. The exercises to fix it come from some sort of a handbook. Osteos will re-diagnose you everytime you come back and don't use X-rays for diagnosis. However, he also said there was probably more differences between two chiros or osteos or physios than there are between the three different types.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Just for a bit of food for thought - look at the number of voters Yes/No - then look at the number of constituencies that that led to voting yes/no... Kind of proves a point. :p:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...sults-map.html
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wangers)
    I don't agree with some of the tactics used by either side, but AV is not a good system, and for that reson I voted no.
    AV is a crap system but slightly better than the rubbish we have at the moment and would've shown an indication that the British public wanted some kind of chance.

    For what it's worth I voted yes, not because I see AV as a great system but rather that some change change is better than nothing and that it would've been a [small] step closer to PR. However now, voting reform is completely off the agenda and will be for decades . Anyone who brings it up will just be pushed back with a "Well in 2011 the british public strongly opposed any voting reform". Any small chance of PR is well and truly squashed probably for two generations at least.

    The problem with the referendum was that it became a party issue rather than one of political reform. Very ironic that if anyone other than Nick Clegg and the liberals had been the forefront of the campaign then it probably would've done a lot better.

    Oh well. At least it was a welcome distraction from finals
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PineBarrens)
    AV is a crap system but slightly better than the rubbish we have at the moment and would've shown an indication that the British public wanted some kind of chance.

    For what it's worth I voted yes, not because I see AV as a great system but rather that some change change is better than nothing and that it would've been a [small] step closer to PR. However now, voting reform is completely off the agenda and will be for decades . Anyone who brings it up will just be pushed back with a "Well in 2011 the british public strongly opposed any voting reform". Any small chance of PR is well and truly squashed probably for two generations at least.

    The problem with the referendum was that it became a party issue rather than one of political reform. Very ironic that if anyone other than Nick Clegg and the liberals had been the forefront of the campaign then it probably would've done a lot better.

    Oh well. At least it was a welcome distraction from finals
    I voted no, not because I am opposed to change, I would welcome change to PR, I do however disagree that the change should be to AV. Yes, there is the argument of baby steps argument, but AV is the worst possible choice out of all the options available. I think the crucial point was that the electorate thought this was a mainly libdem powered idea, and then cottened onto the fact that even the libdems do not want it. Even if we have AV, it would still be decades until we moved to PR. The argument for rejecting AV should be be confused with and muddled together with the arguments for reform; they are seperate, important issues that should not be merged together. Not helped by some no campaign tactics(the body armour and maternity units for example), but also not helped by the yes campagne degenerating the argument to twixes and mars bars.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wangers)
    The argument for rejecting AV should be be confused with and muddled together with the arguments for reform; they are seperate, important issues that should not be merged together. Not helped by some no campaign tactics(the body armour and maternity units for example), but also not helped by the yes campagne degenerating the argument to twixes and mars bars.
    But that's how it's often perceived, regardless of whether it should be.

    Giving the choice of crap versus crap was just an excuse to brush voting reform under the carpet when FPtP inevitably won.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13321374

    Can't wait to go back to Tooting tomorrow.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wangers)
    I voted no, not because I am opposed to change, I would welcome change to PR, I do however disagree that the change should be to AV. Yes, there is the argument of baby steps argument, but AV is the worst possible choice out of all the options available. I think the crucial point was that the electorate thought this was a mainly libdem powered idea, and then cottened onto the fact that even the libdems do not want it. Even if we have AV, it would still be decades until we moved to PR. The argument for rejecting AV should be be confused with and muddled together with the arguments for reform; they are seperate, important issues that should not be merged together. Not helped by some no campaign tactics(the body armour and maternity units for example), but also not helped by the yes campagne degenerating the argument to twixes and mars bars.
    Whilst I don't want to this to descend into debate, I voted yes for AV because there is absolutely no reason to choose FPTP over AV that isn't an outright lie or doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. AV is essentially FPTP with the added benefit of removing the spoiler effect and drastically reducing tactical voting.

    As for PR, most of the PR systems (STV and AV+) use an AV-like system anyway, so AV would be a move to PR. As electoral reform has been kicked into the long grass for the next 30 years by the No vote, a yes vote wouldn't have been any worse in this regard.

    Anyway, it's quite academic now.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    If in a paper there's a score that measures from 0-20, is that ordinal or continuous?

    And what ways could you statistically test the data if it was ordinal or continuous?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    So I went to an Academic Medicine Conference yesterday and there was a talk by Miss Fernandez, Consultant Neurosurgeon and head of Women in Surgery.

    Her answer to how a women can be successful in surgery was "Marry sensibly, so you're the second earner in your family..... I pay for nannies to look after my children and people to do any house work"

    It's a bit odd when the leading feminist in surgery tells women to marry a rich bloke if they want to succeed...
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    That attitude is not disimilar to the views expressed at our women in surgery evening...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    So I went to an Academic Medicine Conference yesterday and there was a talk by Miss Fernandez, Consultant Neurosurgeon and head of Women in Surgery.

    Her answer to how a women can be successful in surgery was "Marry sensibly, so you're the second earner in your family..... I pay for nannies to look after my children and people to do any house work"

    It's a bit odd when the leading feminist in surgery tells women to marry a rich bloke if they want to succeed...
    That irritated the hell out of me. Not everyone can marry a senior director of Rolls Royce...
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Becca-Sarah)
    That irritated the hell out of me. Not everyone can marry a senior director of Rolls Royce...
    Were you there?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    this is the third if not fourth time i hear this from a female surgeon

    but seriously, are nannies that expensive??? (coming from a very ignorant person who's been raised by a housewife!)
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    If they work full-time (40+ hours a week), you are essentially giving them an annual wage at (most probably) above minimum wage. Is that a lot of money...? I guess it depends on how many figures your salary is by the time you contemplate getting a nanny.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    So I went to an Academic Medicine Conference yesterday and there was a talk by Miss Fernandez, Consultant Neurosurgeon and head of Women in Surgery.

    Her answer to how a women can be successful in surgery was "Marry sensibly, so you're the second earner in your family..... I pay for nannies to look after my children and people to do any house work"

    It's a bit odd when the leading feminist in surgery tells women to marry a rich bloke if they want to succeed...
    Have you seen her digs?

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    Her answer to how a women can be successful in surgery was "Marry sensibly, so you're the second earner in your family..... I pay for nannies to look after my children and people to do any house work"

    It's a bit odd when the leading feminist in surgery tells women to marry a rich bloke if they want to succeed...
    I seriously fail to see the point in having kids if you're just gonna have a nanny look after them.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renal)
    Have you seen her digs?

    haha, i guess she managed to marry "sensibly" then.

    but i agree with Lu-x, how much of a mum to them does that make her? apart from an affectionate(?) bank
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.