From: this@ddress.is.invalid   
      
   Chris  wrote:   
   > micky  wrote:   
   [...]   
   > > Yeah but they probably have thousands of subscribers, who only all them   
   > > once a year on average.   
   >   
   > Thousands is less then the millions a mobile service provider supports with   
   > less. They still have to pay their staff to be available 24/7. I can   
   > wholeheartedly recommend these services as they are genuine life-savers. In   
   > the UK/EU at least. Many local councils run a subsidised service.   
      
     Seconded. We actually saved somone's life (severe diabetic hypo)   
   because of this service. We were second in the to-call list and luckily   
   she was able to push the button before she passed out. If we hadn't   
   responded, she would have died for sure,   
      
   > Commercial providers are usually under £20 pm.   
   >   
   > I thoroughly recommend you tell family or close friends of this incident so   
   > they know you're at risk of falls.   
   >   
   > > I guess I'd rather die than spend $348/year for full service, so I'm   
   > > probably going to get a smart watch for 60, a one time payment, once I   
   > > find out if I need to have my android phone on at the same time. .   
      
     A smart watch is no replacement for such a service, not by a long,   
   long shot, full stop (we're not supposed to  say 'period' :-)).   
      
     BTW, we just spent a similar amount of money on an AED. Hope it will   
   be 'wasted' money.   
      
   > I mean that's your choice, but dying needlessly at home over penny-pinching   
   > seems daft to me. It does seem to be the "American Way"? , however.   
      
     Indeed. Boggles the mind.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)