c4countdown

I had it done yesterday. It was pretty interesting. Let's talk about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LASIK

Were you awake when they did it?

You've got laser eyes now? Awesome!

Jon Corby wrote:Were you awake when they did it?

Yes, just a local anaesthetic on the eyes. Which means you can see everything. Apart from the bit when you go blind.

Michael Wallace wrote:You've got laser eyes now? Awesome!

Yes.

Did you shit your pants? I would have.

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:Were you awake when they did it?

Yes, just a local anaesthetic on the eyes. Which means you can see everything. Apart from the bit when you go blind.

Ew. That puts me off. That, and my optician said that if I had it done, my eyesight would still continue to deteriorate afterwards, which is why I need different glasses every few years anyway.

Jon Corby wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:Were you awake when they did it?

Yes, just a local anaesthetic on the eyes. Which means you can see everything. Apart from the bit when you go blind.

Ew. That puts me off. That, and my optician said that if I had it done, my eyesight would still continue to deteriorate afterwards, which is why I need different glasses every few years anyway.

Interesting. My prescription has been stable for 2 years now so I think I'm all good. Actually one interesting thing, I went for my 24-hour check-up today and it was all fine, but apparently over the next few weeks my eyesight will actually decline a bit. So at the moment I'm "better than 20/20" in his words and the words of everybody else who's ever just had it done (ridiculous), but from hereon in, it's all downhill. So today is a day to celebrate!

Phil Reynolds wrote:Did you shit your pants? I would have.

Not really. I only booked it a week ago so I didn't have too long to get nervous. Also today I've been reading a load of scaremongering websites which have some weird agenda against LASIK treatment. I'm glad I didn't look at it all before because even though I know the efficacy (of course there's a risk involved) it's hard not to be scared by it all.

Jon O'Neill wrote:So at the moment I'm "better than 20/20" in his words and the words of everybody else who's ever just had it done (ridiculous)

Why ridiculous?

Do you know what your (dioptre) measurements were before you had the surgery, Jono? I'm something like minus 5.5 in one eye and minus 6 in the other, which I think is too short-sighted to be a candidate for laser treatment, but I might be wrong.

Laser eye surgery...it's a clever thing...not much to talk about it...

Michael Wallace wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:So at the moment I'm "better than 20/20" in his words and the words of everybody else who's ever just had it done (ridiculous)

Why ridiculous?

Cos 20/20 vision sounds like it means 20 out of 20 or the best vision it's possible for any being in the universe ever to have, even if it doesn't.

I wonder if 3D technology will advance from 3D glasses to 3D contact lenses and then onto 3D laser eye surgery.

Jon O'Neill wrote:I had it done yesterday. It was pretty interesting. Let's talk about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LASIK

That stuff about permanently dry eyes sounds a bit shit.

Also you compromise your close-up vision and will probably need reading glasses earlier.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:So at the moment I'm "better than 20/20" in his words and the words of everybody else who's ever just had it done (ridiculous)

Why ridiculous?

Well everyone knows twenty twenty to just mean perfect vision. Having better than that implies I can see better than someone with perfect vision who hasn't had surgery which I don't think is the case.

JimBentley wrote:Do you know what your (dioptre) measurements were before you had the surgery, Jono? I'm something like minus 5.5 in one eye and minus 6 in the other, which I think is too short-sighted to be a candidate for laser treatment, but I might be wrong.

I was -4. Actually I think you could have it done bit it will cost you more, at optical express at least. This is another thing I think is a joke, I would guess it costs them just as much to do a -1 as a -10. They also double the price for 'wavefront' which helps vision at night and stuff but to me seems like a nice earner for them from people who don't want to 'cut corners'.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:So at the moment I'm "better than 20/20" in his words and the words of everybody else who's ever just had it done (ridiculous)

Why ridiculous?

Cos 20/20 vision sounds like it means 20 out of 20 or the best vision it's possible for any being in the universe ever to have, even if it doesn't.

Yeah this.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:I had it done yesterday. It was pretty interesting. Let's talk about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LASIK

That stuff about permanently dry eyes sounds a bit shit.

Also you compromise your close-up vision and will probably need reading glasses earlier.

My eyes feel less dry today, the day after surgery, than they usually feel the day after I wear my contact lenses. Although I am using false tear drops. But they're nice to put in, unlike the anti-inflammatory drop I'm on which tastes horrific.

The close-up thing, if true, is a small price to pay.

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:So at the moment I'm "better than 20/20" in his words and the words of everybody else who's ever just had it done (ridiculous)

Why ridiculous?

Well everyone knows twenty twenty to just mean perfect vision. Having better than that implies I can see better than someone with perfect vision who hasn't had surgery which I don't think is the case.

Well it's more people thinking 20/20 = 'perfect vision' that's ridiculous, than the guy saying you have better than 20/20 vision, which seems entirely possible.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:Why ridiculous?

Well everyone knows twenty twenty to just mean perfect vision. Having better than that implies I can see better than someone with perfect vision who hasn't had surgery which I don't think is the case.

Well it's more people thinking 20/20 = 'perfect vision' that's ridiculous, than the guy saying you have better than 20/20 vision, which seems entirely possible.

It's the way they say it though. They make it sound like you have superhuman vision.

Jon O'Neill wrote:It's the way they say it though. They make it sound like you have superhuman vision.

Dude, you have LASER EYES.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:It's the way they say it though. They make it sound like you have superhuman vision.

Dude, you have LASER EYES.

Have you in your eye tribulations ever had lazers??

Jon O'Neill wrote:people who don't want to 'cut corners'.

something about cut corneas joke meakin lol bet your all glad meakin back to write in bad sentences with no punctation n bad spellin n grammer n shit plus also i have been sacked lol bet u think thats funny well it wont be funny when your dead lol

Michael Wallace wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:Why ridiculous?

Well everyone knows twenty twenty to just mean perfect vision. Having better than that implies I can see better than someone with perfect vision who hasn't had surgery which I don't think is the case.

Well it's more people thinking 20/20 = 'perfect vision' that's ridiculous, than the guy saying you have better than 20/20 vision, which seems entirely possible.

The boring fact is that 20/20 vision is normal, meaning you can read the 20ft distance chart from 20ft away, so that better than 20/20 means you can do so from further off.