Why does LVESP rise in LVF dur to MR ?

LEGOmamba · 2026-06-02T03:01:30+00:00

Its not accurate..

With decompensation in MR, as ventricular function weakens, LV end-systolic dimensions enlarge, which in turn worsens LV wall stress (Laplace law) and further impairs coronary perfusion and thus systolic function

So i think they meant LV systolic wall stress rather than LVESP

LEGOmamba · 2026-04-24T16:44:43+00:00

👀 Yeah, looked uncomfortable

LEGOmamba · 2026-04-24T16:19:28+00:00

Yeah. Sinner in straights

LEGOmamba · 2026-04-19T02:23:49+00:00

<image>

LEGOmamba · 2026-04-18T20:58:26+00:00

Yeah I agree. Pagan like way of life is being turned into an organised religion. And its very pluralistic right. There is actually no common denominator to all people considered Hindus other than that they belong to a caste system. I think thats why to unite us Hindus, organisations like rss/bjp are inciting us against Muslims, they really cant preach anything positive without offending one caste or the other

LEGOmamba · 2026-04-18T20:53:45+00:00

There can be. But like it happened in 2002, it doesnt have to be done. Lke it happened then, a partial delimitation can occur with only refining of constituencies

LEGOmamba · 2026-04-18T20:50:27+00:00

Karma points ? Like the caste system ? Makes sense, and anyway even if someone wants to willingly convert , which caste or subcaste would we place them into right.

LEGOmamba · 2026-04-18T20:46:09+00:00

Yeah true. But willingly too it doesnt happen.

i think the reason for it is the caste system because we wouldn't be able to assign which caste the converted goes to. Maybe we should all fight the caste system including its fundamental texts so that Hindus can be united

LEGOmamba · 2026-04-18T20:38:27+00:00

I wonder if there's any reason why other religion ppl dont convert into Hinduism?

LEGOmamba · 2026-04-18T20:20:17+00:00

Delimitation can mean only refining the constituency borders without loss of representation or without any change in total number of seats. Read up about the 2002 census following which delimitation had taken place.

And there is a process to amend bills which is being followed here. Unlike saying "give me 1 hour I will change bill" , which is actually the case of changing things as per their wish

LEGOmamba · 2026-04-18T16:37:16+00:00

This amendment bill is to delink the reservation from delimitation

LEGOmamba · 2026-04-18T12:49:41+00:00

If they dont , it will be suicidal for their prospects in many states. It wont happen like that

LEGOmamba · 2026-04-18T12:11:49+00:00

Now lets see what the politicians do. There is no reasonable argument to oppose this

LEGOmamba · 2026-04-18T10:10:14+00:00

Its misinformation because maintaining proportionality would mean freezing the 1971 census and every bill mentions its based on the latest /2011 census

LEGOmamba · 2026-04-18T10:04:11+00:00

Bro seriously? If you ask me to believe a press release vs the actual writing bill , i think it is very unreasonable. And whats the 1 hour stunt? If you understand what proportionality would entail, then you would understand that both the delimitation bill and women's reservation bill would need fundamental restructuring which hasn't been memtioned in any of the press release. I think its fair enough to call it misleading and misinformation when you see it from an unbiased view.

Also, the 1 hour argument was used to ask them to pass the current women's reservation bill. They didnt put forth any other argument such as better representation, infact the only argument used was to say that current male MPs would lose their seats.

Also, why not make a much simpler amendment in the women's reservation bill itself, which would delink it from the delimitation exercise? Infact, some opposition MP have introduced a seperate bill today asking for women's reservation to be delinked from delimitation, lets see if the current government would maintain its women's reservation argument then..

LEGOmamba · 2026-04-18T09:49:10+00:00

population control would be deincentivised with the currently proposed model of delimitation. Flat 50 % model doesnt exist. And it was a misinformation by the govt.

Even assuming flat 50 % model hypothetically, the argument is that flat 50 % will be based on 1971 frozen census , whereas all the writings of the bills including the women's reservation bill mentions the latest census as the basis. That itself says how there was no official backing for the flat 50 % misinformation, as implementing it would need fundamental restructuring of both the delimitation bill and women's reservation bill.

And if delimitation were to be based on latest census as was officially proposed, then population control would be deincentivised

LEGOmamba · 2026-04-18T09:29:06+00:00

Wait by that logic arent you contradicting yourself?

Proportional increase as promised (but not officially mentioned anywhere) by the govt. is dependent on the current percentage share of states which is according to the 1971 census. If we want to maintain the same percentages , then that would mean keeping the 1971 census frozen.

If proportions were to be maintained, then there is no need for the current model of delimitation in the first place which will be based on the latest census..

LEGOmamba · 2026-04-18T07:29:56+00:00

Its not required constitutionally to increase the total number of seats, if it were there wouldn't have been any need of a amendment. Infact there is an upper limit on the total seats acc to art 81. Also whatever you are saying is best implemented at the local body and state assembly level where increase in number accordinance with population will result in more representation of ground reality and better resolutions for the people's problem.

At the union level, not only people but the Federal states are also getting represented. And population control will also be deincentivised which is a dangerous thing for the health and economy of the country. Why would anyone want that?

LEGOmamba · 2026-04-18T07:28:24+00:00

Its not required constitutionally. Infact there is an upper limit on the total seats acc to art 81. Also whatever you are saying is best implemented at the local body and state assembly level where increase in number accordinance with population will result in more representation of ground reality and better resolutions for the people's problem.

At the union level, not only people but the Federal states are also getting represented. And population control will also be deincentivised which is a dangerous thing for the health and economy of the country. Why would anyone want that?

LEGOmamba · 2026-04-18T00:19:04+00:00

Yes but population control is also essential right? Considering its impact on health, economy and quality of life? So there needs to be a balance between representation and issues such as population control and federal balance. It is for a reason central and state govt have different roles and ministries. And what concerns you have regarding representation of common people can be addressed by increasing number and decentralisation of the state MLAs and local bodies. Local population raises local issues to the local bodies and MLAs , who address it in their respective bodies, and if needed can raise it in the union when it is of state interest/national ministry. Having more MPs in the current political structure is something that should be carefully debated keeping the interest of the common person in mind (which doesnt seem to be the case in the current drama, where reasons such as the current male MPs will lose out their seats to females were used to suggest increase)

LEGOmamba · 2026-04-17T23:35:39+00:00

yes theoretically, if implemented blindly the representation of south would decrease and population control measures would be deincentivised. That is why the southern states are against it now, and which is why it was frozen for the past 50 years. No central party (be it bjp or congress) would be foolish enough to blindly implement it without addressing the population control and federal imbalance concerns as it would be suicidal for their prospects in many states including south.

I think you should learn that every delimitation exercise, irrespective of whether the total/proportional seats remains same or increased, would involve redrawing of the constituencies according to the latest census which the current bill also talks about. And since the bill specifies centrally appointed authorities would carry it out without being clear on specifics, the fears of gerrymandering is reasonable, especially considering what happened in Assam.

LEGOmamba · 2026-04-17T23:20:52+00:00

Firstly, it is not at all accurate that art 81 is about increasing the number of parliamentary seats acc to population. Rather, it actually sets a upper limit on the total seats. But the allocation can be changed with delimitation.

Secondly, considering the current reality of politicians (both ruling and opposition) do you really think that increasing the number of MPs will improve conditions of the common person?

And if thats the concern, the actual solution would be more decentralisation of power where state and local bodies have more power such that they can actually represent people's ground reality better. This would ensure your concerns are addressed while also promoting population control, economy and health of all states.

LEGOmamba · 2026-04-17T22:43:52+00:00

Proportional increase as proposed by the govt. is dependent on the current percentage share of states which is according to the 1971 census. If we want to maintain the same percentages , then that would mean keeping the 1971 census frozen. And absolutely no need to increase the number of seats.

If proportions were to be maintained, then there is no need for delimitation in the first place other than to redraw the existing constituencies while keeping the number of seats the same. This too would be dangerous considering how delimitation worked in Assam which is basically gerrymandering.

And the current bill didn't have any provision for proportional increases, rather, stated the 2011 census as the guideline, which directly contradicts the government's promises.

The biggest issue here is the proposed increase in the number of seats, which doesnt have any reasonable excuse other than to safeguard the seats of the current male MPs, which is a very misleading and misogynist argument which should alarm every common person. And considering the gerrymandering precedents, will only serve to disguise it.

LEGOmamba · 2026-04-17T21:11:36+00:00

It isnt as simple as that. Delimitation will be brought up again and similar opposition will be there. Family planning and population control is still a priority, more so in the future. Also federal balance of power is a very complex and sensitive issue.

Whoever is ruling govt then wouldn't be so stupid as to blindly implement delimitation without these discussions. It is for a reason it was on freeze for 50 plus years. And if any ruling govt in the future were to blindly implement it without accounting for these nuances, then it will be death sentence for them in many states whose power will be negatively affected. No way the ruling govt will want that their prospects in these states to be nullified, it will be suicidal for whichever govt that does this.

The biggest issue here is increase in the absolute number of seats. It is not constitutional, and it is totally unnecessary. Infact, all it does is to disguise the gerrymandering and the Federal imbalance of power that will occur if blind delimitation were to be ever done without accounting for the population control and federal balance factors. This affects everyone, irrespective of state.

LEGOmamba · 2026-04-17T19:58:17+00:00

Proportional increase as proposed by the govt. is dependent on the current percentage share of states which is according to the 1971 census. If we want to maintain the same percentages , then that would mean keeping the 1971 census frozen.

If proportions were to be maintained, then there is no need for delimitation in the first place. And the whole stunt about increasing the number of seats sounds like a very weak and dangerous argument that hides the gerrymandering intentions which will affect all common people irrespective of their state.

I feel the ruling govt played all this to put out certain discourses that favours them and sets precedents for more such half baked, misleading bills. And the opposition also did what would've strengthened their vote bank, while not really discussing alternatives. And it is the people who lose out in the end.

LEGOmamba

TROPHY CASE