smariewrtr
1) You are implying that people with chronic conditions are the same as people who are otherwise healthy, that is ridiculous. Anyone with a chronic condition should know enough about oximetry.
My point is that people are quoting O2 sats numbers in isolation as if there is a single figure for everyone that should cause concern, reference to people with chronic lung conditions was an example of a situation where X% is concerning would be inaccurate. Offering advice based on a number is irresponsible when we do not know the medical history of those reading the advice. O2 sats would not be taken in isolation in a healthcare setting. Many people with chronic lung conditions would understand their sats in the context of other information, some will not have the understanding you think they do.
2) You are eroding the confidence of the general public when it comes to using an oximeter. That is not right, people can read the instructions that come with the device. If they don't understand they can educate themselves. If they have a problem they can get support from trained professionals.
Of course people can read instructions but if you do not understand the limitations of the equipment or the reading in context then there is a risk of unnecessary alarm or, probably worse, misplaced reassurance.
If people are not prone to panic and are willing to inform themselves then monitoring O2 sats can be helpful, if either of those things is not applicable then we should advise people to seek further advice whenever they are concerned rather than rely on cheap medical devices for reassurance.
Empowering people to take responsibility for their own health is a good thing if you do not over simplify things to the extent that people think they don't need expert advice.
I have years of experience in a relevant field of healthcare if that helps. If people take away nothing else except that you should not treat O2 sats as the only thing to prompt you to get further advice then I'm OK with that.