Not me, I didn’t mention snorkels.I don't see anything in that document that requires/mandates the use of a snorkel by a scuba diver?
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
Not me, I didn’t mention snorkels.I don't see anything in that document that requires/mandates the use of a snorkel by a scuba diver?
With all due respect, this comes across like a MAGA American demanding his liberties to do whatever he wants, damn the consequences.This is an email that I sent to the dive manager of the resort:
I understand that you are trying to do everything you can to mitigate the risks. Having just had another birthday, I am even further in the high risk group. I agree prudent & reasonable actions need to be taken.
However, your AIR 2 rule makes no sense. What percentage of your clients run out of air ( OOA) in a week of diving with you? None (0%), almost none ( .0001% ), very few ( .001%), many (.01%) and too many (.1%). I have been thinking back over 40 years of doing group trips and I can not think of one OOA case. My guess is you have had .001% on average. If you have one in 100,000 OOA, then if that diver shared air with their buddy what is the risk their buddy has the virus? Using the present global numbers, there are 5 million case out of a global population of 7.8 billion. 5 million / 7.8 billion = 0.000641025641! 6 in 1 million. Then take your 1 in 100,000 OOA X 6 in million 100,000 * 6 million = 600,000,000,000!
Then what is the risk that the virus will actually be transmitted through the water in the regulator exchange. I am sure you have a greater risk of being kicked by a donkey in Bonaire!
It is simple; if you stick with your current rule about AIR 2's and tech rigs, then we will not being sending you business. I'm sure that we aren't the only customers you will lose.
I have been diving and bringing divers to Bonaire for 40 years. Bonaire represents diving freedom. It has always been one of the many places in the world that I like to bring divers since I am part Dutch. We have enjoyed working with you in the past. However, there are many choices for dive operation in Bonaire and many other islands to go diving.
Please stay on topic. This thread is about if you would give this resort or any resort your business if they have new rules due to the virus that don't make sense. It is not about if you hate the AIR 2 or tech. rigs. What if they said for your safety that you had to dive an AIR 2/ Tech rig. configuration?
My calculations are +/- 1 billion or so.
This thread is about diving freedom in the future. I was shocked to find this behavior at a resort in Bonaire.
My concern is that this type of regulation will be come the " New Normal " with other resorts making senseless rules.
I don't see anything in that document that requires/mandates the use of a snorkel by a scuba diver?
The BSAC incident reports, are by definition, anecdotal as well. Incident reports are not empirical evidence.I don’t agree with your dogged use of anecdotal evidence over empirical evidence.
Believe what you want, they are subjected to academic scrutiny and rigour.The BSAC incident reports, are by definition, anecdotal as well. Incident reports are not empirical evidence.
That's fine... that doesn't make them empirical though. Words have meaning and incident reports from testimony of the divers involved, even with the utmost scrutiny and rigor, are not empirical. For something to be empirical evidence, it must be measurable and repeatable. People describing a series of events that occurred is neither. That doesn't mean that the data is invaluable, just that it need to be evaluated correctly. Treating anecdotes from small sample sizes as empirical data is not evaluating it correctly.Believe what you want, they are subjected to academic scrutiny and rigour.
But that says "diving equipment MAY consist of" - it does NOT say "diving equipment MUST consist of".
But that says "diving equipment MAY consist of" - it does NOT say "diving equipment MUST consist of".
It also seems to be talking about what equipment dive operators provide and maintain does not appear to define rules for divers themselves as far as I could see in a quick look?