Ditto.Nope, you still don't get it and probably never will. Sigh.
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
Ditto.Nope, you still don't get it and probably never will. Sigh.
No one can answer this question with any amount of authority. However, it's been established that Covid-19 has only been spread by being around other people breathing. Apparently, it has to be aerosolized close by in order for you to be infected. The chances of you being infected by a mouthpiece from an infected person is probably infinitesimal compared to the exposure you're getting ON THE BOAT with the same infected person. Can it happen? We don't know. Can you be infected while on the boat with a non-symptomatic person? Of course, we know you can. Are the very credible fears being addressed by this new rule? Only by those who simply want to believe they are. It's a nothing burger so far to me. I will be diving abroad as soon as I feel it's safe for me. I'm not feeling that at this point for any resort. I would probably be more open to a liveaboard before any resort. More room. Fewer interactions. I can see me pre-breathing my SF2 for a long, long time when I do go diving.Would the immersion neutralize Covid germs enough to the point where the regulator is no longer infectious? Based on the above article, I am understanding the risk to be low enough where in case of an air share situation, it should not be a concern.
Taking my last group trip to Bonaire as an example, we had ZERO ( 0% ) OOA occurrences X Covid-19 in either donor or recipient.You can't just look at the likelihood of occurrence, you also have to look at the severity of the consequences of the occurrence. Risk is usually defined as consequence x likelihood. If you want to keep it simple (which seems a good idea for this thread) suppose there are three levels of likelihood (low, medium, high) and three levels of consequences (low = annoyance, medium = have to deal with it but it is not life threatening, and high = life-threatening). So, I suspect we would all agree that the likelihood of running out of air is low, but the consequences are high. So the risk involved with running out of air is not negligible, even if the likelihood of it is low. So we train for it and equip for it, to try and mitigate the consequence and thus lower the risk.
What's not said in your post is that you seem to be concerned about the joint likelihood of running out of air and either (a) Covid-19 is involved in either the donor or receipient, or (b) whether the consequences of having been forced to just change your standard equipment configuration causes you to respond less well to an OOG incident. Some posters in this thread are in the (a) category, some are in the (b). In the (a) category the concern is lowered likelihood of both OOG and Covid-19 happening, but since the consequences are still high (even higher, perhaps) it doesn't change the risk assessment. In the (b) category, we are perhaps less able to mitigate the consequence so the risk is higher.
Either way, the precautionary principle has been applied by Buddy Dive, which makes good sense until more is known.
Why do you even carry an octo?Taking my last group trip to Bonaire as an example, we had ZERO ( 0% ) OOA occurrences X Covid-19 in either donor or recipient.
Using the present global numbers, there are 6.2 million case out of a global population of 7.8 billion. 6.2 million / 7.8 billion = 0.000794871795Then take my 0 OOA X .00079 = ZERO!
How many OOA events did you have on your last group trip to Bonaire?
I always dive with a pony or redundant independent air source. I believe everyone should. Perhaps one of the positives derived from this crisis, would be that a " New Normal Higher Standard " is achieved. Every diver must have a redundant independent air source.Why do you even carry an octo?