Resort's " New Normal " Rule - No AIR 2 or diving your long hose

[tursiops]

Can you be a tad more specific? How is WHAT based on science?

Here it is again.

 

[tursiops]

Please share the European guidelines that resulted in this rule: No AIR 2/ Tech. rig usage while diving.

Aside from your misquote* of the rule, I suspect you could easily have found this if you cared to look:
From https://www.daneurope.org/c/documen...b88-05a1-408a-8e2b-b408af49c6b0&groupId=10103

*Nothing says "No AIR2/Tech rig usage while diving"; rather it says, you need an alternate other than an AIR2 to be able to donate to an OOG diver something that was not in your mouth, and you are welcome to use a tech rig, but the recommendation is to breath from your alternate so the long-hose reg is not contaminated. Also, this is all while supervised, not a general statement.

 

[The Chairman]

View attachment 588032
Here it is again.

It's not a 'rule' but a philosophy based on courtesy and being friendly. I don't ever remember saying it was a rule based on science.

Even in this thread, people have called the dive op in question moronic for their rule. There's no need for that. They are doing their best in an area clouded with fear and mystery. I don't get the need to label anyone who doesn't dive like me as "morons". Like yakking through your reg or removing it first: do as you see fit. I can't fathom anyone throwing me out of the ocean for not yakking through my reg. I'm not about to tell anyone who yaks through their reg to collect their fins and go home either. I dive my way. You dive your way. I'm certain you have reasons for what you do, failed as they may be in my eyes. I'm not going to pitch a fit if/when you don't do things like I do.

 

[tursiops]

people have called the dive op in question moronic for their rule. There's no need for that. They are doing their best in an area clouded with fear and mystery.

Agree 100%, except I'd add BS and testosterone to the list of things clouding the area.

 

[The Chairman]

Aside from your misquote* of the rule,

You're missing the point they are making: you're asking them to change protocols they believe in. They don't see any benefit in doing so. Perhaps, if you showed them a better way to do it, rather than leaving it up to their imaginations, that would go a bit towards a better acceptance.

 

[The Chairman]

Agree 100%, except I'd add BS and testosterone to the list of things clouding the area.

I don't think this new rule is based on testosterone or BS. I would give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[tursiops]

I would give them the benefit of the doubt.

When the ranters offer a modicum of "benefit of the doubt" then the conversation can begin.

 

[The Chairman]

When the ranters offer a modicum of "benefit of the doubt" then the conversation can begin.

Nah. They'll probably vote with their fins. That may seem unfair, but if/when a new rule is made and they can't see it as a change for the better, then other less draconian options avail themselves.

 

[tursiops]

I don't think this new rule is based on testosterone or BS. I would give them the benefit of the doubt.

Wow, talk about misreading my statement! It is the ranters and haters on SB that are full of BS and testosterone.
The Buddy Dive statement is quite reasoned and in accord with current best-practice. Yes, it utilizes the "precautionary principle," undeer which you try and do no harm, and err on the side of caution until more is know. For example, the jury is still out on whether seawater kills the virus in a few seconds.....it seems unlikely, and is a real problem if it doesn't, and so you don't want to just assume it does and carry on.

 

[Scraps]

In his introductory note to Staying Alive: Risk Management Techniques for Advanced Scuba Diving, Steve Lewis explains why scuba divers generally do not use tools like the Composite Risk Index, which multiplies the Impact of Risk (rated from a low of 1 to a high of 5) by the Probability of Occurrence.

For scuba divers, Probability of Occurrence is hard to estimate, and Impact of Risk of scuba accidents are hard to differentiate because the "probable outcome of many occurrences results sooner or later in death by drowning: there simply are not that many ones in scuba, but there are a whole lot of fives."

To my view, transmission of COVID underwater during an out of air emergency is the epitome of a 1 on both scales.

Probability of Occurrence: What's the probability of an OOA situation? 1 in 10,000? What's the probability that the OOA diver will have a COVID-positive dive partner in a communicable phase of the disease? 1 in 1,000? What's the probability that the virus will be on the regulator mouthpiece and not be rinsed or purged off and will survive the underwater transfer in salt water? Maybe another 1 in 1,000? What's the probability that this contact will lead to the OOA diver communicating the disease from this minuscule exposure, which would be far less than being coughed on or kissed by someone with the virus? Maybe another 1 in 1,000? Quibble with my estimates. Maybe the Probability of Occurrence is 10 ^ -9 instead of 10 ^ -14. Fine. Either way, it's extraordinarily low.

Impact of Risk: What's the probability that the otherwise healthy scuba diver who defies the > one in a trillion odds (or whatever Probability of Occurrence you estimate) and contracts the illness in such circumstances will then suffer significant health consequences? Maybe 1 in 100?

Risk management should mitigate risks that actually exist and that can bite you.

This rule is feel-good, do-something window dressing, plain and simple.