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

Please register or login

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

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Wow, talk about misreading my statement!
Interesting, I was actually referring to them in the statement your quoted. I guess I was reacting to your misread of my statement.
It is the ranters and haters on SB that are full of BS and testosterone.
So, you think ranting against and hating them in return is the best solution for this? Personally, I find one just as distasteful as the other. No better way to alienate customers than to refer to them as haters and their concerns as rants. When one develops a "my way or the highway" mentality, they should not be surprised when many simply walk away. This is a fickle industry.
and so you don't want to just assume it does and carry on.
I don't recall making that assumption. Could you cite that for me?

This is a guess, but you seem rather upset at all this. Perhaps you should calm a bit before ranting on?
 
The "current best estimate" from the CDC is 0.4% CFR Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

View attachment 588031
OK, thanks, now I can see where these numbers are extracted.
Those are 5 sets of input data they employed for running simulations with 5 models.
But I was meaning the real data, not hypothetic input data used for running models...
Current official data for US are the following:
- Total confirmed cases: 1,640,000
- Total number of deaths: 97,720
Making a ratio (which is very simple math, not as the complex mathematical models run by CDC) gives as a CFR equal to 97,720 / 1,640,00 = 5.96% as of today.
It is very slowly diminishing (look at the chart I posted), and hopefully at the end of the epidemic the value will be smaller (also thanks to the social distancing measures being employed, to the use of protective gear, etc.), but the extrapolation from 6% to 0.4% is really hard to explain, whatever the mathematical model employed...
 
OK, thanks, those are 5 sets of input data they employed for running simulations with 5 models.
But I was meaning the real data, not hypothetic input data used for running models...
Current official data for US are the following:
- Total confirmed cases: 1,640,000
- Total number of deaths: 97,720
Making a ratio (which is very simple math, not as the complex mathematical models run by CDC) gives as a CFR equal to 97,720 / 1,640,00 = 5.96% as of today.
It is very slowly diminishing (look at the chart I posted), and hopefully at the end of the epidemic the value will be smaller (also thanks to the social distancing measures being employed, to the use of protective gear, etc.), but the extrapolation from 6% to 0.4% is really hard to explain, whatever the mathematical model employed...
Calculating a CFR utilizing only confirmed cases is likely more useful for measuring testing amount than it is for calculating how deadly something is. There's a reason the charts you've posted have a big ol warning on them about the validity of the data due to only using confirmed tests.

I don't think the 6% to .4% extrapolation is that difficult to explain at all: a lot more people are asymptomatic/haven't been tested than originally thought.

upload_2020-5-25_12-6-36.png
 
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. (emphasis added)

I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.

A best practice is a method or technique that has been generally accepted as superior to any alternatives because it produces results that are superior to those achieved by other means. This practice has not been tested or evaluated or shown to produce any results at all.

I have no problem with making a deliberate decision to err on the side of caution, especially when you know there are a lot of unknowns. But calling an unexamined new rule a best practice when it has not been tested is a stretch.

As for me, I don't like the rule, but it wouldn't keep me from diving at this resort if I had an opportunity to do so. There are lots of rules I don't like that I comply with anyway. I don't think masks do much good, either, but if I want to go into a store that requires them, I put one on and deal with my hot, humid breath for the time I'm in the store.
 
What's the chance of aspirating vomit that gets stuck in the reg?
 
I don't think this new rule is based on testosterone or BS. I would give them the benefit of the doubt.

I believe this rule is based on a lack of critical thinking.

I am not comparing the people who crafted the rule in question to Adolph Eichmann, not at all -- not even close -- don't go there.

However, a 20th Century philosopher named Hannah Arendt, wrote about Eichmann this way:

" What struck Arendt was Eichmann’s “curious, but authentic, inability to think.”

After witnessing Eichmann's trial, she believed him to be a person who believed the bromides, slogans, and meme's -- yes, the clichés.

He deferred to authority for his basis of reality and morality.

I don't believe the people who crafted this rule are morons and for sure they are not evil. They failed to think critically. They should have turned their Bullsheet meters to "ON".

Dr. Thomas Sewell always asked first year students to go to "stage two thinking." Stage three follows.

A poster who is very reasonable, very rational, very well educated, and who exhibits lots of common sense, requested a citation as his figures were different from my figures. I think his BS meter pegged when he read my post, and it probably also pegged when he found a graphic that showed a SARS-COV-2 CFR for the US of 6%. People who think critically don't let a mere slogan or propaganda slip by without a request for citation.

To iterate, we are not opining about moronic rule making, but a lack of critical thinking.

cheers,
m
The Great UnReason of 2020: The 'Curious, but Quite Authentic, Inability to Think' - Frontpagemag
 
Calculating a CFR utilizing only confirmed cases is likely more useful for measuring testing amount than it is for calculating how deadly something is. There's a reason the charts you've posted have a big ol warning on them about the validity of the data due to only using confirmed tests.

I don't think the 6% to .4% extrapolation is that difficult to explain at all: a lot more people are asymptomatic/haven't been tested than originally thought.

View attachment 588051
That is the concept of IFR vs CFR. If the denominator contains the total number of infected, instead of the total number of confirmed cases, than this ratio is the IFR. But the CFR is defined exactly as I reported, total number of confirmed deaths divided total number of confirmed cases.
Then we should discuss how many people are infected and not confirmed: I have no reliable data for US, but I see CDC estimates this ratio less than 2. Hence in their model a CFR = 0.4% transforms into an IFR = 0.26%.
Instead here in Italy we start having some reliable data (as known, we are almost one month ahead US in managing the epidemics), and the ratio is around 8-10 for the whole Italy, peaking at 35 for Bergamo province (the one with higher number of deaths per million inhabitants).
One of the sources of this info is here (from Berkeley university):
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.15.20067074v3.full.pdf
This means that here in Italy we have a number of confirmed cases actually equal to 229,858, and a number of deaths equal to 32785, making the value of CFR = 14.26%. But we know that the total number of infected is around 2 millions, hence the IFR is approximately best estimated around 1.58%.
Which means that if we leave the virus to spread to, say, 80% of the population (60 millions) we should expect to see a total number of deaths in excess of 700,000.
I would be very, very happy to find data more favourable...
 
I don't recall making that assumption.
Who says "you" did? But your tendency seems to be to defend them.
No better way to alienate customers than to refer to them as haters and their concerns as rants.
I know almost no one who posts on SB, so I have to make my judgement calls based on what they say and how they say it. This thread has brought out a lot of haters and ranters....with respect to the Buddy Dive "rules" initially, but more recently with respect to things that were never said in the rules but apparently sets them off anyway.
If one is thinking of going to Buddy Dive, they can certainly vote with their feet. However, some of the private messages I've gotten point out that the rules make them MORE likely to go, because the place seems like it has thought things through and is probably safer for it.
My point of view is that the diving restrictions are quite doable; I'm not keen on limiting the number of people on a boat because then my group can't dive together, which is part of the fun for us. But the bigger restrictions have to do with the non-diving things....especially eating and socializing. That may cause us to cancel for this year. But we won't be cancelling because someone has an AIR2 they have to supplement with an octo; that is in the noise level.
All the rants about training vs practice and what people revert to in an emergency? Maybe folks need to be reminded that it is not jsut how you were trained (often long ago), and not just whether you've practiced it since, but also -- and strongly -- what have you done most recently, so it is fresh in your mind and muscle? So, Buddy Dive requires an orientation dive, off their dock, as the first dive. Routinely, in the past, I've gone with folks on that dive and asked that they deploy an SMB/DSMB at the end. What a revelation! Many cannot do it, most get hung up somehow, and ALL thank me for requiring that. this year -- if we go -- I will add an alternate air source deployment during that orientation dive, with special attention on those with AIR2s supplemented with an octo.
 
Today, there is plenty of “money” in the world, and more than enough food to go around. Scarcity of these items is also a political choice, deferring to authority.
 
he Great UnReason of 2020: The 'Curious, but Quite Authentic, Inability to Think' - Frontpagemag
Pretty well-known very right-wing source.
As was your previous link to the independentsentinel.com.
Might be better to find something more middle-of-the road if you want to use it to inform and perhaps educate.
Independent Sentinel - Media Bias/Fact Check
Frontpage Magazine - Media Bias/Fact Check

It doesn't take long to check a "source," kind of like going to Snopes before posting something you found on the internet....

This is a rather important part of critical thinking....avoiding biased and incorrect information.
 

Back
Top Bottom