Liveaboard Covid quarantine- Debate

[dianna912]

Assuming that they are not in a locality that requires it, should liveaboards require guests who test positive to quarantine?

We just got back from a highly infectious liveaboard that DID have this requirement. With at least 70% of the guests infected, welp, it's safe to say it didn't work.

My thought process is this: unless you require an extremely harsh, any symptoms=quarantine type of policy, which is untenable on a dive boat. (Congestion/ear issues/fatigue/achiness are all symptoms of a long dive day) you will never stop it before it has already spread. I understand that boats want to protect their crew, but quarantining guests is just a feel-good measure to allow everyone to carry on as usual, except of the souls locked in a tiny room. This is what happened on our boat. No changes to anything were made until we started dropping like flies. The first couple that had it just got stuck in their room, while the crew did not mask around the other guests, everyone still ate in the same closed galley (except the quarantined couple) and it was all for absolutely nothing.

When we boarded the Juliet last March and they said: if one of us has it, all of us will, I thought they were being irresponsible. Now, I'm thinking they are correct.

My opinion: either take the "let er rip" strategy of the Juliet or have a policy that completely changes protocols, for everyone, the moment someone tests positive. No congregating in closed spaces, masks on all staff and guests when not eating, etc, etc.

 

[tursiops]

I am doing a single dive later today and I need to know if it is safer to dive to my NDL with nitrox!

Safer than what?

 

[drrich2]

The real answer appears to be that we don't get to vote on this.

In a way, we do, if there's not routinely scheduled mandatory testing. You're on a trip, and you get some nonspecific symptoms. You don't lose taste and smell, but maybe get a runny nose (with my chronic allergies not unusual) and sore throat (uh-oh).

1.) Do you mention this to staff or people who will?
2.) Do you ask for testing, or use a home test kit?

You can skip testing, keep a low profile, stay willfully ignorant (and keep everyone else ignorant of your status), or...not. If you choose 'not,' and test positive, from that point on, I agree, you likely don't get a vote.

 

[Lorenzoid]

I am doing a single dive later today and I need to know if it is safer to dive to my NDL with nitrox!

Ah, I think I get it. You believe the probability of any one dive to NDL by a random person on air resulting in DCS is already so low that the person shouldn't worry about whether nitrox would lower the probability. I'm not sure the analogy is very good, but I get your point. We're not random. Maybe being an old, chubby liveaboard diver is to Covid as having a PFO is to the bends? The person with a PFO probably does a number of things to mitigate the risk, including nitrox.

 

[waterone]

Safer than what?

Staying out of the water, of course!

Ah, I think I get it. You believe the probability of any one dive to NDL by a random person on air resulting in DCS is already so low that the person shouldn't worry about whether nitrox would lower the probability.

Not my line of thought at all. More it's just what people seem to debate all the time with Nitrox and air.

We're not random. Maybe being an old, chubby liveaboard diver is to Covid as having a PFO is to the bends? The person with a PFO probably does a number of things to mitigate the risk, including nitrox.

While running with this newfound nitrox analogy---

I would hope that they do what they can to mitigate their personal health risks while not forcing others to dive nitrox as well.

 

[Lorenzoid]

I would hope that they do what they can to mitigate their personal health risks while not forcing others to dive nitrox as well.

It was pointed out that the concern is the potential inconvenience to all onboard of having to return to port to unload a sick guest. I do believe I have seen liveaboards in remote areas far from recompression chambers pushing Nitrox and conservative dive practices.

 

[tursiops]

I would hope that they do what they can to mitigate their personal health risks while not forcing others to dive nitrox as well.

Not sure this is a good analogy. If my personal health depends in part on YOUR personal health, then I DO care about whether you are infected or not. Also, if MY dive trip is cut short because YOU refuse to get vaccinated and get really ill, then I DO care about your personal health, and whether you did what you could to keep from getting sick.

 

[drrich2]

and whether you did what you could to keep from getting sick.

This is where things come to a head across different preferences and belief systems, in the question of how much must one do to keep from getting sick for it to be enough? What is responsible enough? Particularly when as you point out my decisions affect you.

I'm fully vaccinated, I've had 2 booster shots, and I'm eager for an Omicron-specific booster to come out (though I read an article indicating it might be wise to wait awhile between boosters so the antibody surge after the last doesn't interfere with the effectiveness of the one to come).

I don't mix in public a lot, but some (e.g.: eat out in a sit down restaurant maybe once a week), and rarely wear a mask. To an anti-vaxxer who thinks COVID-19 is no worse than flu, I might look like a 'sheep.' To a blue state urban liberal progressive, my going in Walmart and eating at O'Charley's without masking up or taking much care for social distancing might seem reckless.

The other big issue is at what point someone decides COVID-19 is to be accepted like cold and flu are (e.g.: try not to spread it, but no imposed quarantines or testing), as something we get once in awhile and don't make a big deal about, vs. the deadly virus that must be actively fought and isolated.

People won't reach wide consensus anytime soon because the belief systems and values underlying the decision differ.

 

[tursiops]

People won't reach wide consensus anytime soon because the belief systems and values underlying the decision differ.

I agree, consensus is unlikely. But YOUR freedom is not so absolute as to infringe on MY health. Isn't this why we have red lights and stop signs? Thus, we need a negotiated middleground, with some compromises.

 

[BRT]

I agree, consensus is unlikely. But YOUR freedom is not so absolute as to infringe on MY health. Isn't this why we have red lights and stop signs? Thus, we need a negotiated middleground, with some compromises.

Stop signs and red lights protect people from dying in a big way. Somewhat different from requiring people to drive known reliable car brands to avoid breakdowns that might inconvenience others on the highway.

 

[tursiops]

Stop signs and red lights protect people from dying in a big way. Somewhat different from requiring people to drive known reliable car brands to avoid breakdowns that might inconvenience others on the highway.

Yes, there is a spectrum between dying and inconvenience. Where on that specturm would you (for example) place a liveaboard trip being terminated due to someone (who is unvaccinated) else's severe infection? Most liveaboards already require some sort of medical statement in order to board, perhaps even a doctor's signature. Is requiring vaccination any different?

By the way, red lights and stop signs were simply an example of the absolute-freedom folks tolerating some infringement of their freedom, which is what we are talking about. Where is the acceptable middle ground between absolute freedom and no freedom?