COVID-19 impact on diving

[Efka76]

One month ago my kid got coronavirus at school and so all my family got it. My kid had fever for 1 day and after that he seemed ok, wife was feeling strong virus symptoms (headache, temperature, etc.) for 3-4 days and I was sick for appr. 2 weeks (had 39.5C temperature for approximately 7-8 days). I did not need to go to hospital nor needed oxygen masks. After one month it seems that I am 99% recovered (sometimes I am still coughing a bit). I already did few 7-8 km hikes with family in Scottish hills (elevation is appr. 400 m above sea level) and was feeling ok, did not need to catch breath.

I am BSAC member. According to BSAC rules if you get coronavirus, you have to see BSAC doctor after you recover from virus in order to get permission for diving. I intend to do this in Jan or Feb 2021.

Wanted to ask fellow divers who got coronavirus and diving after it. How do you feel during and after dive? Do you feel anything different comparing to pre-coronavirus diving? It would be interesting to know other people experiences in order to set my expectations for the future.

 

[Miyaru]

I recovered and have done many dives since. My immune system has taken care of that virus in roughly 3 weeks without any residual effects.
I'm pretty sure that this thread will soon show the warnings and horror stories of a few cases with lung damage. Since the majority that has recovered from a SARS-CoV-2 infection will never be seen by a doctor, you'll only see lung x-rays or similar "proof" from a few people that have a defect immune system. But don't let that scare you to go back to diving.

99.97% of the human population recovers without residual effects. The scary horror stories are from that 0.03%.

 

[Storker]

99.97% of the human population recovers without residual effects. The scary horror stories are from that 0.03%.

I'd really like to see a source for that statistics. When I googled "covid residual effects statistics", the first hit was this PDF from the WHO. On slide #10, they say:

• In a telephone survey of symptomatic adults who had a positive outpatient test result for SARS-CoV-2, 35% had not returned to their usual state of health when interviewed 2–3 weeks after testing. ¹
• Among those 18 to 34 years in good health, 20% (1 in 5) reported that some symptoms were prolonged.
• Risk factors for persistence of symptoms: high blood pressure, obesity, mental health conditions.

¹ Symptom Duration and Risk Factors for Delayed Return to Usual...
Methinks that 20% of 35% is a mite more than 0.03%. In fact, it's 7%; 233 times more than the number you gave.

We simply haven't lived with SARS-CoV-2 long enough to know anything about real long-term effects, but perhaps the best parallel is the 2003 SARS virus. On slide #11, the WHO says:

• This study showed there was persistent and significant impairment of exercise capacity and health status in survivors of SARS over 24 months. Health workers who had SARS experienced even more marked adverse impact ¹
• Another study, revealed that 40% of people recovering from SARS still had chronic fatigue symptoms 3.5 years after being diagnosed ²

¹ The long‐term impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome on pulmonary function, exercise capacity and health status
² Mental Morbidities and Chronic Fatigue in Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Survivors: Long-term Follow-up

As the WHO themselves say on slide #13, "Much is still unknown about how COVID-19 affects people over time". At the moment we shouldn't get hysterical, but neither should we make too light of the possible consequences of getting sick from the virus. Me, I wouldn't be as cavalier as I read from your post and if I got sick from the virus I'd certainly be a mite apprehensive. On the other hand, I'm pretty certain that a lot (how many? Since the WHO have no idea, I won't even try to speculate) will get through it without having to give up their diving.

Bottom line: if you start throwing out numbers, please make sure they're based on science and not pulled out from someone's nether regions. We just don't know enough yet.

 

[Miyaru]

• In a telephone survey of symptomatic adults who had a positive outpatient test result for SARS-CoV-2, 35% had not returned to their usual state of health when interviewed 2–3 weeks after testing.

That's a percentage of those with a positive outpatient test result. It is not a percentage of the population.

• Among those 18 to 34 years in good health, 20% (1 in 5) reported that some symptoms were prolonged.

Again, that's a percentage of those with a clinical infection. It is not a percentage of the population.

We simply haven't lived with SARS-CoV-2 long enough to know anything about real long-term effects, but perhaps the best parallel is the 2003 SARS virus. On slide #11, the WHO says:

• This study showed there was persistent and significant impairment of exercise capacity and health status in survivors of SARS over 24 months. Health workers who had SARS experienced even more marked adverse impact ¹
• Another study, revealed that 40% of people recovering from SARS still had chronic fatigue symptoms 3.5 years after being diagnosed ²

And again, that's a percentage of a specific group, not a percentage of the population.

Worldwide, the positive test results (from PCR tests) are presented by the media as clinical infections. Those who ask questions about the validity of these "facts" are quickly described as conspiracy-believers and questions are ignored by governments. The majority of all measures imposed on the public, have no scientific basis and will not improve or strengthen one's immune system.

So when it's about mentioning numbers, backed up by hyperlinking statistics, then pick numbers based on the entire population.

 

[David Novo]

That's a percentage of those with a positive outpatient test result. It is not a percentage of the population.

Again, that's a percentage of those with a clinical infection. It is not a percentage of the population.
And again, that's a percentage of a specific group, not a percentage of the population.

Worldwide, the positive test results (from PCR tests) are presented by the media as clinical infections. Those who ask questions about the validity of these "facts" are quickly described as conspiracy-believers and questions are ignored by governments. The majority of all measures imposed on the public, have no scientific basis and will not improve or strengthen one's immune system.

So when it's about mentioning numbers, backed up by hyperlinking statistics, then pick numbers based on the entire population.

Do you consider population to be the world population or people that had a positive COVID-19 test, whether they were symptomatic or not?

 

[Miyaru]

Of course the entire population. Measures imposed by governments are for everybody, not just those with a positive PCR test result.

 

[David Novo]

Of course the entire population. Measures imposed by governments are for everybody, not just those with a positive PCR test result.

Then how can you say that "99.97% of the human population recovers without residual effects" if less than 100% of the world population had COVID-19?

 

[Storker]

Then how can you say that "99.97% of the human population recovers without residual effects"

Bingo. Recovery basically requires that you've had Covid-19 (been infected, gotten sick. Covid = Coronavirus Disease. Not the virus, not the infection. The disease). To compare the number of people who have recovered from being sick with the population at whole when the question is about those who have gotten sick is at least disingenuous.

The WHO presentation was specifically about those who got sick, as was the OP.

 

[Storker]

Dependent probabilities, dude. Dependent probabilities. If I drop a glass ball, the probability of it rising to the ceiling is pretty damned low. While the probability that a glass ball falling from the ceiling to a concrete floor cracks is fairly decent. When I drop the glass ball, I can be pretty certain it'll survive, because the probability of it rising high enough is virtually zero. But in the case it has risen to the ceiling, the probability that it'll crack is pretty damned high.

Again, dependent probabilities. The same fallacy is seen when someone has rolled three sixes in a row. The probability of rolling four sixes in a row is pretty damned small (1:1296, to be precise), but if you've already rolled three sixes the probability of rolling a fourth six is exactly 1:6

 

[Miyaru]

Then how can you say that "99.97% of the human population recovers without residual effects" if less than 100% of the world population had COVID-19?

According to government statistics in my country, the daily number of positive PCR test results are currently hovering around 7000. Two weeks ago, that number was ~5000 and a month ago that number was above 10000.
The media present these numbers as COVID19 infections, and although it remains unknown how many people re-test, these numbers are added up.
So, following that policy and playing by the government rules, adding everything up would indicate that half of the population has been infected in the course of this year.

Put that amount next to the number of registered covid-19 hospital admissions, and you'll see it's a tiny percentage.

Of course this is totally crazy. But it's just as crazy to present positive PCR test results as clinical infections.