I'm not suggesting anything; I was just pointing out the difference between the two ways of looking at the risk - the micro and the macro points of view. The micro is not all there is to it.
Yeah, and I also understand that virtually ANY statement on this point will (1) generate a lot of backlash, and (2) be flagged as off topic. But I'll accept THAT risk, just to say this.
Pretty much all of our discussions about "risk" on ScubaBoard center around the personal assumption of risk. That model has almost nothing to do with decisions about mitigation practices and the elimination of unnecessary travel during a pandemic.
I totally get it that unless we stay in strict quarantine, we are increasing public risk to some degree, one way or the other. So, yes, we are making those decisions every day. But stuff we do to increase viral transmission rates in the community absolutely does increase spread, cases, hospitalizations and deaths. And the excess deaths will probably be people that no one here will ever know. That's not opinion, that's just pandemic math. If I pick up groceries, that's a non-zero increase in that risk. I'm not being a fanatic about this - I have been on a local dive boat several times this season. The devil is in the details.
So say you are going to travel to dive destination A, with COVID testing on dates B and C, wearing masks in place D and E, keeping F feet between us and other people, when the local positive rate is G%. All I'm suggesting is that when deciding whether or not the decision is correct, at least acknowledge in the discussion the overall risk to the population at whole. Saying "I went for a trip and I was fine" really misses the point.