This sounds like a great research project for a young, highly motivated researcher. But, pulling back a little, there is no comparison between any specific common cold virus and SARS Co-V2. We're not in a cold pandemic right now. You need to compare apples to apples. If your cold virus caused widespread death, serious illness, and long-term respiratory effects, there would be enough of a public health concern to warrant specific guidance around returning to diving. We have specific guidance around COVID because of specific, known, long-term effects. And yes, really. If someone came to our clinic with residual respiratory sequelae from a viral illness, he or she would be evaluated based on his or her presenting symptoms, regardless of the organism.What does "typically" mean in this case? Can we put some quantitative bounds on it?
How would we know that SARS-CoV-2 causes more long-term complications than HCoV-OC43, since the infectious disease experts have never done a direct before-and-after comparison of the lung damage caused by those two viruses, or other common cold viruses? The entire COVID-19 pandemic has been characterized by shoddy science, flawed assumptions, and a rush to hasty conclusions. A little more skepticism is warranted.
Really? Since HCoV-OC43 is just one of hundreds of endemic common cold viruses, and the specific virus makes little difference in the treatment protocol, clinicians almost never specifically test for it. I had a bad cold some years ago and was left with a persistent cough during any hard exertion that lasted for months. Was that from an HCoV-OC43 infection? Who knows? Did it cause lung damage? My doctor never ordered any respiratory tests or any imaging studies, and I didn't have previous baselines to compare against anyway. So also unknown and unknowable. In any case after the cough went away I resumed diving and sports training. So far my lungs haven't exploded.
The implicit null hypothesis here is that SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) is no more likely to cause lung damage (or other sequelae relevant to diving) than at least some other endemic common cold viruses. That null hypothesis could be false but I haven't seen sufficient evidence to reject it yet. So why are we treating this one virus as something special? Or conversely, have we been too casual about upper respiratory infections in general? Should we treat all such viruses the same and get evaluated for fitness to dive after every infection? Not a bad idea in principle, but I'm skeptical whether that would be a good use of scarce medical resources.
I'm not going to engage you regarding COVID and science. Your vocabulary is great, but a responsible, erudite scientist would not make a blanket statement like "The entire COVID-19 pandemic has been characterized by shoddy science, flawed assumptions, and a rush to hasty conclusions." Those are the words of someone who has not been directly involved with the care of COVID patients or the science behind it.
Regarding your illness specifically, how do you know it was a cold? Was the organism cultured? If there's no solid evidence that it was a cold, how are you hanging an argument on it? Re your workup, I would defer to the provider who saw you in person, but in general, how do you know what was causing the cough? If you were concerned enough to be evaluated, how are you reassured that there was no residual damage without imaging (for which there certainly is a normal to compare against, if you're a radiologist) or pulmonary function testing, for which there is also a set of normal parameters to guide decision-making? I'm glad your lungs haven't exploded or done anything else radical, but you're an "n" of one.
All that said, I'm afraid I'm not understanding your overall point here. Are you asserting that there shouldn't be specific return-to-diving guidelines for post-COVID?
Best regards,
DDM