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

[Edward3c]

I don't see anything in that document that requires/mandates the use of a snorkel by a scuba diver?

Not me, I didn’t mention snorkels.

 

[tursiops]

This is an email that I sent to the dive manager of the resort:

I understand that you are trying to do everything you can to mitigate the risks. Having just had another birthday, I am even further in the high risk group. I agree prudent & reasonable actions need to be taken.

However, your AIR 2 rule makes no sense. What percentage of your clients run out of air ( OOA) in a week of diving with you? None (0%), almost none ( .0001% ), very few ( .001%), many (.01%) and too many (.1%). I have been thinking back over 40 years of doing group trips and I can not think of one OOA case. My guess is you have had .001% on average. If you have one in 100,000 OOA, then if that diver shared air with their buddy what is the risk their buddy has the virus? Using the present global numbers, there are 5 million case out of a global population of 7.8 billion. 5 million / 7.8 billion = 0.000641025641! 6 in 1 million. Then take your 1 in 100,000 OOA X 6 in million 100,000 * 6 million = 600,000,000,000!

Then what is the risk that the virus will actually be transmitted through the water in the regulator exchange. I am sure you have a greater risk of being kicked by a donkey in Bonaire!

It is simple; if you stick with your current rule about AIR 2's and tech rigs, then we will not being sending you business. I'm sure that we aren't the only customers you will lose.

I have been diving and bringing divers to Bonaire for 40 years. Bonaire represents diving freedom. It has always been one of the many places in the world that I like to bring divers since I am part Dutch. We have enjoyed working with you in the past. However, there are many choices for dive operation in Bonaire and many other islands to go diving.

Please stay on topic. This thread is about if you would give this resort or any resort your business if they have new rules due to the virus that don't make sense. It is not about if you hate the AIR 2 or tech. rigs. What if they said for your safety that you had to dive an AIR 2/ Tech rig. configuration?

My calculations are +/- 1 billion or so.

This thread is about diving freedom in the future. I was shocked to find this behavior at a resort in Bonaire.

My concern is that this type of regulation will be come the " New Normal " with other resorts making senseless rules.

With all due respect, this comes across like a MAGA American demanding his liberties to do whatever he wants, damn the consequences.
Some perspective might be useful....

I'm quoting from Post #210, because it is obvious some have missed the post:

"I hope everyone understands that Bonaire (along with Saba and St Eustatius) are closely tied to the Netherlands, and has to operate under European guidelines for things like safety rules of COVID-19. The island also needs to reopen its borders, which requires European/Netherlands approval, so operating under guidelines like those they've published is part of their campaign to be allowed to reopen. Those published guidelines are not some Draconian Buddy Dive attempt to penalize tourists for daring to come to their island; rather, they are an attempt to get approval to have the tourists even be allowed to come to the island. If that approval comes, it will surely be staged...perhaps with those published guidelines in place for a while, then slowly relaxed with experience and data being supportive. When? Who knows. Will they even open this summer? Who knows. But I see the publication of those guidelines as a necessary and welcome first step to reopening."

 

[Snoweman]

I don't see anything in that document that requires/mandates the use of a snorkel by a scuba diver?

 

[saxman242]

I don’t agree with your dogged use of anecdotal evidence over empirical evidence.

The BSAC incident reports, are by definition, anecdotal as well. Incident reports are not empirical evidence.

When you see 1 group of anecdotal data that says "over 10 years, 3 people were recorded as having gone for the primary reg" and you have 1 singular person saying that over a shorter period of time, they experienced 6 people doing the same, you have a gross difference in what the anecdotal evidence is telling you. Now, there's nothing to say that both aren't true... you just have to be cognizant of how you apply that data and what you conclude from that data. The BSAC determinations may be perfectly appropriate for their requirement set, but you have to put huge brackets on that describing what that means and understand that what is applicable to their needs is not necessarily the right answer for all.

 

[Edward3c]

The BSAC incident reports, are by definition, anecdotal as well. Incident reports are not empirical evidence.

Believe what you want, they are subjected to academic scrutiny and rigour.

 

[saxman242]

Believe what you want, they are subjected to academic scrutiny and rigour.

That's fine... that doesn't make them empirical though. Words have meaning and incident reports from testimony of the divers involved, even with the utmost scrutiny and rigor, are not empirical. For something to be empirical evidence, it must be measurable and repeatable. People describing a series of events that occurred is neither. That doesn't mean that the data is invaluable, just that it need to be evaluated correctly. Treating anecdotes from small sample sizes as empirical data is not evaluating it correctly.

 

[oncor23]

From the DAN article about Scuba Equipment and Covid-19:

"Studies on the SARS virus, called SARS-CoV-1 and the cause of an epidemic in 2003, have shown that it remained infectious for long periods in surface water (lakes, rivers, wetlands, etc.) and previously pasteurized sewage at both low and ambient temperatures (8). In chlorinated or bromated pools and hot tubs, the CDC specifies that SARS-CoV-2 would be inactivated (9). "

If all you have is a long hose and a necklace, I'll be sure to carry a pony so I won't have to ask you for air unless multiple things go wrong with my gear.

 

[saxman242]

It's important to keep in mind that this debate that a policy in effect for a dive resort means one of two things if you're diving:

• You're either at a statistically insignificant risk of covid transmission if you have to share air
• You may be dealing with a diver being asked to respond to an emergency in an equipment configuration that they are not familiar with

Hell, if we go back to the BSAC studies, they preach over and over about the risk of divers using unfamiliar equipment configurations and the risk that brings. The agencies that dictate a singular gear configuration do so for familiarity with equipment, so people aren't trying to figure out something they aren't used to.

Now, long term, that risk could be mitigated by forcing everyone into a standard gear configuration (not that that would ever happen or anyone would ever agree what that is), but if we live in the real world and accept that currently, different people dive differently, and that this is policy is for what is happening NOW, for this policy to make any sense, you would need to be convinced that risk due to covid infection in sharing air is greater than the risk of a diver responding in an unfamiliar gear configuration. Does ANYONE think that is true?

 

[Joneill]

View attachment 587636

But that says "diving equipment MAY consist of" - it does NOT say "diving equipment MUST consist of".

It also seems to be talking about what equipment dive operators provide and maintain does not appear to define rules for divers themselves as far as I could see in a quick look?

 

[Snoweman]

But that says "diving equipment MAY consist of" - it does NOT say "diving equipment MUST consist of".

It also seems to be talking about what equipment dive operators provide and maintain does not appear to define rules for divers themselves as far as I could see in a quick look?

Understood. Do you think any of the other listed equipment is optional?