Nobody in the present day is going to blindly randomize a post-COVID diver with (albeit small) potential for lung pathology into a study arm that recommends diving. Based on our current knowledge, that would be completely unethical. The best we're going to get is retrospective data, which again, I hope someone takes the time to gather. It may well happen that the overall risk is low enough that the recommendations can be modified.
Best regards,
DDM
This sounds like some very poor limitations to the IRB process and medical research in general.
The facts are simple. People are diving post Covid. Lots of people. If I was to hazard a guess the overwhelming majority without any medical evaluation prior to doing so. Many are diving not knowing if they even had Covid or not.
Now if we randomized these same divers to eval or no eval the only thing to change would be the number of divers getting an eval as that would likely go up, not down from the likely very small number that currently exists.
Hell you could stipulate that the population your pulling from would be divers who wouldn’t have gotten an evaluation in the first place. Now you only have potential benefit.
It isn’t perfect, there will certianly be some selection bias, as the non healthy folks won’t chose to dive, but it’s far better evidence than “we think there might be some risk”.
The “we cannot risk harm” group are the same ones that thought masks were a parachute at the beginning of the Covid pandemic. Now we’re three years later with not a single RTC performed regarding mask wear and mostly total garbage evidence on the benefits and risks of mask wear. It’s one of the greatest failures of the pandemic.
Medical screening tests are certianly not a parachute. To justify their cost and possible non-intended adverse outcomes RTCs should be the expected level of evidence.