Congress to investigate Carnival Corporation’s handling of COVID-19 on its cruise ships

[AF-1]

Yes you can say the travel sector is gonna change.  Airlines, ships, theme parks.  It's all gonna change.

[resistk]

1 minute ago, spyro1952 said:

I read that article this morning and it could be the nail in the coffin.

 

WSJ is no friend of the consumers; the article is warning off investors. 

[resistk]

Just now, AF-1 said:

Yes you can say the travel sector is gonna change.  Airlines, ships, theme parks.  It's all gonna change.

 

Just think about the wedding, spectator sports, movies, theaters and banqueting sectors too,  all have similar issues.  I suspect at least 25% of people will just say away from events altogether  and that is a huge hit.

[AF-1]

I read on internet that movie theaters in some states will open; but they have strict requirements 

[RocketMan275]

16 hours ago, npcl said:

The Doctor's testimony in the article certainly does not look good for Princess.

 

In public hearings that began April 22, the ship’s senior physician, Ilse Von Watzdorf, was asked why she didn’t update the ship’s medical log books to show that some ill people aboard the ship had been swabbed for possible Covid-19. “I did not have enough hours, I think” to update records, she testified.

The failure to  update records by overworked medical personnel has been common in past pandemics.  Nothing unusual here.

[HappyInVan]

7 hours ago, Geoffa30 said:

Possibly because on a flight there is insufficient time for someone to start exhibiting symptoms. However who knows how many people might have contracted it from infected passengers on a short flight before going on their merry way spreading it far and wide in the community.

 

That's an easy rebuttal.

 

First, the experts say that the plane has a high quality air filtration system that's effective on virus. So, the thinking is that infected people are a danger only to those within 6' of them.

 

Second, pax can be required to wear masks in an airport and on the plane. Not a problem for flights of just a few hours.

 

Third, airports will impose thermal screening. An infected person is unlikely to be very infectious without an elevated temperature. Particularly while wearing a mask.

 

Compare that to a cruise of 7-21 days. Lot's of time for a sick person to be infectious. You will have to take off the masks to eat and drink in public. Unless you have room service for everything.

 

How many people are going to constantly wash their hands or wear gloves over 7-21 days?

 

Then, there's the positive air pressure in the cabins.

 

So much harder to social distance on an economy cruise. They're packed like sardines in the public areas.

 

Let's be honest, it is a lot harder to be safe on a ship. The odds of getting infected on a 3k pax ship is much higher than a 300 pax plane.

 

 

 

Edited May 2, 2020 by HappyInVan

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, resistk said:

 

That is the old Norovirus arguments the cruise lines like to make; however in this case I think the WSJ article nailed the lines on several issues including putting profits over safety and using incredibley bad judgment which hasd cost them billions of dollars.  Heads should roll at the upper level of the lines.

Not making safety your top priority, is that like when the Navy fired a Captain because he went outside the chain of command to try to get help when a large number of his crew came down with the Coronavirus? There seems to be a definite bias in the media to make it sound like only the cruise lines did things wrong. 

 

And I'm sure if they could have foreseen the future, the cruise lines would have done things differently.

[HappyInVan]

17 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

And I'm sure if they could have foreseen the future, the cruise lines would have done things differently.

 

Hmmm. The point is that cruise companies placed $$$ over safety. Clear example is the Ruby Princess. How did a third of the pax get infected over just 11 days? What was the captain and CD thinking? Why didn't they end the cruise the moment  that WHO declared a pandemic on March 11? 

 

If they had a crystal ball, they would have terminated the cruises. The problem is that ships in remote regions can't unload their pax. Particularly if ports/nations refuse to allow them to dock. So, cruise travel is inherently more dangerous for pax than planes.

 

FYI, the Asst Secretary of the Navy did resign.

 

 

Edited May 2, 2020 by HappyInVan

[ontheweb]

9 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

 

 

FYI, the Asst Secretary of the Navy did resign.

 

 

I knew he was gone, but has the Captain who cared about the safety of his crew been reinstated? If he has, I have not heard or read that anywhere.

[Geoffa30]

47 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

 

That's an easy rebuttal.

 

First, the experts say that the plane has a high quality air filtration system that's effective on virus. So, the thinking is that infected people are a danger only to those within 6' of them.

 

Second, pax can be required to wear masks in an airport and on the plane. Not a problem for flights of just a few hours.

 

Third, airports will impose thermal screening. An infected person is unlikely to be very infectious without an elevated temperature. Particularly while wearing a mask.

 

Compare that to a cruise of 7-21 days. Lot's of time for a sick person to be infectious. You will have to take off the masks to eat and drink in public. Unless you have room service for everything.

 

How many people are going to constantly wash their hands or wear gloves over 7-21 days?

 

Then, there's the positive air pressure in the cabins.

 

So much harder to social distance on an economy cruise. They're packed like sardines in the public areas.

 

Let's be honest, it is a lot harder to be safe on a ship. The odds of getting infected on a 3k pax ship is much higher than a 300 pax plane.

 

 

 

It appears you are now talking about the future. I thought we were talking about what had happened about the spread of Covid-19 on ships prior to now? 🤔

[DaveSJ711]

38 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

FYI, the Asst Secretary of the Navy did resign.

 

Acting, not Assistant.

[chipmaster]

2 hours ago, AF-1 said:

I read on internet that movie theaters in some states will open; but they have strict requirements 

So the question regardless of what you read

 

Will you go to a theater to see say the opening of "Mulan" or the "Time to Die" assuming of course they force every other seat seating?

 

Go to a restaurant to eat given the recently revived report of how people got sick very far away from a known COVID19 guest due to airflow transportation?

 

To answer my own question:  Yes I would, and will travel as well as go to a Stadium with whatever restrictions are in place.

[HappyInVan]

42 minutes ago, Geoffa30 said:

It appears you are now talking about the future. I thought we were talking about what had happened about the spread of Covid-19 on ships prior to now? 🤔

 

Fact, on a 11 day cruise, the officers on the Ruby managed to get a third of the pax sick. Did not turn around on March 11, or impose social distancing. Allowed the mass infection to disembark on the 19th.

 

BTW, the incubation period is about 5 days. Likely that patient zero (for the March 8th cruise) was either a crew member or a pax already infected before their flight.

 

The courts of inquiry will be very useful. What happened in the medical center? What was communicated between the captain and CD and MO? What exactly was communicated between NSW Health and Princess?

 

In addition, the NZ inquiry will shield light on why NZ closed their ports after the visit to Napier on the 15th.

 

Yes, the truth will be needed.

 

Addition: Yes, the congressional hearing will shed light on the medical advise given to Carnival/Princess. The communication between the cruise industry and the Administration etc.

Edited May 2, 2020 by HappyInVan

[chipmaster]

2 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

The failure to  update records by overworked medical personnel has been common in past pandemics.  Nothing unusual here.

 

A good excuse, but now that I have the hardcopy of the WSJ today I re-read the article and find some pretty disingenuous and egregious behavior and statements and others that seem to border as unlawful.

 

 Diamond Princess in Japan in early Feb clearly showed how bad it could be.   Completely  disingenuous for any senior leadership to say that the risk was minimal as that showed how contagious it was and we all already knew it was deadly. 

 

100+ ships sailed after that including the infamous sailings of Ruby on March 8th, Zaandam March 7th, and Breakaway March 7

 

The Breakaway was new news to me.   Sick patient that was on ship with fever/pneunomia.  The onboard doctor recommended transfer in Jamaica.  WSJ says ship didn't report the illness ( LOL, think about it in March you are cruise ship docking with patient with acute respiratory illness, you think you can dock?  likely blocked and patient and rest of passengers trapped ).   BTW the patient later died ( tragic ) but the ship continued and docked and came back to US and all passengers were free to go with no checks!   Thus the let all the passengers off with NO containment/mitigation or notification.  THIS WAS MARCH and how could any person claim not to know the current world situation!   Not only disingenuous , but unlawful and criminal what was going on!

 

[chipmaster]

16 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

 

 

 

Addition: Yes, the congressional hearing will shed light on the medical advise given to Carnival/Princess. The communication between the cruise industry and the Administration etc.

 

Sadly the cruise industry could point to POTUS and Federal policy, tragic indeed. 

[npcl]

2 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

The failure to  update records by overworked medical personnel has been common in past pandemics.  Nothing unusual here.

Except in this case the ship was not experiencing a pandemic.  That the level of illness was normal enough that the risk of the ship docking was considered to be moderate. That the key information that would have changed that level of risk was that COVID was suspected, and the missing information from the records was that COVID swabs were taken.  Also she said that she thought she was too busy.  I suspect that if it really was a work load issue that she would be a bit more certain.  Would be especially interesting if other information had been entered in those records during the same period and it was only the COVID swab data that was not entered.  Will be interesting to see what the conclusions are when the investigation is done.

 

After all the key elements of the investigation are 1.  did the ship communicate what was in the records and 2. was there information that was not in the records based upon the interviews.  I think the answer to the second part is becoming clearer.  We just have to see who the cruise line blames.

[npcl]

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

I knew he was gone, but has the Captain who cared about the safety of his crew been reinstated? If he has, I have not heard or read that anywhere.

The Navy is now doing a full investigation.  The results of that investigation will determine if he is reinstated.  Basically who in is chain of command did he approach with the issue and what communications took place, prior to his going outside of military protocol. It will also be to determine if there was intent for it to get released to the press when it was sent to others outside of the chain of command. 

 

The out come will determine if he is reinstated or not.  He might be reinstated, but doubt he will be promoted again and once out of the limelight will probably retire. 

[IrieBajan54]

10 hours ago, Geoffa30 said:

It’s a shame that similar tracing hasn’t been done for airlines, theme parks, sporting events et al. The virus was everywhere months ago. It’s not just cruise ships that have caused the spread. They are somewhat of an easy target.

.

I agree. I wonder about tracing for Mardi Gras.

[iancal]

Who can really begin to have an considered opinion on the issue at this point in time?

 

I have no doubt that there is a great deal of correspondence and information that is not in the public domain.  Some of it no doubt confidential.  I suspect that any outcome in either the inquiry or in litigation action will center around this.

 

[EscapeFromConnecticut]

3 hours ago, ontheweb said:

Not making safety your top priority, is that like when the Navy fired a Captain because he went outside the chain of command to try to get help when a large number of his crew came down with the Coronavirus? There seems to be a definite bias in the media to make it sound like only the cruise lines did things wrong. 

 

And I'm sure if they could have foreseen the future, the cruise lines would have done things differently.

    Sorry, there's no legitimate defense of the cruise lines in this mess. And the "bias in the media" accusation is a tired red herring.
    The CDC went after the cruise lines because of their gross recklessness and incompetence - their behavior was a disgrace, and massively worsened emergency medical situations in the U.S. as well as Australia during a pandemic. No, the CDC is not biased. No, the Coast Guard is not biased.

    Congress and Australian law enforcement aren't investigating airlines, hotels, movie theaters, sports franchises or convention centers. They're targeting cruise lines and no, they're not biased either.

    Lawyers are lining up with litigation against the cruise lines from passengers and crew alike; no, neither the lawyers nor plaintiffs are biased.

     And one professional news operation after another has reported on the irresponsible decisions of the cruise lines ... and no, the media is not biased.

     The bias to find on CC is that reflexive, predictable defense by some folks of their favorite cruise lines. Year after year in post after post, they insist Fain and Donald and their boards are never wrong - now THAT is bias.

        

[AF-1]

2 hours ago, chipmaster said:

So the question regardless of what you read

 

Will you go to a theater to see say the opening of "Mulan" or the "Time to Die" assuming of course they force every other seat seating?

 

Go to a restaurant to eat given the recently revived report of how people got sick very far away from a known COVID19 guest due to airflow transportation?

 

To answer my own question:  Yes I would, and will travel as well as go to a Stadium with whatever restrictions are in place.

Well the answer to your question is in two parts.

1. I will not dine in at this time;  will continue to order takeout

2. Will not go to see "Time to Die" in theater;  but the reason being;  I have my own movie theater room in my house.  State of the art 110" Sony TV.  Total Dolby Digital System will killer bass amp, hooked up to apple tv 4K, Roku 4K, and Sony DVD 4K;  all this patched thru my Yamaha 7.1 Digital amp.  Other than that,  yea I would see James Bond; but no Mulan.  Hate cartoons or animation movies.  

p.s.  have electronic theater seats about eight feet from the screen

Edited May 2, 2020 by AF-1

[HappyInVan]

1 hour ago, IrieBajan54 said:

.

I agree. I wonder about tracing for Mardi Gras.

 

 

Actually, many health agencies have identified and done contact tracing for travelers on airplanes. It is standard procedure for containment. Many business-friendly governments do not require the airlines to inform fellow pax on the same flight. That is the mistake.

 

In future, every pax on the same flight should be informed. And, the pax sitting within 6' of the patient needs to be contacted and made to understand the gravity of the situation.

 

It isn't possible to contact trace a mass event like Mardi Gras. However, the Koreans have developed an automated app that uses cell phone records to trace the path of patients. The computers will match your virtual path to that of know patients.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/18/covid-19-south-koreans-keep-calm-and-carry-on-testing

 

 

Then, the Koreans allow people to get a test in their famous drive-in test centers. Results, Korean CDC reported just 19 infections over the last 3 days.

 

IMO, it would be sheer negligence if any government didn't implement a version of the app. That's the only way to reopen the economy and restart cruising.

 

In the meantime, I can see no viable defense for the cruise industry of the carnage from the Ruby Princess etc. The only reasonable excuse is that they made mistakes because it was the first pandemic officially declared by WHO...

 

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-pandemic-definition-covid-19-explainer/

 

 

IMO, inquiries are needed. This is the opportunity for companies, pax, and governments to learn and prepare for the next big one. It might allow closure for the victims and their families.

 

 

 

 

 

[bookmama22]

There is another article in the April 30th issue of GQ that is specific to the situation on the Diamond Princess.

[Roberto256]

2 hours ago, chipmaster said:

 Diamond Princess in Japan in early Feb clearly showed how bad it could be.   Completely  disingenuous for any senior leadership to say that the risk was minimal as that showed how contagious it was and we all already knew it was deadly.

 

The thing I found stunning about diamond was that several of the japanese health inspectors who came onboard

to oversee quarantine became infected.

 

When that happened, I thought it was pretty clear that no one knew what this virus was, or how even how to

work with infected people safely.

 

(not a slam on japanese ... NO ONE knew)

 

As time passed, the type PPE was increased to keep doctors/nurses more-or-less safe..

 

 

 

[npcl]

3 hours ago, chipmaster said:

 

Sadly the cruise industry could point to POTUS and Federal policy, tragic indeed. 

The Italians, French, British can all do the same with their governments.

 

Early actions were pretty much opposed everywhere.  Few places, except those that could be easily isolated (Pacific Islands, Australia, New Zealand, etc) moved too slow and ended up reacting instead of being proactive.