Ruby Princess - Special Inquiry - Evidence To Date

[christodan]

51 minutes ago, Aus Traveller said:

I guess she heard the Police Commissioner's comment that the virus was spread by a waiter sneezing on the passengers in the restaurant.

I heard the sneezing story on the radio. However, they also reported that sneezing is not a sign of COVID19.

[Cyrix400]

Today's Inquiry summary - from abc.news, link  below.  Next hearing on Friday from 10.30 - two witnesses so far: a Mrs Moore at 10.30 and then Mr Little

 

 - My other brief impressions:

- NSW Health was very good in contacting some pax, but not others.

- detailed cleaning of the ship noted by pax, particularly during the second week

- re going to med centre ship annoucements - nobody giving evidence today heard that it was free - but they  all got refunds or charges were reversed at account settlement

-  suggestion by the Commissioner that medical summaries by ship doctor may not be accurate

- some people got full cruise refunds - circumstances of this unclear

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-23/ruby-princess-coronavirus-inquiry-told-passenger-sneezed-on/12384370

Ruby Princess passenger contracted coronavirus after waitress sneezed on her, inquiry told   

Key points:

• Ms Kavanagh said she "couldn't believe" someone sneezed on her

• She spent eight days in a coma after returning home to WA

• Sneezing is a symptom of a common cold, but not of COVID-19

 

[Ondine]

I think there is a big difference between a sneeze and a cough.  We all sneeze when something tickles our nose but a cough usually means that we have congestion somewhere.  Odd that her husband didn't test positive.

 

Very difficult transmission with the sound breaking up all the time.

[OzKiwiJJ]

A sneeze can also be a reaction to someone who is wearing too much perfume or aftershave cologne. Some people seem to think they have to almost bathe in the stuff!

Edited June 23, 2020 by OzKiwiJJ

[possum52]

20 minutes ago, Ondine said:

I think there is a big difference between a sneeze and a cough.  We all sneeze when something tickles our nose but a cough usually means that we have congestion somewhere.  Odd that her husband didn't test positive.

 

Very difficult transmission with the sound breaking up all the time.

I have a cough all year round due to allergies. I am likely to also sneeze at the same time, particularly as OzJKiwiJJ said with strong perfumes. If I get a whiff of a strong perfume, it can catch in my throat causing me to cough.

 

Leigh

[GUT2407]

1 hour ago, Ondine said:

I think there is a big difference between a sneeze and a cough.  We all sneeze when something tickles our nose but a cough usually means that we have congestion somewhere.  Odd that her husband didn't test positive.

 

Very difficult transmission with the sound breaking up all the time.

I have suffered bronchial asthma all my life, cough like a foghorn, but no congestion and nothing contagious.

[MicCanberra]

1 hour ago, OzKiwiJJ said:

A sneeze can also be a reaction to someone who is wearing too much perfume or aftershave cologne. Some people seem to think they have to almost bathe in the stuff!

I never want to bathe in a sneeze no matter who did it, or what it smells of.

[Porky55]

12 hours ago, BRANDEE said:

Oh my...I know I told someone else too...Secret Whispers!! 😞  

Just love it ..... thank you 😂😂

[OzKiwiJJ]

57 minutes ago, MicCanberra said:

I never want to bathe in a sneeze no matter who did it, or what it smells of.

🙄🙄🙄

[Cyrix400]

The second witness at the Inquiry  tomorrow(after Janette Moore, probably pax) should be very interesting.

 

It is Peter Little, Senior Vice President, Guest Experience, Carnival Australia

 

Looking forward to the Commissioner asking him some hard questions - and getting the answers.

Peter's background - from the Carnival site:

Peter joined the Carnival Australia executive team in 2008 and is responsible for shipboard and shore operations for the local P&O Cruises and Princess Cruises fleets in the areas of Technical Operations, Marine Operations and Port Operations. Peter previously held the position of Fleet Technical Manager at sister company Carnival UK in Southampton, managing their Worldwide Fleet.

Trained as a Marine Engineer at South Tyneside Maritime College, Peter started his career on cargo ships before making the transition to the cruise industry in 1991. His sea going career spanned some 17 years sailing in every rank from Cadet to Chief Engineer before making the move to shore management in 2004.

 

 

 

•  

[Porky55]

34 minutes ago, Cyrix400 said:

The second witness at the Inquiry  tomorrow(after Janette Moore, probably pax) should be very interesting.

 

It is Peter Little, Senior Vice President, Guest Experience, Carnival Australia

 

Looking forward to the Commissioner asking him some hard questions - and getting the answers.

Peter's background - from the Carnival site:

Peter joined the Carnival Australia executive team in 2008 and is responsible for shipboard and shore operations for the local P&O Cruises and Princess Cruises fleets in the areas of Technical Operations, Marine Operations and Port Operations. Peter previously held the position of Fleet Technical Manager at sister company Carnival UK in Southampton, managing their Worldwide Fleet.

Trained as a Marine Engineer at South Tyneside Maritime College, Peter started his career on cargo ships before making the transition to the cruise industry in 1991. His sea going career spanned some 17 years sailing in every rank from Cadet to Chief Engineer before making the move to shore management in 2004.

 

 

 

•  

In the Commission's “Terms of Reference” which they constantly refer to - I don’t see how someone who wasn’t actually on the Ruby Princess cruise in question can actually bring that much in evidence?
Same as trying to question NSW Health Minister Brad Hazzard and make him responsible for the NSW Health’s stuff up I think 🤔

Edited June 25, 2020 by Porky55

[OzKiwiJJ]

7 minutes ago, Porky55 said:

In the Commission's “Terms of Reference” which they constantly refer to - I don’t see how someone who wasn’t actually on the Ruby Princess cruise in question can actually bring that much in evidence?
Same as trying to question NSW Health Minister Brad Hazzard and make him responsible for the NSW Health’s stuff up I think 🤔

I imagine the ship would have been in constant contact with him, and he will be questioned on the corporate side of whatever decisions were made.

[Porky55]

11 hours ago, OzKiwiJJ said:

I imagine the ship would have been in constant contact with him, and he will be questioned on the corporate side of whatever decisions were made.

Do you, like the NSW Health staff were in contact with Minister Hazzard?
we shall see when they question him I guess 🤔

[Cyrix400]

13 hours ago, Porky55 said:

In the Commission's “Terms of Reference” which they constantly refer to - I don’t see how someone who wasn’t actually on the Ruby Princess cruise in question can actually bring that much in evidence?
Same as trying to question NSW Health Minister Brad Hazzard and make him responsible for the NSW Health’s stuff up I think 🤔

 

13 hours ago, OzKiwiJJ said:

I imagine the ship would have been in constant contact with him, and he will be questioned on the corporate side of whatever decisions were made.

 

Re The Commission's terms of  reference  - the matters below (my emphasis) are likely to lead to many questions - and as we all know, the Commissioner has the reputation for nor missing a beat.

 

(And see post 243 above how the Commissioner deals with what he regards as 'spin' in the Ruby Princess NSW Health report). 

 

  -  The knowledge, decisions and actions of Ruby Princess crew, medical staff and the ship operator, Princess Cruises, with respect to cases or potential cases of respiratory infections on the ship.

- Policies and protocols applied by Princess Cruises and Commonwealth and NSW Government agencies with respect to managing suspected or potential COVID-19 cases.

- Any other related matters that the Commissioner considers appropriate.

[By The Bay]

6 minutes ago, Cyrix400 said:

 

 

Re The Commission's terms of  reference  - the matters below (my emphasis) are likely to lead to many questions - and as we all know, the Commissioner has the reputation for nor missing a beat.

 

(And see post 243 above how the Commissioner deals with what he regards as 'spin' in the Ruby Princess NSW Health report). 

 

  -  The knowledge, decisions and actions of Ruby Princess crew, medical staff and the ship operator, Princess Cruises, with respect to cases or potential cases of respiratory infections on the ship.

- Policies and protocols applied by Princess Cruises and Commonwealth and NSW Government agencies with respect to managing suspected or potential COVID-19 cases.

- Any other related matters that the Commissioner considers appropriate.

I will be tuning in at 10:30. Looking forward to the questioning from the Commissioner, Bret Walker SC.

[mr walker]

15 hours ago, Porky55 said:

In the Commission's “Terms of Reference” which they constantly refer to - I don’t see how someone who wasn’t actually on the Ruby Princess cruise in question can actually bring that much in evidence?

 

15 hours ago, OzKiwiJJ said:

I imagine the ship would have been in constant contact with him, and he will be questioned on the corporate side of whatever decisions were made.

 

One of the things that came up in earlier sessions was the flow of communications & subsequent actions onboard ships to these. NSW Health were regularly updating protocols (seemingly authored, reviewed, actioned & verified by no-one 🙂 ) & Mr Mifsud (Carnival shoreside) was questioned about the lines of communication over these. He kept saying that these would communicated to the ship via Carnival USA & that he wasn't aware of how the changes were addressed.

I guess that the commission consider that Mr Little can assist in this regard.

[Porky55]

4 hours ago, mr walker said:

 

 

One of the things that came up in earlier sessions was the flow of communications & subsequent actions onboard ships to these. NSW Health were regularly updating protocols (seemingly authored, reviewed, actioned & verified by no-one 🙂 ) & Mr Mifsud (Carnival shoreside) was questioned about the lines of communication over these. He kept saying that these would communicated to the ship via Carnival USA & that he wasn't aware of how the changes were addressed.

I guess that the commission consider that Mr Little can assist in this regard.

Well that answers the question then 🤔

[Cyrix400]

The Commissioner was very calm and probing this morning with Mr, Little, giving him every opportunity to explain,  but the previous shortage of  SWABS  on board saga is reflecting poorly on Carnival - so far.

 

Firstly, Mr Little's role involves the responsibility 'for beginning to end customer experience' - but he was NOT responsible to ensure that Ruby Dr would be aware that the Communicable Disease Network of Aust had changing guidelines for suspect Covid 19 case - apparently it was the Health Services Dept in Maritime Policy Group in Miami.

Also no formal internal procedure existed in Carnival that the ship doctor or the captain had to report to anyone in Carnival that they had complied with the enhanced NSW Health procedures.

 

Secondly, and most importantly, the Commissioner wanted to know  exactly who in Carnival was responsible for ensuring the NSW Health enhanced procedure (including swab requirements)  was communicated to ship doctors - and how does the supply procedure for PPE etc works exactly in practice. Medical matters usually go from Dr Tarling , Chief Med Officer of Carnival to ship medical people (Dr Tarling statement still to come). It seems that the procurement of all supplies goes via the USA office.

 

Some memorable quotes from the Commissioner (taken to the best of my ability) in the interaction with Mr Little:

 

"There is real concern that Ruby Princess left without enough supplies, knowing that it did not have enough supplies (i.e swabs). This is a real concern to the Commissioner in term of public health implications"

 

" You and your employer should be aware that real evidence exists pointing out that Carnival did not care enough about public health implications of an inadequate number of swabs to do anything about it - and made no effort to give the doctor the number of swabs it needed  (i.e cruise starting 8 March). This is quite a serious matter in terms of social responsibility of a cruise line"

 

" At this moment it seems to me that what this cruise line conduct by omission, or worse by deliberate choice, produced a situation whereby the Australian public did not have the benefit of as many samples for lab  testing  as the Australian health officials had required should be the case - in breach of ..... requirements in this regard of which the cruise line was aware" (There was NOT  mention in Mr Little's statement of any concern by Carnival with the lack of required swabs)

 

" I would like to know, chapter and verse, what was done to the medical consumables, particularly swabs, as at 8 March, to ensure that they would not be running out of something that public health authorities said had to be available before the ship left"

"Because otherwise the possibility occurs that this is an operation being ran of the basis of embarking passengers to take them on a paying cruise,  for the profit of the company, without ensuring that there was an elementary precaution taken in the public health interest of the country, Australia, that was hosting the cruise operations which I am likely regard as a serious shortcoming in what is sometimes called corporate citizenship" 

" Should I treat Carnival as a cruise operation that would be prepared to leave port knowing it did not take enough swabs but not caring? - A 'No'

 

 

 

[Cruisegroover]

22 minutes ago, Cyrix400 said:

The Commissioner was very calm and probing this morning with Mr, Little, giving him every opportunity to explain,  but the previous shortage of  SWABS  on board saga is reflecting poorly on Carnival - so far.

 

Firstly, Mr Little's role involves the responsibility 'for beginning to end customer experience' - but he was NOT responsible to ensure that Ruby Dr would be aware that the Communicable Disease Network of Aust had changing guidelines for suspect Covid 19 case - apparently it was the Health Services Dept in Maritime Policy Group in Miami.

Also no formal internal procedure existed in Carnival that the ship doctor or the captain had to report to anyone in Carnival that they had complied with the enhanced NSW Health procedures.

 

Secondly, and most importantly, the Commissioner wanted to know  exactly who in Carnival was responsible for ensuring the NSW Health enhanced procedure (including swab requirements)  was communicated to ship doctors - and how does the supply procedure for PPE etc works exactly in practice. Medical matters usually go from Dr Tarling , Chief Med Officer of Carnival to ship medical people (Dr Tarling statement still to come). It seems that the procurement of all supplies goes via the USA office.

 

Some memorable quotes from the Commissioner (taken to the best of my ability) in the interaction with Mr Little:

 

"There is real concern that Ruby Princess left without enough supplies, knowing that it did not have enough supplies (i.e swabs). This is a real concern to the Commissioner in term of public health implications"

 

" You and your employer should be aware that real evidence exists pointing out that Carnival did not care enough about public health implications of an inadequate number of swabs to do anything about it - and made no effort to give the doctor the number of swabs it needed  (i.e cruise starting 8 March). This is quite a serious matter in terms of social responsibility of a cruise line"

 

" At this moment it seems to me that what this cruise line conduct by omission, or worse by deliberate choice, produced a situation whereby the Australian public did not have the benefit of as many samples for lab  testing  as the Australian health officials had required should be the case - in breach of ..... requirements in this regard of which the cruise line was aware" (There was NOT  mention in Mr Little's statement of any concern by Carnival with the lack of required swabs)

 

" I would like to know, chapter and verse, what was done to the medical consumables, particularly swabs, as at 8 March, to ensure that they would not be running out of something that public health authorities said had to be available before the ship left"

"Because otherwise the possibility occurs that this is an operation being ran of the basis of embarking passengers to take them on a paying cruise,  for the profit of the company, without ensuring that there was an elementary precaution taken in the public health interest of the country, Australia, that was hosting the cruise operations which I am likely regard as a serious shortcoming in what is sometimes called corporate citizenship" 

" Should I treat Carnival as a cruise operation that would be prepared to leave port knowing it did not take enough swabs but not caring? - A 'No'

 

 

 

Yes some interesting things said this morning. I am pretty sure in earlier hearings NSW Health were aware of the lack of swabs onboard before sailing as they gave to the doctor a box. My question is if NSW Health were aware of this and it was a NSW Health requirement that all ships not just Ruby had an adequate supply why was Ruby given permission to leave? 

 

As for the lack of swabs it has been clearly documented that in that early period of Feb/Mar there was a huge shortage of test kits and PPE so that question for me would be did they try and had trouble or did they not care to try hard enough.

[mr walker]

23 minutes ago, Cruisegroover said:

As for the lack of swabs it has been clearly documented that in that early period of Feb/Mar there was a huge shortage of test kits and PPE so that question for me would be did they try and had trouble or did they not care to try hard enough.

 

Whether they could source them or not, if it was required to have them, then they couldn't depart without them, or at least seek dispensation to sail without them. Perhaps they did get the OK, some at NSW Health seemed to be in fear of the cruiselines? If they asked and were ok'ed, why would they not have disclosed this?

[Cruisegroover]

6 minutes ago, mr walker said:

 

Whether they could source them or not, if it was required to have them, then they couldn't depart without them, or at least seek dispensation to sail without them. Perhaps they did get the OK, some at NSW Health seemed to be in fear of the cruiselines? If they asked and were ok'ed, why would they not have disclosed this?

I am not sure I would have read what was said earlier. I thought something was not right with Mr Little's answers today almost like he was told to say as little as possible despite the numerous warnings of adverse findings if questions remained unanswered. Maybe they just sailed as nobody said otherwise. 

[NSWP]

Hate to say it, but Carnival will not escape the noose at the wash up.  Nor will other agencies, State and Federal.  Meanwhile the lawyers representing those in the class action and other claims will be waiting in the wings.  Lets make no bones about it, at the end of the day there will be some big settlements out of court on this.

[Cyrix400]

And things are  not getting any less interesting with Mr Jones' evidence.

The Commissioner has given the opportunity to Carnival (thorough subsequent statements, evidence etc?) to explain itself in respect of some matters, including:

 

1. Free medical assessments for respiratory type matters as requested by NSW Health (note previous evidence of pax that the 'free' was not emphasised/ mentioned  in on board announcements) - and some consultations between cruise lines, cruise line associations and NSW Health re the requirements.

Not clear what emphasis (if any) was given to the 'free' part by the company and in practice to pax.  The Commissioner noted that " if cruise ship operators respond to that which is put forward for public health reasons on grounds that are nothing other than mercenary  commercial considerations" , than this would "cast an adverse light on the good faith in consultations' between cruise ship operators and public health authority"

 

2. Requirement to collect 14 days travel  history from every pax (and crew) on boarding the ship - as per NSW health requirements from Feb 2020. Carnival explanation of the practical difficulties (systems etc) not accepted and the flow in their  procedure revealed, by asking  pax  (and crew) if the travelled  only to the then specified countries - and not where they had been over the last 14 days.  

 

[Cruisegroover]

6 minutes ago, NSWP said:

Hate to say it, but Carnival will not escape the noose at the wash up.  Nor will other agencies, State and Federal.  Meanwhile the lawyers representing those in the class action and other claims will be waiting in the wings.  Lets make no bones about it, at the end of the day there will be some big settlements out of court on this.

Quite right I felt today more so than any other day this will be the case. Failures everywhere. I wonder if anyone from Border Force and any Commonwealth biosecurity officers will appear at the inquiry.

 

And what will the NSW Police Inquiry make of all this?

 

.

[NSWP]

3 minutes ago, Cruisegroover said:

Quite right I felt today more so than any other day this will be the case. Failures everywhere. I wonder if anyone from Border Force and any Commonwealth biosecurity officers will appear at the inquiry.

 

And what will the NSW Police Inquiry make of all this?

 

.

NSW Police will be likely looking at criminal negligence, if any.  But at the end of the day it will be the Coroner and Department of Public Prosecutions who will give the nod to NSW's finest.👮‍♂️