Hotel quarantine: Employees showed defiance in face of rules
A COVID-19 tester told shocked colleagues at the Stamford Plaza that she couldn’t see the problem in firing up her e-cigarette.
A swab team on the frontline in the state’s high-rise war waged in Melbourne’s hotels put down testing kits at 3.45pm on April 10 for a break.
What happened next in room 315 at the Stamford Plaza shocked three of the COVID-19 testers. As for the fourth team member, she couldn’t see the problem in firing up her e-cigarette.
“I’m vaping an aloe vera substance and there is no risk to setting off the fire alarm, and I’ve been vaping all week without triggering an alarm,” the pathology assistant told stunned colleagues, according to an incident report.
Triggering a fire alarm was the least of their concerns. What scared them was that a colleague, despite the training and the publicity around the turbocharging effect of devices such as nebulisers on coronavirus, thought it was OK to vape in a quarantine hotel.
“Three members of staff witnessed (redacted) smoking an e-cigarette/vape yesterday,” one of the workers stated in the incident report.
Read the full list of quarantine incidents here
“She was asked on two occasions to cease, however became very dismissive and proceeded to use the item. It was also noted that she was using the e-cigarette/vape while walking down the stairs back to the testing area. This caused staff to feel uncomfortable in terms of wellbeing and safety while at work.”
A second worker, according to the incident report, recalled: “At approximately 3:45 (redacted) started vaping, was asked to stop but carried on. She was asked multiple times by (redacted) (team lead) and (doctor) as it may set the smoke detectors off. (Redacted) ceased vaping when (redacted) mentioned that the use of vape will be checked if allowed by site management.”
The third said: “I witnessed (redacted) using a vape device in room 315, in the presence of the COVID-19 testing staff. I confronted (redacted) about the use of this device at the time. I stated that the use of the device was not allowed and could present multiple hazards. My concerns included the risk of unintentionally setting off the fire alarm, as well as the possible danger of propagating viral spread via the mist produced. Other members of the COVID-19 testing staff joined me in raising their concerns.
“I once again reiterated my concerns. (Redacted) at the point stopped vaping and stated that she would no longer do this in the hotel. However, on descending the stairs at the end of the break period at approximately 1645pm, she once again briefly used the vape device.”
Once challenged, the vaper “reacted very strongly and angrily” when asked to put it out.
“She started trying to explain why smoking an e-cigarette was different to smoking, how vapour was not harmful and would not set off smoke detectors. We all of course disagreed and had quite a virulent discussion.
“She appeared to put the cigarette away and started to eat her lunch. After about 10 minutes she brought it out again and had a puff. We once again asked her to put it out. I offered to go with her to management to discuss the issue. She immediately put it away, and we didn’t see it again in the break room.”
The next day, April 11, she was in room 323, this time being grilled by Quarantine Victoria chiefs, not only about vaping but about an allegation she posted photos of potential infection breaches and other staff members on social media.
“Smoking an e-cigarette in the break room is a safety issue and against policy on site, both the hotel and CQV policy,” she was told. “I know it can be confronting for you, but there is a high profile given the nature of this site and the program. We will ask you to head home today once you’ve composed yourself. (Redacted) will perhaps have a discussion and support you.
“You won’t be able to return to this site until you’ve had a discussion with your direct manager. But (redacted) will help support you with this and so will your manager from Melbourne Pathology. Take some time to compose yourself and you feel comfortable to get home.”
As for the photos, allegedly taken of someone’s foot resting on a swab triage desk, therefore compromising infection control procedures, the pathology assistant said: “What was the evidence? I didn’t take photos of anyone. It was a video of the floor.”
The vaping incident is just one of hundreds of breaches and near-misses by hotel quarantine staff catalogued in incident reports published by The Australian in print and online. But it is one of the most alarming.
Primarily because it happened just two days after the Andrews government relaunched its twice-failed quarantine program and because it happened in the wake of the blaze of controversy around the use of a nebuliser at the Holiday Inn.
How can a frontline health worker, in an era when every person in the street knows that aerosol spreads COVID-19, think vaping is fine? And for that matter, how do residential support officers turn up for work with a beard? And refuse to shave it off.
Reading through the hundreds of critical incidents, it becomes apparent that while the authorities say the system has been rebooted, clearly hour-to-hour mistakes are still happening.
The incident reports reveal one hotel staffer thought it acceptable to leave racist graffiti in one hotel, another thought it proper to make what were described as inappropriate comments in a work log.
Masks aren’t being worn when they should be, staff are blundering from green zones to red zones (potential COVID-19 hot spots) and red zones to green zones. Unvaccinated contractors and tradies are walking in to perform odd jobs — and managers are approving their visits.
Curiously, there doesn’t seem to be a hard policy setting around unvaccinated tradies. As the logs show, when they’ve turned up — sometimes to the surprise of front desk staff — on-the-fly decisions have been made to allow them to enter and complete their tasks.
In some cases, the arrival of unvaccinated contractors is designated a “breach of mandatory vaccination” in incident reports, but management at hotels are approving the visits regardless.
At the Holiday Inn at Melbourne Airport on April 22, a contractor arrived to repair lift buttons. “Fixing broken lift buttons … director approval sought and approved — green zone only,” the report states.
At the Novotel IBIS on April 19, in what incident reports designate a “breach of mandatory vaccination”, workmen from (redacted) were given approval to be onsite. “(Redacted) was engaged to build vaccination pods and a wall enclosing the DNATA stock at the Novotel ibis Melbourne Central. Planning to do building during the afternoon of Tuesday 20/4,” the incident report states.
“(Redacted) from (redacted) advised that none of the team had been vaccinated — this posed the problem of non-vaccinated people not being allowed on site. Exemption was sought for the (redacted) team to enter and complete their work without having had vaccinations.
“Details were sent to director (redacted) of the number of staff, start time and hours of work expected, along with confirmation that the (redacted) staff were aware they would need to be tested while on site and that the hotel would be a green zone all day (no arrivals or expected exits). Approval received from director at 11.55am.”
At the Intercontinental on April 20, a different approach was taken by management, and a contractor was asked to leave, but only after he had been checked in.
“Breach Mandatory Vaccination … Contractor Not Vaccinated. (Redacted) from (redacted) came on site to replace some air freshener in the toilets. He presented his QR code to ADF and was scanned in after receiving a green tick on the app. It wasn’t until the hotel member who greeted (redacted) ask if he’d been vaccinated he replied ‘NO’,” the report states.
“We asked (redacted) to leave and not visit any CQV site because he was not vaccinated. We asked (redacted) to leave and not visit any other CQV site because he wasn’t vaccinated.”
The incident reports suggest even serious or repeat offenders simply get a “reminder” to adhere to the rules. Time and again, the incident reports state, the consequence of a breach is “more training”, or a “reminder” or “I’ll follow up” or have a “talk” with a member of staff.
