[Passed] Quarantine Regulation

[Umeria]

Once again, is there anything left in my proposal that looks like an error? At this point the proposal is almost certainly going to pass; but I'm still not sure I rooted out all the repeal hooks. Tell me now if there are any remaining issues, because the temptation to submit grows by the hour.

Lockwood's hands involuntarily shake as he holds a copy of the proposal. The submit mailbox lies only 10 meters away from his chair. If no one gave him any more doubts, then surely he would soon give in. For now, he has to be patient.

Is it normal to be this worried about submission? Or am I just being paranoid?

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: I'll have something two days from now.

[WA Kitty Kops]

Is it normal to be this worried about submission? Or am I just being paranoid?

OOC: It's normal but please don't submit at least for the next 12 hours from this post's time stamp. I just got back from half-unintentional leave of absence from NS and would like to go through everything after some serious catching-up-on-sleep.

And to those that worry, nothing sinister is going on, my health hasn't imploded further, just a lot of RL crap that had piled up and needed taking care of.

[Araraukar]

Alrighty then, let's have a new look into the innards of this reincarnation of this beastie. *brandishes the Proposal Scalpel*

UNDERSTANDING that many diseases spread easily if not treated hastily;

NOTING that there are cases where a communicable disease cannot easily be treated;

Your first preamble clause should probably also be using "communicable disease", since you're sort of leaning onto that clause with the 2nd one.

REALIZING that if a disease is not properly handled it may spread quickly into other nations;

I'd make that read "if such diseases are not properly handled, they may", to refer to the communicable disease you establish in the first two and again mention in the last preamble clause.

FURTHER NOTING that communicable diseases which cannot be treated promptly should be properly contained;

Or combine this with the above (I can attempt a combo text later today if you find it difficult).

1) TASKS the World Health Authority to label any disease serious enough for a person with the disease to be quarantined as a "serious disease";

Out of interest, why WHA, why not EPARC?

2) DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution:
a. an "infected individual" as any person afflicted with a serious disease as labeled by the World Health Authority;

I still think you should leave it up to the nations to decide what's a serious disease and what's not.

b. an "infected area" as any space within a member nation containing enough infected individuals to significantly decrease the nation's well-being;

And I still think you'd have an easier time selling "nation's functioning" than "well-being", but that's your battle to fight after submission.

c. a "quarantine" as any area where infected individuals, all of whom became infected individuals through the same serious disease, are kept in isolation in order to halt their spread of the serious disease;

Ok, good, you're not creating a general quarantine for all diseases to happily cross-breed in, but instead you're creating one for each of the virus species (OOC: in real life what, 200-300?) that cause common cold and influenza, for example. Common cold certainly lowers a nation's well-being, though not necessarily its functioning.

Also, are these quarantines supposed to be maintained for all eternity after being created, even if the disease died out in the nation? Perhaps some mention somewhere should be added that says that once the disease is no longer an issue, the quarantine facility/area/service/whatever you're calling it now, can be dismantled/disbanded/burned and razed to the ground/refurbished as rental flats for the poor/sold to highest bidder/whatever you want to do to it afterwards?

d. an "appropriate treatment" as any action done to an infected individual with the purpose of preventing any unnecessary harm to the individual and/or assuring the individual is not deprived of any necessities a non-infected individual would normally receive;

But not a treatment that would render them non-contagious and thus facilitate their release from one of the quarantines?

3) REQUIRES that all member nations, in the event of a serious epidemic in their nation, search for any infected individuals in the nation not yet known to be infected;

Um, if it's already at the stage of a serious epidemic, that's already covered by an existing resolution. In my understanding this was deemed legal only because it seeks to prevent diseases from getting into the "serious epidemic" stage.

And other people have already pointed out that it looks bad if the police/army/local thugs break down people's doors and make them bleed into a test tube. Also, you say "in the event of an epidemic" but not "any individuals infected by that disease", just "any infected individuals". There might be more than one serious disease doing rounds (like influenza and MERS, for example, or polio and Ebola) at the same time at or near the epidemic stage.

4) FURTHER REQUIRES that all member nations, to the best of their capability:

OOC: More a question than a pointer - cabability or cababilities?

a. create quarantines in all infected areas in the nation;
b. move any people known to be infected individuals within the nation into the appropriate quarantine that is nearest to the location of their usual dwelling;

Would a WA nation be compliant if it made one quarantine per disease, period? The "nearest to the location of their usual dwelling" is probably unnecessary - it's unlikely the reasonable nations would cart people very far away from where they live, if there was treatment closer at hand.

Although, ooh, what if someone (OOC: like my dad) works far away from where they are registered as "their usual dwelling" for days/weeks/months/years at a time, and become sick while at work? Should they be carted closer to home or put into the nearest quarantine?

c. provide every appropriate treatment to infected individuals in quarantines while ensuring that the people administering these treatments are not infected; and

Yes, I know, this again, but it hasn't been resolved efficienty; whose rights win out? The medical people's right to not be infected if it cannot be ensured by the nation in question or the sick people's right to receive treatment?

5) MANDATES that the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center assist member nations that have difficulty maintaining quarantines.

Use EPARC or WHA, not both.

[Umeria]

OOC: I do not have time to address this now, but I will soon.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Out of interest, why WHA, why not EPARC?

Use EPARC or WHA, not both.

"Um, question from a newbie here: Since EPARC is a part of the WHA, does it really matter which one is used?"

[Araraukar]

"Um, question from a newbie here: Since EPARC is a part of the WHA, does it really matter which one is used?"

OOC: Answering out of character as it's easier to explain reasons behind the scenes.

Yes, EPARC has been established under the WHA, but they're still separate committees as far as proposal rules and people reading the text will be concerned. Personally I don't think there's ever any real reason to use two committees in one resolution, but there's a more "political" reason. People who dislike the WA doing anything, will look for things that they perceive will cost their nation something. Since all the WA committees are technically paid for by all the member nations, these people will go "Ha! Two committees! No way am I going to pay for the double bureaucracy!"

[States of Glory WA Office]

"Um, question from a newbie here: Since EPARC is a part of the WHA, does it really matter which one is used?"

OOC: Answering out of character as it's easier to explain reasons behind the scenes.

Yes, EPARC has been established under the WHA, but they're still separate committees as far as proposal rules and people reading the text will be concerned. Personally I don't think there's ever any real reason to use two committees in one resolution, but there's a more "political" reason. People who dislike the WA doing anything, will look for things that they perceive will cost their nation something. Since all the WA committees are technically paid for by all the member nations, these people will go "Ha! Two committees! No way am I going to pay for the double bureaucracy!"

OOC: Ah! Thanks for that.

[Umeria]

Alrighty then, let's have a new look into the innards of this reincarnation of this beastie.

Reincarnation? Are you saying this proposal was dead?

Your first preamble clause should probably also be using "communicable disease", since you're sort of leaning onto that clause with the 2nd one.

For some reason combining preamble arguments slipped my mind. I'll edit it appropriately.

Or combine this with the above (I can attempt a combo text later today if you find it difficult).

I can do it myself, thank you. I know how to use conjunctions.

Out of interest, why WHA, why not EPARC?

Because I considered the "what diseases are serious" thing to be a general health issue, not something involving epidemic response. I'll change it anyway due to your later points about double committees. This will also give me an excuse to use the acronym EPARC in clause 5, but I hope no one will think I'm creating a new committee.

I still think you should leave it up to the nations to decide what's a serious disease and what's not.

Ahem:

the "large number" is very... loopholeable.

It can be used, but it's, again, very loophole-able. A nation might set the "significant" to "we're all about to die" if they don't like what the resolution forces them to do

Unless they have their own reasons to do so - say there's a disease that affects mostly unwantedpopulationX, the government might be a bit slow to act.

I'm being difficult on purpose; when you submit, you will have people coming here who will do whatever they can to find loopholes just so they can continue doing whatever they want.

So in other words, the loophole here is significant, because I see it as a notable problem. Got it.

Until now, you've been presenting every possible argument against letting a nation decide what diseases are serious. Why are you changing your mind now?

And I still think you'd have an easier time selling "nation's functioning" than "well-being", but that's your battle to fight after submission.

And I still think that if a disease breaks out that only affects really old people, the nation's functioning won't decrease one bit, and may actually improve due to less welfare spending. "Well-being" is a much better term as it concerns the emotional state as well as the economic state of a nation, and I am confused as to why you think it won't sell well.

Ok, good, you're not creating a general quarantine for all diseases to happily cross-breed in, but instead you're creating one for each of the virus species (OOC: in real life what, 200-300?) that cause common cold and influenza, for example.

No I'm not. It's the disease that matters, not the bug causing the disease.

Common cold certainly lowers a nation's well-being, though not necessarily its functioning.

Yes, but not significantly. Okay, I'll change it to "nation's functioning and/or well-being", for any disease examples you may have that significantly decrease functioning but not well-being.

Also, are these quarantines supposed to be maintained for all eternity after being created, even if the disease died out in the nation?

Edited.

the quarantine facility/area/service/whatever you're calling it now

I'm still just calling it a quarantine, despite your vehement objections otherwise.

But not a treatment that would render them non-contagious and thus facilitate their release from one of the quarantines?

Edited, although the definitions list looks weird now. Should I indent it?

Um, if it's already at the stage of a serious epidemic, that's already covered by an existing resolution. In my understanding this was deemed legal only because it seeks to prevent diseases from getting into the "serious epidemic" stage.

You have it backward; the ruling was that the existing resolution covers an epidemic's incipient stages, while this proposal only comes into effect when the epidemic gets serious.

And other people have already pointed out that it looks bad if the police/army/local thugs break down people's doors and make them bleed into a test tube.

I don't like it either, but it's the only way to prevent nations from refusing to initiate a search and then not have to make quarantines because they can claim they have never seen an infected individual. Or is that creative compliance? If there's a way to not have that clause there, please tell me.

Also, you say "in the event of an epidemic" but not "any individuals infected by that disease", just "any infected individuals". There might be more than one serious disease doing rounds (like influenza and MERS, for example, or polio and Ebola) at the same time at or near the epidemic stage.

Edited.

OOC: More a question than a pointer - cabability or cababilities?

Well, neither, because it's "capability" not "cabability".
"Capability" because I'm referring to the nation's capability to do the required actions, not the capabilities it needs to do them.

Would a WA nation be compliant if it made one quarantine per disease, period?

If there's only one infected area per disease, yes. Otherwise, no; they have to make a quarantine in every infected area. However, just one quarantine per disease does make sense... should I change it?

The "nearest to the location of their usual dwelling" is probably unnecessary - it's unlikely the reasonable nations would cart people very far away from where they live, if there was treatment closer at hand.

Unless they're on vacation or something very far from where they live. I put that there so it would be easier for an infected individual's family to visit(because, you know, emotional support and stuff).

Although, ooh, what if someone (OOC: like my dad) works far away from where they are registered as "their usual dwelling" for days/weeks/months/years at a time, and become sick while at work? Should they be carted closer to home or put into the nearest quarantine?

Perfect example. They should be carted closer to home so their family could visit more often.

Yes, I know, this again, but it hasn't been resolved efficienty; whose rights win out? The medical people's right to not be infected if it cannot be ensured by the nation in question or the sick people's right to receive treatment?

The sick people. I edited it, is it resolved now?

[Araraukar]

Alrighty then, let's have a new look into the innards of this reincarnation of this beastie.

Reincarnation? Are you saying this proposal was dead?

OOC: They're vivisections. The target rarely survives. And every new draft you post, is essentially a new incarnation.

Or combine this with the above (I can attempt a combo text later today if you find it difficult).

I can do it myself, thank you. I know how to use conjunctions.

Well sorry for trying to be helpful. Won't make that mistake again.

I still think you should leave it up to the nations to decide what's a serious disease and what's not.

Why are you changing your mind now?

IC: Because you changed the draft.

OOC: Because without reading through all 7 pages of this thread, I honestly couldn't remember what I'd been saying before, except the bits that I remembered we'd argued about a lot. You were gone for what, 2 weeks? And I was gone for one, and I don't think we overlapped. I honestly can't remember off the top of my head what I had said on some forum thread 3 weeks ago, and since you'd changed the draft, I thought to give it a fresh go.

Or you can pretend I'm a demented mad scientist that likes any excuse to use sharp metallic objects on things that bleed. Either way works for me.

and I am confused as to why you think it won't sell well.

Well, it's an obvious repeal hook for being a vague feel-good word that doesn't mean much anything when it comes to nations instead of people (OOC: excluding nations like PPU), but we can agree to disagree on this. You'll likely have other people point this out if this goes to vote at some point, so hone your counter-arguments now while you still can.

No I'm not. It's the disease that matters, not the bug causing the disease.

Ah, then I was wrong about you not wanting to create disease hatcheries where they can freely crossbreed in already-sick people. (OOC: Think of human, pig and bird influenzas, for example.) And would you, just as an example, lump all respitory infections under the same "disease", never mind what caused them - such as virus/bacterium/fungus?

Yes, but not significantly. Okay, I'll change it to "nation's functioning and/or well-being", for any disease examples you may have that significantly decrease functioning but not well-being.

The others might object to the and/or, but such a change would make it more acceptable.

I'm still just calling it a quarantine, despite your vehement objections otherwise.

Have your counter-arguments well-honed. Most people don't bother to read through the drafting threads to see if their objections have already been addressed.

Should I indent it?

OOC: I suggest using the list code for both clauses 2 and 4. Just have it use alphabets instead of numbers. The subclauses of d. probably shouldn't be further indented, but you can try different versions by using "preview" rather than updating the post directly.

You have it backward; the ruling was that the existing resolution covers an epidemic's incipient stages, while this proposal only comes into effect when the epidemic gets serious.

OOC: Like I said before, 3 weeks passed since and blah blah blah. I would really suggest a FAQ of some sort.

I don't like it either, but it's the only way to prevent nations from refusing to initiate a search and then not have to make quarantines because they can claim they have never seen an infected individual. Or is that creative compliance? If there's a way to not have that clause there, please tell me.

Could it be an "urges" clause instead of "requires"? Because "requires" gives the police/army/thugs breaking in doors effect, while "urges" just would make people turn themselves/family members/the annoying neighbours in, if they suspected something being wrong, and also possibly doctors needing to alert the authorities if someone came to them with certain symptoms.

Well, neither, because it's "capability" not "cabability".

OOC: In the last 72 hours I've slept about 4. I'm frankly speaking continuously amazed that I'm as fluent in English as I seem to be.

If there's only one infected area per disease, yes. Otherwise, no; they have to make a quarantine in every infected area.

Unless they define the entire nation as "infected area", since the wellbeing/functionality of the entire nation would unlikely to be seriously affected if it was just a small part of it. And please let nations be the ones that decide what counts as that area, since nation sizes vary so wildly.

However, just one quarantine per disease does make sense... should I change it?

...I thought you already had that in there in 2.c.?

Unless they're on vacation or something very far from where they live.

Hundreds of kilometres is a long distance to spare a quarantine-capable ambulance and staff just to cart off one or two people to the quarantines in their own neighbourhood, especially as it's unlikely to be just one or two people who are far away from home. And vacationers also count for the objection, actually.

I put that there so it would be easier for an infected individual's family to visit(because, you know, emotional support and stuff).

I still don't quite understand how you're planning to let non-infected people into the quarantine to meet with a sick person and then let them out afterwards? (OOC: Yeah, I know the reason behind it, but the logic fails.)

Perfect example. They should be carted closer to home so their family could visit more often.

More risky to move an infected person than it is for the non-infected persons to travel.

whose rights win out? The medical people's right to not be infected if it cannot be ensured by the nation in question or the sick people's right to receive treatment?

The sick people. I edited it, is it resolved now?

Why are the sick people more valuable than the medical personnell? In fact, unless they're in direct employment of the nation's government, can they even be commanded to go work in unsafe conditions? Or even if they do work for the government? We have a resolution on workplace safety or something like that, don't we? And an anti-discriminatory one, which requires all inhabitants to have equal rights.

OOC: All in all it looks better now, but I'm going to postpone another go at it until after a minumum of 10 hours of sleep, which should happen later today. I hope. About dead by now, and not just because eating has not been on the agenda for a day...

[Umeria]

OOC: Again, I don't have time for a response now, but I will reply shortly.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Again, I don't have time for a response now, but I will reply shortly.

OOC: That's fine, I probably won't be conscious enough to read it before tomorrow.

[Umeria]

OOC: They're vivisections. The target rarely survives. And every new draft you post, is essentially a new incarnation.

Well that's a gruesome way to think of it. I prefer to imagine a proposal as a tree, and edits as snipping off the rotten branches so it can grow healthy ones.

Well sorry for trying to be helpful. Won't make that mistake again.

Apology accepted.

Well, it's an obvious repeal hook for being a vague feel-good word that doesn't mean much anything when it comes to nations instead of people (OOC: excluding nations like PPU), but we can agree to disagree on this. You'll likely have other people point this out if this goes to vote at some point, so hone your counter-arguments now while you still can.

Does writing "functioning and/or well-being" instead of just "well-being" help the situation at all?

Ah, then I was wrong about you not wanting to create disease hatcheries where they can freely crossbreed in already-sick people. (OOC: Think of human, pig and bird influenzas, for example.) And would you, just as an example, lump all respitory infections under the same "disease", never mind what caused them - such as virus/bacterium/fungus?

My point was that if it's the same disease, it doesn't matter if the causes were different. If you already have a disease, you can't get infected with it again.

The others might object to the and/or, but such a change would make it more acceptable.

What's wrong with and/or?

Have your counter-arguments well-honed. Most people don't bother to read through the drafting threads to see if their objections have already been addressed.

Okay, for practice: I defined "quarantine" in 2(c). In this proposal, quarantine means "any area where infected individuals, all of whom became infected individuals through the same serious disease, are kept in isolation in order to halt their spread of the serious disease" and nothing else, so it doesn't really need a separate term.

OOC: I suggest using the list code for both clauses 2 and 4. Just have it use alphabets instead of numbers. The subclauses of d. probably shouldn't be further indented, but you can try different versions by using "preview" rather than updating the post directly.

OOC: Okay, but now c. on both 2 and 4 are closer to the clauses than the other letters by one pixel. It looks weird.

OOC: Like I said before, 3 weeks passed since and blah blah blah. I would really suggest a FAQ of some sort.

Excellent idea. I'll get right to it.

Could it be an "urges" clause instead of "requires"? Because "requires" gives the police/army/thugs breaking in doors effect, while "urges" just would make people turn themselves/family members/the annoying neighbours in, if they suspected something being wrong, and also possibly doctors needing to alert the authorities if someone came to them with certain symptoms.

Done.

Unless they define the entire nation as "infected area", since the wellbeing/functionality of the entire nation would unlikely to be seriously affected if it was just a small part of it.

In that case, they would only have to make one quarantine per disease, although the quarantines would probably have to be very large to accommodate all the infected individuals.

And please let nations be the ones that decide what counts as that area, since nation sizes vary so wildly.

It already lets the nations decide.

...I thought you already had that in there in 2.c.?

Well if it's already there, I guess I don't need to change it.

Hundreds of kilometres is a long distance to spare a quarantine-capable ambulance and staff just to cart off one or two people to the quarantines in their own neighbourhood, especially as it's unlikely to be just one or two people who are far away from home. And vacationers also count for the objection, actually.

Hmm I suppose it would make sense to use their current location instead of where they live. I'll change it.

I still don't quite understand how you're planning to let non-infected people into the quarantine to meet with a sick person and then let them out afterwards?

They would just take the same precautions as the medical personnel.

Why are the sick people more valuable than the medical personnell?

Because otherwise the sick people would not get treatment due to the lack of assurance that the medical people won't get infected. Remember, the medical people are still taking every precaution to not get infected, they just need to administer treatments no matter what.

In fact, unless they're in direct employment of the nation's government, can they even be commanded to go work in unsafe conditions?

Presumably they would be doing this on their own free will(and probably getting paid a lot of money for the job).

Or even if they do work for the government?

They don't necessarily have to work for the government.

We have a resolution on workplace safety or something like that, don't we? And an anti-discriminatory one, which requires all inhabitants to have equal rights.

There are plenty of people that choose to do this sort of work, even if it means risking their lives.

OOC: All in all it looks better now, but I'm going to postpone another go at it until after a minumum of 10 hours of sleep, which should happen later today. I hope. About dead by now, and not just because eating has not been on the agenda for a day...

Well, good night to you.

[Umeria]

Progression of my thoughts on this proposal:
1. I ask if anyone has any more objections before I submit the proposal.
2. Someone points out a set of substantial problems.
3. I fix the problems.
4. I'm glad I didn't submit it with those problems.
5. Complete silence.
6. I wonder if there are any more problems.
7. Complete silence.
8. I think that if no one has anything to say, maybe it's time to submit.
9. Complete silence.
10. Maybe I'll ask if anyone has objections, just in case.
11. Repeat.

It's been this way for months now. So, once again, does anyone have any more objections before I submit the proposal?
OOC: You have 3 days from this post's time stamp. If no one objects to anything in that time, I will submit this, once and for all.

[Imperium Anglorum]

§ 3, 'search' should probably be changed to 'screen'.
§ 6, aid provided should probably be elaborated. That's an easy repeal hook on a costs argument.

Otherwise, I'd say everything looks fine. I hope others will turn their attention here, however.

[Umeria]

§ 3, 'search' should probably be changed to 'screen'.
§ 6, aid provided should probably be elaborated. That's an easy repeal hook on a costs argument.

Edited. It is now clear that the EPARC does not give any more than what is necessary.

Otherwise, I'd say everything looks fine.

Lockwood sighs in relief, however his tension remains.

I hope others will turn their attention here, however.

Me too, but so many of the regulars here only ever talk to me when they can point out an error. It seems they handle new people like me with a glance at my work for 10 seconds, walking away if they don't see a blatant error that they can pounce on.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: I haven't followed the thread so if this has been discussed and you're happy enough, please ignore. Just two comments, clause 1 refers to "any disease serious enough" and clause 3 refers to "a serious epidemic". The word serious here in clause 3 could be dropped altogether so it would read "... in the event an epidemic ..." and I'm not sure it's obvious what a serious enough disease is as referred to in clause 1.

Overall though it looks more than acceptable.

[Umeria]

The word serious here in clause 3 could be dropped altogether so it would read "... in the event an epidemic ..."

The word serious is there because:

2) REQUIRES that all member nations, in the event of an epidemic in their nation,

I'd add the word "serious" in front of "epidemic". Because you don't define an epidemic, this wording would require all the member nations to scour the nation because of a cold or lice epidemic in a school.

Personally I thought that the dictionary definition of "epidemic" was enough, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to add clarity. Now that it's an "urges" clause with much less authority, I suppose the word serious is no longer needed.

and I'm not sure it's obvious what a serious enough disease is as referred to in clause 1.

That's why the EPARC defines it further. Committee staff have enough common sense to only put diseases that should be quarantined in their list of diseases that should be quarantined.

Overall though it looks more than acceptable.

OOC: The 3 day countdown thing still applies, by the way.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: "Well, this is an interesting proposal. Have we made any comments on it?"

Neville: "I don't believe we have."

Fairburn: "Why on Earth not? What do you think we're paid to do?"

Neville: "We're paid to stand around and nitpick without contributing anything of actual worth. I will say, though, that this is a fine proposal and that we will vote 'for' in the event that this comes to vote. For some reason, Clause Three seems quite clunky, for want of a better word, but it isn't nearly enough to ruin the proposal."

Fairburn: "What are you talking about? Of course it is! How dare the Umerian delegation intend to submit a proposal that isn't 100% perfect! We recommend a vote against and a massive counter-campaign!"

Neville: "No, "we" don't." (turns to Lockwood) "Just ignore him. Your proposal is good enough as it is. Good luck."

[Umeria]

For some reason, Clause Three seems quite clunky, for want of a better word,

I hammered at that clause for a very long time. Trust me, that clunkiness is impossible to remove.

that this is a fine proposal and that we will vote 'for' in the event that this comes to vote.

So far, no one is opposed. This is a good start.

[Araraukar]

So far, no one is opposed. This is a good start.

OOC: I just got back from a 7-day holiday, let me gain my footing (and sleeeeeeep) before jumping back into proposal vivisections.

[Umeria]

So far, no one is opposed. This is a good start.

OOC: I just got back from a 7-day holiday, let me gain my footing (and sleeeeeeep) before jumping back into proposal vivisections.

OOC: Proposal submission countdown moved to 5 days after this post's time stamp due to expectation of further comments.

[WA Kitty Kops]

OOC: Too tired to want to log back onto Ara, so posting with WAKK instead: I've spoken with Umeria via TGs and suggested he take some time to review/rewrite his proposal - it has been edited reactively for so long that it's easy to lose sight of the goal, gist and... can't think of a G-word for "flow" (glide doesn't count) that he ought to take a step back and see how to best glue all the bits he now has, into a whole - before I poke it with anything sharp.

IC: The Chief Inshpekshuuner curls up on the Araraukarian ambassador's seat for one last nap, before she gets back into this particular debate.

[Umeria]

Okay, the rewritten version is finished. I'm hesitant to replace it with the original draft, as this new one either perfects the proposal or creates a whole new set of problems.

Category: Health | Area of Effect: Healthcare

Description: The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING that there are many communicable diseases which spread easily if they are not treated hastily;

NOTING that there are times when some communicable diseases cannot be treated hastily;

REALIZING that such diseases should instead be promptly contained to prevent an international epidemic;

HEREBY

1) TASKS the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center to define a "serious disease" as any disease which is harmful and contagious enough to create the need of a quarantine in the case of an outbreak of the disease;

2) DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution:

1. an "epidemic" as a time, in a nation, where there are enough people with the same serious disease(as defined by the EPARC) to significantly decrease the nation's functioning and/or well-being;
2. an "infected person" as any person with a serious disease in a nation undergoing an epidemic of that disease;
3. a "quarantine" as any area where infected persons are kept in isolation in order to halt their spread of the disease;
4. a "treatment" as any action done to an infected person with the purpose of:
   
   1. ensuring the infected person does not undergo any unnecessary harm;
   2. ensuring the infected person is not deprived of any necessities a non-infected person would normally receive; and/or
   3. rendering the infected person non-contagious;

3) URGES that all member nations, in the event of an epidemic in their nation, screen for any infected persons in that nation not yet known to be infected;

4) REQUIRES that all member nations, to the best of their capability:

1. create at least one quarantine per epidemic in the nation;
2. move all infected persons into the appropriate quarantine that is nearest to their current location;
3. provide every treatment to all infected persons that are in a quarantine while taking any available precaution to ensure that the people administering these treatments are not infected;
4. move anyone that ceases to be an infected person out of the quarantine;
5. disband any quarantine that ceases to be of use; and

5) MANDATES that the EPARC cover the costs of the requirements in clause 4 for any nation has difficulty maintaining quarantines.

can't think of a G-word for "flow" (glide doesn't count)

How about "gloss"?

how to best glue all the bits he now has, into a whole - before I poke it with anything sharp

OOC: Have I already pointed out that your gruesome proposal metaphors are somewhat... perturbing?

[WA Kitty Kops]

how to best glue all the bits he now has, into a whole - before I poke it with anything sharp

OOC: Have I already pointed out that your gruesome proposal metaphors are somewhat... perturbing?

OOC: What, you've never made scrap books in real life? (But if it actually disturbs you, drop me a TG on Ara.) I'm off to be horizontal and hopefully unconscious/dreaming/comatose for up to 10 hours.