[Passed] Quarantine Regulation

[Umeria]

I feel like I've already mentioned that specifically asking for criticism to be constructive just pisses me off for some reason, but I don't remember whether or not I have ever posted in this thread. So... yeah.

Um... okay. I'll change it then.

"I do not believe you intend for Member-States to quarantine those suffering from sexually transmitted illnesses, as such, this clause would best be altered."

I'll change "contagious" to "easily communicable", because I don't think sexually transmittable counts as easily communicable.

"We take further issue with this clause, it is a nebulous definition that can be interpreted in a manner that easily allows malicious or simply corrupt states to ignore 'minor' outbreaks of severe diseases."

Please describe one specific hypothetical instance where a state could use this definition as a loophole to avoid making quarantines.

"Ambassador, actions taken to ensure those within a quarantine are not abused, while necessary, are not appropriate medical treatment."

So? It's defining "appropriate treatment", not "appropriate medical treatment". Why should the administration of treatments in the manner described in 3(c) be limited to medical ones?

"And how exactly do you propose that this is done? Mandatory testing for all citizens? I certainly hope you are aware of both logistical needs of such an operation, and of the vast number of objections to such an action a populace might have."

The clause is there because otherwise states might refuse to find out whether a certain space is an infected area, and thus not have to make a quarantine there. I'm going to change it to "actively search", and hope the problem goes away.

"This requirement is quite arbitrary. A single person spreading the disease to one other person over the course of 30 days, would require that a quarantine be established, further, a situation in which the initial infected population is much higher, it allows for the situation to be ignored entirely if it falls short.

I deleted that part of 3(a) so it's moot now.

This draft requires significant alteration before it can be even considered to be remotely acceptable."

Do you mean I should change all the things you pointed out? Or are there more problems you haven't mentioned yet?...

[Umeria]

The door to the hallway opens, and a plump boy with round glasses shuffles in.

"So there you are! Off in your politics business again!" the boy shouts.

"George!" says Lockwood incredulously. "What are you doing here?"

"You'd know if you'd answer your bloody phone once in a while."

"I can't have my phone on during a World Assembly conference!"

"Well, Mr. Barnes rescheduled to tomorrow, so we need to get back to Agora, and we need to hurry, since those bureaucrats wasted a half hour just to process the documents needed to enter this place. They kept asking me where my parents were, like they'd never seen a university graduate under 16. 'Course I bet they let you in without a word, what with your fancy suit an all. Diplomats!" he scoffed.

"George, you know most places don't have Umeria's efficient education system, so you can't blame them for-"

"Talk about this later! We have to go now!"

"All right, I'm coming." Lockwood quickly gathers his papers, then addresses the other diplomats. "I have this court case I need to deal with, so I won't be back here for another 3 or 4 days, hopefully with the payment I'm owed. See you then!"

They both rush out of the hall.

[Umeria]

The door opens.

"Hello, diplomats. Lockwood has this lawsuit with a pilot who did three barrel rolls with the 'fasten seat belt' sign off. It was going to be a quick court case, but then some other passengers also sued the pilot since they got injured as well, and the bureaucracy really started. He and George'll be gone for a week or two. In the meantime, I'm substituting as Umerian ambassador to the WA."

An adolescent girl with a suitcase overflowing with documents walks in and sits down, introducing herself as Lucy Carlyle.

"So, did any issues with this proposal come up while Lockwood was gone?... Nothing?... Wow." After a few seconds of awkward silence, she takes out a notebook and continues a detailed sketch of a ruined castle.

[Araraukar]

"So, did any issues with this proposal come up while Lockwood was gone?... Nothing?... Wow." After a few seconds of awkward silence, she takes out a notebook and continues a detailed sketch of a ruined castle.

OOC: I took the previous post to mean that you weren't around for a while, and I presume the others did, too. There was no point commenting when you aren't there to receive the comments. Does this new post mean that you're back from your absence?

[Umeria]

"So, did any issues with this proposal come up while Lockwood was gone?... Nothing?... Wow." After a few seconds of awkward silence, she takes out a notebook and continues a detailed sketch of a ruined castle.

OOC: I took the previous post to mean that you weren't around for a while

OOC: Correct.

There was no point commenting when you aren't there to receive the comments.

IC: You could always just leave your notes on the table. They're not going to run away before we can respond to them.

Does this new post mean that you're back from your absence?

OOC: Yes, for now. I'm leaving again tomorrow night, and will probably be absent again for another two weeks. If anyone has any proposal comments, now is the time.

[Araraukar]

Does this new post mean that you're back from your absence?

OOC: Yes, for now. I'm leaving again tomorrow night, and will probably be absent again for another two weeks. If anyone has any proposal comments, now is the time.

OOC: I'll wait until you've come back. RL should come before NS. Have a good trip.

[Umeria]

I'll wait until you've come back. RL should come before NS. Have a good trip.

OOC: Alright, see you later.

[Umeria]

OOC: I'm back. Admittedly I did post in other topics when I was gone but that takes a lot less time and effort than trying to fix your own proposal.
IC: Lockwood steps into the room. "The passengers won the lawsuit!" he exclaimed happily. "Serves that rotten pilot right. Okay, back to work. Does anyone have any more issues with the proposal?"

[Umeria]

Hello? Is anyone there?

Lockwood's voice echoes across the empty chamber.

A spider skitters across the table.

The grandfather clock chimes midnight.

The thermostat falls out of its socket, crashing to the floor with a loud clank. The heating systems shut down. Cold air seeps into the chamber.

All is still. All is silent.

OOC: I'm going to submit this if no one has anything to say. RL business is not an excuse this time, as you and many others have been active on other threads. If there are any remaining issues with this proposal and you don't have enough time to explain them in detail, say something like "I'll tell you about the errors I see when I have more time". If that doesn't happen, I'm going to submit my proposal in the near future.

[Separatist Peoples]

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

"I would strike the word "actively". Its probably bad for public order to have police breaking down doors to check people's health. There are plenty of passive ways to identify such people."

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;

"This, on its face, sounds like a pretty reasonable idea, but paired with the definition of infected individual:

a. an "infected individual" as any person afflicted with a disease, which is currently easily communicable on that person, that has significantly harmful long-term effects;

"...we see that we can start quarantining people with HIV or a staphylococcus infection, even though their condition can be mitigated appropriately without the need for quarantine."

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

"You have an opportunity, provided the rest of this is fixed, to expand the duties and responsibilities of EPARC to address a wide number of issues surrounding quarantines and epidemics, not the least of which is establishing an Ethics Board to help nations solve the tough dilemmas that epidemics force upon them, or to review the appropriateness of already-undertaken measures, and assess whether the acts were necessary or excessive. Considering the subjective and emergent nature of these situations, it is too easy to claim, in the moment, what is an acceptable limit on individual freedoms for the good of the nation. Some check should be made on that power."

[Umeria]

"I would strike the word "actively". Its probably bad for public order to have police breaking down doors to check people's health. There are plenty of passive ways to identify such people."

Done.

"...we see that we can start quarantining people with HIV or a staphylococcus infection, even though their condition can be mitigated appropriately without the need for quarantine."

HIV is not "easily communicable".

"You have an opportunity, provided the rest of this is fixed, to expand the duties and responsibilities of EPARC to address a wide number of issues surrounding quarantines and epidemics, not the least of which is establishing an Ethics Board to help nations solve the tough dilemmas that epidemics force upon them, or to review the appropriateness of already-undertaken measures, and assess whether the acts were necessary or excessive. Considering the subjective and emergent nature of these situations, it is too easy to claim, in the moment, what is an acceptable limit on individual freedoms for the good of the nation. Some check should be made on that power."

Um... I'll get to this later.

[Separatist Peoples]

HIV is not "easily communicable".

OOC: if it wasn't easily communicable, we wouldn't have an issue with it today.

IC: "HIV is contracted through sexual intercourse, something middle school students work out with ease. I defy you to spent twenty minutes at a frat party and then say that."

[Umeria]

OOC: if it wasn't easily communicable, we wouldn't have an issue with it today.

That was not my intended interpretation of "easily", which means that term is too vague. I'll replace it with "can currently be spread to another person through exchanging of breath and/or minor skin contact", hopefully that will finally put the "quarantines HIV victims" issue to rest.

IC: "HIV is contracted through sexual intercourse, something middle school students work out with ease.

...maybe in your nation, but in Umeria middle school(5^th-9^th grade) is from ages 7 to 9.

I defy you to spent twenty minutes at a frat party and then say that."

Yet another reason why frats are banned in Umeria...
Okay, I think the STD issue is fixed, lets move away from that topic now.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: if it wasn't easily communicable, we wouldn't have an issue with it today.

That was not my intended interpretation of "easily", which means that term is too vague. I'll replace it with "can currently be spread to another person through exchanging of breath and/or minor skin contact", hopefully that will finally put the "quarantines HIV victims" issue to rest.

OOC: Which doesn't really deal with, say, the flu, which is transmitted via aerosolized liquid. You'll either need to list multiple vectors or find a way to separate incidental transmission, like pinkeye, from transmission that requires a little more, ah, forethought, like gonorrhea.

IC: "HIV is contracted through sexual intercourse, something middle school students work out with ease.

...maybe in your nation, but in Umeria middle school(5^th-9^th grade) is from ages 7 to 9.

"Ours is eleven to thirteen, generally. Its appalling, but that would be raging hormones for you..."

Yet another reason why frats are banned in Umeria...
Okay, I think the STD issue is fixed, lets move away from that topic now.

[/quote]
"We don't limit the freedom of association just because the association is distasteful. That said, even without fraternities, I would hazard a guess that Umerian secondary education students still manage to cavort irresponsibly. It seems to be a theme among young people. I don't believe the STD issue is fixed, because a disease that is a vector through sex could also be a vector through other means. The toilet seat theory of venereal disease acquisition may be bunk, but herpes doesn't require more than contact, and is unquestionably considered an STD. Under the right circumstances, I don't see how herpes or a similar disease wouldn't otherwise meet the criteria laid out here."

[Umeria]

"We don't limit the freedom of association just because the association is distasteful.

I really don't want to argue about which government system is the best, but we feel that the health and safety of our children outweighs the morality of legalizing those awful houses in the name of freedom.

I would hazard a guess that Umerian secondary education students still manage to cavort irresponsibly. It seems to be a theme among young people.

This is probably true, but the window of opportunity is very narrow, since Umerians typically graduate college at 13.

Moving on to the relevant stuff.

OOC: Which doesn't really deal with, say, the flu, which is transmitted via aerosolized liquid. You'll either need to list multiple vectors or find a way to separate incidental transmission, like pinkeye, from transmission that requires a little more, ah, forethought, like gonorrhea.

I don't believe the STD issue is fixed, because a disease that is a vector through sex could also be a vector through other means. The toilet seat theory of venereal disease acquisition may be bunk, but herpes doesn't require more than contact, and is unquestionably considered an STD. Under the right circumstances, I don't see how herpes or a similar disease wouldn't otherwise meet the criteria laid out here."

It seems my only option is to make the qualifier every disease except those that can only be spread through sexual contact(and the ones that aren't contagious, and the "significantly harmful long-term effects" thing will still be there). It's a shame; I was trying to not mention sex in the proposal. Please don't make me define "sexual contact". I don't want to go there.

[Separatist Peoples]

"We don't limit the freedom of association just because the association is distasteful.

I really don't want to argue about which government system is the best, but we feel that the health and safety of our children outweighs the morality of legalizing those awful houses in the name of freedom.

I would hazard a guess that Umerian secondary education students still manage to cavort irresponsibly. It seems to be a theme among young people.

This is probably true, but the window of opportunity is very narrow, since Umerians typically graduate college at 13.

Moving on to the relevant stuff.

OOC: Which doesn't really deal with, say, the flu, which is transmitted via aerosolized liquid. You'll either need to list multiple vectors or find a way to separate incidental transmission, like pinkeye, from transmission that requires a little more, ah, forethought, like gonorrhea.

I don't believe the STD issue is fixed, because a disease that is a vector through sex could also be a vector through other means. The toilet seat theory of venereal disease acquisition may be bunk, but herpes doesn't require more than contact, and is unquestionably considered an STD. Under the right circumstances, I don't see how herpes or a similar disease wouldn't otherwise meet the criteria laid out here."

It seems my only option is to make the qualifier every disease except those that can only be spread through sexual contact(and the ones that aren't contagious, and the "significantly harmful long-term effects" thing will still be there). It's a shame; I was trying to not mention sex in the proposal. Please don't make me define "sexual contact". I don't want to go there.

"Alternatively, you could have task a committee to compile and disseminate information regarding dangerous communicable disease. Have an ethics review board to look over state imposed quarantine as a check to the power. Or let states make the determination regarding the severity of communicable disease necessary to warrant quarantine. I doubt you can really standardize it.

"As for defining sexual contact, I doubt it's necessary. Not that we aren't capable of having such a discussion as adults."

[Umeria]

"You have an opportunity, provided the rest of this is fixed, to expand the duties and responsibilities of EPARC to address a wide number of issues surrounding quarantines and epidemics, not the least of which is establishing an Ethics Board to help nations solve the tough dilemmas that epidemics force upon them, or to review the appropriateness of already-undertaken measures, and assess whether the acts were necessary or excessive. Considering the subjective and emergent nature of these situations, it is too easy to claim, in the moment, what is an acceptable limit on individual freedoms for the good of the nation. Some check should be made on that power."

"Alternatively, you could have task a committee to compile and disseminate information regarding dangerous communicable disease. Have an ethics review board to look over state imposed quarantine as a check to the power. Or let states make the determination regarding the severity of communicable disease necessary to warrant quarantine. I doubt you can really standardize it.

So is there some legal way to expand a committee, or should I make another committee which is an extension of EPARC? And is there already an ethics board somewhere that I should refer to, or should I make a new one?

"As for defining sexual contact, I doubt it's necessary.

Phew!

Not that we aren't capable of having such a discussion as adults."

OOC: Lockwood is not an adult. Read my signature.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Alternatively, you could have task a committee to compile and disseminate information regarding dangerous communicable disease. Have an ethics review board to look over state imposed quarantine as a check to the power. Or let states make the determination regarding the severity of communicable disease necessary to warrant quarantine. I doubt you can really standardize it.

So is there some legal way to expand a committee, or should I make another committee which is an extension of EPARC? And is there already an ethics board somewhere that I should refer to, or should I make a new one?

You can always say 'Tasks [ preexisting committee ] to [ stuff, stuff, stuff ]'. Or, you can say 'Establishes [ CommitteeFoo ] in the [ preexisting committee ] with a mandate to [ stuff, stuff, stuff ]'.

[Umeria]

You can always say 'Tasks [ preexisting committee ] to [ stuff, stuff, stuff ]'. Or, you can say 'Establishes [ CommitteeFoo ] in the [ preexisting committee ] with a mandate to [ stuff, stuff, stuff ]'.

That's two entirely different actions. Which one would be more appropriate in this case?

[Imperium Anglorum]

You can always say 'Tasks [ preexisting committee ] to [ stuff, stuff, stuff ]'. Or, you can say 'Establishes [ CommitteeFoo ] in the [ preexisting committee ] with a mandate to [ stuff, stuff, stuff ]'.

That's two entirely different actions. Which one would be more appropriate in this case?

OOC: Your decision, honestly. Functionally, they are the same. I am a fan of the first one. It prevents political opponents from saying 'committee [x] is pointless' and gives them a nebulous target.

[Umeria]

That's two entirely different actions. Which one would be more appropriate in this case?

OOC: Your decision, honestly. Functionally, they are the same. I am a fan of the first one. It prevents political opponents from saying 'committee [x] is pointless' and gives them a nebulous target.

Okay I tasked the WHA, but now some of my other clauses seem redundant. Are they? And are there any other issues with my proposal?

[Hannasea]

"I have some comments on this draft legislation. The first are minor technical issues; the seconds are a broader substantive points.

"Given you have tasked the WHA with defining a "serious disease" - 2(a) would now appear to be redundant, as it simply defines "serious disease" as "serious disease", which is circular. Also, in 4(c), "ensuring" would be a more appropriate word than "assuring".

"One of the issues you may need to content with is of an incubation period. For an infectious disease with a longer incubation period, a person can be carrying but not afflicted by a disease vector for several days. In this time they should, rightly, be quarantined, but do not meet the definition put forward in this proposal. Another issue is that the resolution needs to take account of (for example, sea) travel. For example, should there be a common standard (yellow and black?) to signal quarantined shipping, or a requirement that nations prevent the disembarkation of those under quarantine?

"Our delegation is not in a position to support this draft at this time, but we think an international sanitary law might be worth exploring so we will follow these discussions in earnest."

Daniella Russel, MA PhD
Representing the office of:
Ambassador Brittany Hepburn
Semi-Permanent Representative to the World Assembly

((OOC: Before submitting this proposal, it may be worth seeking guidance on whether "Bioethics" would be a more appropriate Area of Effect, because enacting a quarantine involves a fairly clear - if justifiable - restriction of civil rights.))

[Umeria]

"Given you have tasked the WHA with defining a "serious disease" - 2(a) would now appear to be redundant, as it simply defines "serious disease" as "serious disease", which is circular. Also, in 4(c), "ensuring" would be a more appropriate word than "assuring".

Done.

"One of the issues you may need to content with is of an incubation period. For an infectious disease with a longer incubation period, a person can be carrying but not afflicted by a disease vector for several days. In this time they should, rightly, be quarantined, but do not meet the definition put forward in this proposal.

If it should be quarantined, the WHA will say so, so it does meet the definition. I wish I had done the committee ethics tasking thing earlier, it would have avoided a lot of arguing.

Another issue is that the resolution needs to take account of (for example, sea) travel. For example, should there be a common standard (yellow and black?) to signal quarantined shipping, or a requirement that nations prevent the disembarkation of those under quarantine?

Moving quarantines... I hadn't thought of that. Well, in the definition of "quarantine" it says the infected individuals have to be kept in isolation, which implies that there will be no disembarkation.

[Hannasea]

OOC: I can't tell whether that's an in-character response or not, sorry, so I'll have to proceed out-of-character - though because of that, this will be my last post here.

"One of the issues you may need to content with is of an incubation period. For an infectious disease with a longer incubation period, a person can be carrying but not afflicted by a disease vector for several days. In this time they should, rightly, be quarantined, but do not meet the definition put forward in this proposal.

If it should be quarantined, the WHA will say so, so it does meet the definition. I wish I had done the committee ethics tasking thing earlier, it would have avoided a lot of arguing.

I don't believe you've quite understood. In epidemiological terms, a person who is incubating a disease is a "carrier" even if they are not afflicted by the disease - indeed, they could never manifest symptoms of the disease. Your definition applies only to those who are actually "afflicted", but to effect a quarantine, you need to cast a wider net.

Another issue is that the resolution needs to take account of (for example, sea) travel. For example, should there be a common standard (yellow and black?) to signal quarantined shipping, or a requirement that nations prevent the disembarkation of those under quarantine?

Moving quarantines... I hadn't thought of that. Well, in the definition of "quarantine" it says the infected individuals have to be kept in isolation, which implies that there will be no disembarkation.

Not really, no: they could disembark without interacting with any other person.

[Umeria]

I don't believe you've quite understood. In epidemiological terms, a person who is incubating a disease is a "carrier" even if they are not afflicted by the disease - indeed, they could never manifest symptoms of the disease. Your definition applies only to those who are actually "afflicted", but to effect a quarantine, you need to cast a wider net.

Edited.

Not really, no: they could disembark without interacting with any other person.

It says kept in isolation. They need to stay in the quarantine.