[Passed] Quarantine Regulation

[Umeria]

Does anyone have any objections to anything in this proposal? Because if not, it may be time to submit it...

[Imperium Anglorum]

Does anyone have any objections to anything in this proposal? Because if not, it may be time to submit it...

Okay. Just to be clear. What do you want this proposal to do? What is the main selling point? Why should a voter pass it and what is the problem which it wants to solve?

Also, since you are in my region and are one of my constituents, I am willing to provide you with campaigning assistance to publicise the proposal once it is ready for submission. Furthermore, I can guarantee you that I will not vote against the proposal (unless Europe's opinion is against it) and that I will provide whatever support requested regarding anything to do with campaigning.

[Umeria]

What do you want this proposal to do?

I want it to make sure that breakouts of disease will not cause unnecessary chaos and turmoil worldwide. I want it to provide a sensible and reasonable way to contain contagious diseases. I want it to stop the death camp method of treating disease that is so prominent in resource-poor societies.

What is the main selling point?

There are three main selling points.
1. It assures that epidemics will be handled properly, reducing the chance of it becoming a worldwide disaster.
2. It prevents nations from rounding up their disease victims and letting them starve to death just because it would cost them more resources to actually help them.
3. It puts an international organization in charge of assisting impoverished nations that would otherwise be incapable of keeping a disease from spreading around the world.

Why should a voter pass it

Voters would want to pass it because they wouldn't want an epidemic to spread to their nation just because the nation where the epidemic started didn't quarantine it properly.

and what is the problem which it wants to solve?

This proposal should solve the problem of nations unnecessarily leaving their populace to starve instead of treating them well, and the problem of impoverished nations receiving little to no help with making sure a disease is contained.

Also, since you are in my region and are one of my constituents, I am willing to provide you with campaigning assistance to publicise the proposal once it is ready for submission. Furthermore, I can guarantee you that I will not vote against the proposal (unless Europe's opinion is against it) and that I will provide whatever support requested regarding anything to do with campaigning.

Thank you so much. Umeria is glad to reside in Europe.

[Araraukar]

2. It prevents nations from rounding up their disease victims and letting them starve to death just because it would cost them more resources to actually help them.

No it doesn't. At least not if 1) there's no treatment available for the disease and 2) if the safety of the healthcare staff can't be guaranteed.

[Whovian Tardisia]

2. It prevents nations from rounding up their disease victims and letting them starve to death just because it would cost them more resources to actually help them.

No it doesn't. At least not if 1) there's no treatment available for the disease and 2) if the safety of the healthcare staff can't be guaranteed.

"With this in mind, we suggest the addition of a clause 3.d, Detailing what should be done about the quarantined individuals if no treatment is available."

[Araraukar]

"With this in mind, we suggest the addition of a clause 3.d, Detailing what should be done about the quarantined individuals if no treatment is available."

OOC: Let's hope he bothers to answer to you.

[Umeria]

No it doesn't. At least not if 1) there's no treatment available for the disease

My definition of "appropriate treatment" in 1(d) covers basic living needs, so you'd still have to give them food and water.

and 2) if the safety of the healthcare staff can't be guaranteed.

We've been through this already:

as well as decide if they can guarantee health personnel's health well enough to send them in,

They have to send them in. They do not have to guarantee their safety. They just have to assure, to the best of their capability, that they are safe.

Now on to the other stuff...

"With this in mind, we suggest the addition of a clause 3.d, Detailing what should be done about the quarantined individuals if no treatment is available."

OOC: Let's hope he bothers to answer to you.

I answered Mr. Pink before. Why wouldn't I answer him now?

It's hard to see a situation where nothing can be done to help the infected individuals. Unless the disease turns food and water into poison when it touches their mouths, prevents them from becoming tired, and surrounds their bodies with an aura of fire... so I suppose it's possible. Besides that, food, water, shelter, clothing, and a place to rest are more or less available in every nation. If it isn't available, the nation is likely in great poverty, which would lead to the EPARC assisting them.

[Araraukar]

If it isn't available, the nation is likely in great poverty, which would lead to EPARC assisting them.

Or the nation is at war and doesn't want to waste resources on people who are going to die (of the disease) anyway. Actually, you might want to make an exception for war-time.

[Separatist Peoples]

If it isn't available, the nation is likely in great poverty, which would lead to EPARC assisting them.

Or the nation is at war and doesn't want to waste resources on people who are going to die (of the disease) anyway. Actually, you might want to make an exception for war-time.

"While there may be no option in particular cases to actually help the infected, be it because the disease is 100% fatal or because the risk of exposure is too great, I think it sets an incredibly dangerous precedent to allow nations to abandon the infected in quarantine just because a war is on. For a number of reasons, this only makes the situation worse, and not just for the nation that takes that option. I believe the rest of us would sleep soundly at night knowing that, even in times of war, our fellow members are required to offer some measure of palliative care and general supply, if only to warn off a possible breach of the abandoned quarantined area."

[Imperium Anglorum]

If it isn't available, the nation is likely in great poverty, which would lead to EPARC assisting them.

Or the nation is at war and doesn't want to waste resources on people who are going to die (of the disease) anyway. Actually, you might want to make an exception for war-time.

I concur with Araraukar on this one.

[Araraukar]

if only to warn off a possible breach of the abandoned quarantined area."

I didn't mean you'd abandon the area completely, but that giving healthcare assistance beyond food, water and shelter might not be in the best interest of a nation at war, especially if it is a war that isn't just a border skirmish, but rather the nation facing a very real possibility of being annihilated. The nation being annihilated, mind you, not necessarily its population.

And the proposal still carries the ridiculous demand of giving descriptions of [possibly] infected people who are not in quarantine, to a WA committee that doesn't have the power to do anything about it. I've never understood what the idea behind that one is? Is it there because the author doesn't want to let them travel? I think we have a resolution on those lines already. Or has the author's pen skipped one thought in the logical line, and there's a missing mention of delivering the info to the nation's police forces or something?

[Separatist Peoples]

if only to warn off a possible breach of the abandoned quarantined area."

I didn't mean you'd abandon the area completely, but that giving healthcare assistance beyond food, water and shelter might not be in the best interest of a nation at war, especially if it is a war that isn't just a border skirmish, but rather the nation facing a very real possibility of being annihilated. The nation being annihilated, mind you, not necessarily its population.

"Any nation that has to resort to such obscene methods to maintain itself doesn't deserve to exist, ambassador. Its probably, however, that a nation facing such an extreme situation would simply resign from the World Assembly, letting them get around pesky human rights legislation. However, this is an example in the extreme, and isn't especially representative of a realistic scenario."

And the proposal still carries the ridiculous demand of giving descriptions of [possibly] infected people who are not in quarantine, to a WA committee that doesn't have the power to do anything about it. I've never understood what the idea behind that one is? Is it there because the author doesn't want to let them travel? I think we have a resolution on those lines already. Or has the author's pen skipped one thought in the logical line, and there's a missing mention of delivering the info to the nation's police forces or something?

"I can't dispute those issues. Certainly, this is far from perfect as a draft."

[Umeria]

If it isn't available, the nation is likely in great poverty, which would lead to EPARC assisting them.

Or the nation is at war and doesn't want to waste resources on people who are going to die (of the disease) anyway. Actually, you might want to make an exception for war-time.

War-time is a good example of a nation having difficulty maintaining quarantines. The EPARC would still assist them.

I didn't mean you'd abandon the area completely, but that giving healthcare assistance beyond food, water and shelter might not be in the best interest of a nation at war, especially if it is a war that isn't just a border skirmish, but rather the nation facing a very real possibility of being annihilated. The nation being annihilated, mind you, not necessarily its population.

If the nation would be in danger if any resources were spent on quarantines instead of the war, the EPARC would assist them. I don't see any reason to add a war-time exception, since war desperation falls into the category of unavailable to supply the resources.

And the proposal still carries the ridiculous demand of giving descriptions of [possibly] infected people who are not in quarantine, to a WA committee that doesn't have the power to do anything about it. I've never understood what the idea behind that one is? Is it there because the author doesn't want to let them travel?

I changed clause 2 entirely. If there's anything wrong with it, let me know.

Or has the author's pen skipped one thought in the logical line

Wait... the rest of the proposal is logically sound? Fantastic!

[Araraukar]

Wait... the rest of the proposal is logically sound? Fantstic!

OOC: You should know by now that I don't agree with most of the "logic", but that one was among the most incomprehensible ones. I'll give it a better look tomorrow evening, after a good long sleep. I'm only up this late now because dammit, I wanna see my and ND's resolution passed before I can get any sleep...

[United Fat Men]

I propose that we quarantine everyone who is sick. We must take a utilitarian view and do what's best for the masses. Let's keep ALL sickness at bay for the good of the people.

[Umeria]

I propose that we quarantine everyone who is sick. We must take a utilitarian view and do what's best for the masses. Let's keep ALL sickness at bay for the good of the people.

Are you suggesting that we also quarantine all the rats, insects, and bacteria carrying diseases? Shall we throw all the people with faulty immune systems and other deficiencies which could possibly lead to them having a disease in there too? Maybe we should also meticulously scan every single cell in your body, and quarantine you if one teeny little virus got stuck under a hair follicle.

If it's not a contagious disease that has significantly harmful long-term effects, it's not worth a quarantine.

[Araraukar]

I propose that we quarantine everyone who is sick. We must take a utilitarian view and do what's best for the masses. Let's keep ALL sickness at bay for the good of the people.

Are you suggesting that we also quarantine all the rats, insects, and bacteria carrying diseases? Shall we throw all the people with faulty immune systems and other deficiencies which could possibly lead to them having a disease in there too? Maybe we should also meticulously scan every single cell in your body, and quarantine you if one teeny little virus got stuck under a hair follicle.

So now you're getting what I've been trying to tell you all along!

If it's not a contagious disease that has significantly harmful long-term effects, it's not worth a quarantine.

And even if it is, all of the above fits still!

[Umeria]

Are you suggesting that we also quarantine all the rats, insects, and bacteria carrying diseases? Shall we throw all the people with faulty immune systems and other deficiencies which could possibly lead to them having a disease in there too? Maybe we should also meticulously scan every single cell in your body, and quarantine you if one teeny little virus got stuck under a hair follicle.

So now you're getting what I've been trying to tell you all along!

If it's not a contagious disease that has significantly harmful long-term effects, it's not worth a quarantine.

And even if it is, all of the above fits still!

Oh.

Well, I don't think that one virus in someone's hair will create a harmful disease, the proposal never says to quarantine people who might have a disease in the future, and 1(a) says an "infected individual" needs to be a "person"... so I don't think any of that actually applies. Or does it? I'm worried.

[Araraukar]

the proposal never says to quarantine people who might have a disease in the future

So "possibly infected" is no longer the criteria with which people can get shut into quarantines?

Also, I'm still waiting for the exception for people whose disease has been treated so that while they still have the disease, they're no longer contagious. Your only mention of contagious in the definitions is "contagious disease", not "contagious individual" (OOC: I think you're fine with "individual", by the way, though you might want to add somewhere before the definitions a "Points out that this resolution will only apply to sapient individuals" clause or similar). You can be still infected with a contagious disease, without being contagious yourself.

(OOC: Some diseases are incurable in real life, so probably that's true for the vast majority of WA nations too. Your proposal would stuff all of them in with the people who are actually contagious. HIV is a good example. With some luck and good medication combo an individual can have so low a viral load that it can't be detected from their blood. Still, that doesn't mean they were cured, because the virus can hide itself in the person's own DNA, and be activated later, producing new, detectable and contagious viral load. You'll probably continue to be to the end of your long years a "person afflicted with a contagious disease that has significantly harmful long-term effects", without being an active source of infection yourself.)

And that's still not touching the thing where you would shut off kids with chickenpox into the same quarantines with people who have Ebola. If you're letting their parents in with them, then they'll become "potentially infected" themselves and then you'll be paying more welfare costs because they can't work.

The downside with the whole "potentially infected" people being shut into the same quarantines as the "definitely infected" is that you'll probably just end up with lots more "definitely infected" people. You'd need some sort of two-tiered system to avoid simply spreading all manner of diseases across the masses stuffed into the quarantines - one for those who are known to be infected, and one for those who are known to have come into contact with people who are contagious (OOC: this was a big part of the West Africa Ebola epidemic - the contact tracing; the contacts were put to house arrest and I think their blood was tested regularly until they either got sick or passed the time limit by which time they'd have gotten sick if they were going to).

2) REQUIRES that all member nations, in the event of an epidemic, initiate a search for any infected individuals not yet known to be infected;

That reads like whenever there's an epidemic in any of the member nations, all of them must initiate that search, even if they didn't reside in the same galaxy with them.

a. create quarantines in all major infected areas if said infected areas have spread to include at least twice the amount of infected individuals they contained 30 days prior;

I still protest this wording. You're clearly concerned of the number of the infected individuals, not a given area, since we clashed so strongly about this earlier. So now I'm starting to wonder if the modifier is even needed? You define earlier what counts as an infected area. Just state "create quarantines in all (major) infected areas". Not sure if "major" is needed, because you're already letting the nations decide what count as infected areas.

4) MANDATES that the EPARC, to a reasonable extent:
a. give financial aid to people dependent on an income of an infected individual rendered unable to work because of that person's containment in a quarantine;

This will be hard to sell. It's ok to state the committee will help nations that are struggling because of an acute epidemic, as nations are already required by existing legislation to fill basic living requirements of their inhabitants. The extra "financial aid" sounds like frivolous extra spending. What if some big-earning CEO in a capitalist country gets sick? EPARC going to pay the upkeep of her family's lavish lifestyle while the family's breadwinner is sick?

Also, you need to spell out EPARC.

[Umeria]

So "possibly infected" is no longer the criteria with which people can get shut into quarantines?

Um, no? They have to confirm it first. 3(b) says they have to be "known to be infected individuals".

[a bunch of minor edit suggestions that I tried with varying degrees of success to incorporate in the proposal]

What if some big-earning CEO in a capitalist country gets sick? EPARC going to pay the upkeep of her family's lavish lifestyle while the family's breadwinner is sick?

No, because the family probably has a lot of money in the bank, and would not need the huge income for basic living needs.

Also, you need to spell out EPARC.

I did in clause 2 before I completely changed it. Right now the EPARC is only mentioned once, so I don't really need the initials.

[Umeria]

I'm going to change a phrase in clause 1(b) from "in a member nation" to "within a member nation". Just for clarity.

[Araraukar]

As the author obviously has too much time at their hands, I promised one last vivisection, so they'll have their hands full with suturing afterwards. *pulls out 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;

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

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

Considering what your aim is, you should add/change the preamble to explain that you're trying to prevent spread of serious diseases that have the chance to become pandemics. Otherwise you'll be running into all the objections I've made so far and then some. I'd emphasize pandemics to make it sound more like an international issue than it actually is. You might want to slip that word somewhere in the active clauses too.

1) DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution:
a. an "infected individual" as any person afflicted with a disease, which is currently contagious on that person, that has significantly harmful long-term effects;

I'd change that to:

a. an "infected individual" as any person afflicted with a disease that has significantly harmful long-term effects, and which is currently in a contagious phase;

That way you emphasize the severity of the disease. I'm not 100% happy with my own wording either, but I feel it flows better.

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

I understand where you're coming from with the "well-being", but the more pragmatic voters might not care so much for well-being, as they would for functioning. It pretty much comes down to the same thing; the high amount of seriously ill people disrupting the day-to-day life of the society.

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

This wording would make you set up a quarantine for every single communicable disease. I still wish you'd go with "quarantine facility", as then you could specify separate wards for different serious diseases. Or "quarantine hospital" if "facility" sounds too factory-like. Or "quarantine center" or something like that. Using a more defined word like that would imply in itself that you're not just penning people up, but rather setting up some controlled but fairly high-quality facility, in which the people can be treated and hopefully get better.

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 benefits a non-infected individual would normally receive;

So "appropriate treatment" has nothing to do with medical treatment? Remember that you're defining things the actions will be based on. When I suggested you split the medical treatment (like certain medications, for example) from non-medical treatment (like using physical restraints only if the patient is violent), I meant you would split them into their separate points. Also, what "benefits" do you mean? That can be read in many, many ways and not all would work or be good for them, when they're quarantined due to a serious disease.

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

So, uh, blood test everyone? And 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. Actually, to save you from all this finagling, you might want to start your definitions with defining the sort of serious disease you mean, and use that in all the wordings.

a. create quarantines in all major infected areas if said infected areas have spread to include at least twice the amount of infected individuals they contained 30 days prior;

Maybe this is a language thing that bothers me here; when an area spreads, it tends to mean the square footage of the area increasing. But the amount of sick people grows. So it doesn't sound right when you confuse the two.

Also, is the spreading/growing the trigger for creating quarantines?

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

Heh, the way that's worded it sounds like "the nation nearest to their usual dwelling", not "the quarantine nearest to their usual dwelling". I suggest restructuring the sentence.

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

Earlier when you define appropriate treatment, it doesn't sound like it means medical treatment. That's why I suggested you splitting the definition clauses.

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

What difficulty? Not being able to afford to pay for staff, or not having enough guards to keep people from running away, or what? And also, what's a committee going to do to assist the nations? Funding? Resources? Staff? And if so, where do those come from?

[The United Universe]

I'm surprised that this hasn't been passed earlier and I think you should go ahead with it.

[Umeria]

Considering what your aim is, you should add/change the preamble to explain that you're trying to prevent spread of serious diseases that have the chance to become pandemics. Otherwise you'll be running into all the objections I've made so far and then some . I'd emphasize pandemics to make it sound more like an international issue than it actually is. You might want to slip that word somewhere in the active clauses too.

Well, I suppose it was inevitable. The preamble was the only thing that hadn't yet witnessed your Proposal Scalpel. I'll do my best to put that stuff in.

I'd change that to:

a. an "infected individual" as any person afflicted with a disease that has significantly harmful long-term effects, and which is currently in a contagious phase;

That way you emphasize the severity of the disease. I'm not 100% happy with my own wording either, but I feel it flows better.

I don't see how that emphasizes disease severity any more than the other one. All you did was switch two phrases and replace "on that person" with "phase".

I understand where you're coming from with the "well-being", but the more pragmatic voters might not care so much for well-being, as they would for functioning. It pretty much comes down to the same thing; the high amount of seriously ill people disrupting the day-to-day life of the society.

What if it's a disease that only affects the elderly? The nation's "functioning" wouldn't be hampered, since extremely old people don't contribute much to society, but its well-being would definitely go down. I doubt there is any scenario where a nation's functioning is impacted but its well-being is not.

This wording would make you set up a quarantine for every single communicable disease.

It wouldn't, but I'll change the wording anyway.

I still wish you'd go with "quarantine facility", as then you could specify separate wards for different serious diseases. Or "quarantine hospital" if "facility" sounds too factory-like. Or "quarantine center" or something like that.

It doesn't have to be a building. In some cases it's easier to fence off a bit of farmland or something and use it as a quarantine. The current definition has different quarantines for different diseases, so separate wards wouldn't be needed.

Using a more defined word like that would imply in itself that you're not just penning people up, but rather setting up some controlled but fairly high-quality facility, in which the people can be treated and hopefully get better.

We've been through this already:

You use "quarantine" as though it means the same for everyone everywhere. Use "quarantine facility" or something like that, instead.

I defined "quarantine" in 1(c). In this proposal, quarantine means "any area where infected individuals are kept in isolation in order to halt their spread of the disease" and nothing else, so it doesn't really need a separate term.

So "appropriate treatment" has nothing to do with medical treatment? Remember that you're defining things the actions will be based on. When I suggested you split the medical treatment (like certain medications, for example) from non-medical treatment (like using physical restraints only if the patient is violent), I meant you would split them into their separate points.

They would need to provide the treatments regardless of the category. Why would I need to specify the difference when they're preforming the same action either way?

Also, what "benefits" do you mean? That can be read in many, many ways and not all would work or be good for them, when they're quarantined due to a serious disease.

I'll change it to "necessities", even though you'll probably have some complaint about that as well.

So, uh, blood test everyone?

I don't see why not...

And 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.

Done.

Actually, to save you from all this finagling, you might want to start your definitions with defining the sort of serious disease you mean, and use that in all the wordings.

There aren't any clauses where I mention an undefined "serious disease".

Maybe this is a language thing that bothers me here; when an area spreads, it tends to mean the square footage of the area increasing. But the amount of sick people grows. So it doesn't sound right when you confuse the two.

Also, is the spreading/growing the trigger for creating quarantines?

Oh, I thought I deleted that bit already. Well, it's gone now.

Heh, the way that's worded it sounds like "the nation nearest to their usual dwelling", not "the quarantine nearest to their usual dwelling". I suggest restructuring the sentence.

Okay, I'll do my best.

Earlier when you define appropriate treatment, it doesn't sound like it means medical treatment. That's why I suggested you splitting the definition clauses.

Why should it be restricted to medical treatment? Why does it matter whether or not the treatment is medical?

What difficulty? Not being able to afford to pay for staff, or not having enough guards to keep people from running away, or what?

All of those. Should I specify it somehow?

And also, what's a committee going to do to assist the nations? Funding? Resources? Staff?

Funding.

And if so, where do those come from?

The EPARC's budget. Or does a committee not have a budget? I'm confused.

I'm surprised that this hasn't been passed earlier and I think you should go ahead with it.

Haha, no. I want to make sure every little flaw that might make it eligible for a repeal is fixed before I even think about submitting this.

[Tinfect]

This will be my first proposal. Feel free to suggest edits but be constructive.

OOC:
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.
IC:

1) DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution:
a. an "infected individual" as any person afflicted with a disease, which is currently contagious on that person, that has significantly harmful long-term effects;

"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."

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

"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."

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 benefits a non-infected individual would normally receive;

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

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

"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."

a. create quarantines in all major infected areas if said infected areas have spread to include at least twice the amount of infected individuals they contained 30 days prior;

"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.

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