Advertisement
by Umeria » Mon Aug 01, 2016 6:15 pm
by Imperium Anglorum » Mon Aug 01, 2016 9:06 pm
by WA Kitty Kops » Mon Aug 01, 2016 9:24 pm
Umeria wrote:Is it normal to be this worried about submission? Or am I just being paranoid?
NERVUN wrote:And my life flashed in front of my eyes while I did and I honestly expected my computer to explode after I entered the warning.
by Araraukar » Tue Aug 02, 2016 8:00 am
Umeria wrote: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;
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";
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;
b. an "infected area" as any space within a member nation containing enough infected individuals to significantly decrease the nation's well-being;
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;
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;
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;
4) FURTHER REQUIRES that all member nations, to the best of their capability:
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;
c. provide every appropriate treatment to infected individuals in quarantines while ensuring that the people administering these treatments are not infected; and
5) MANDATES that the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center assist member nations that have difficulty maintaining quarantines.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by States of Glory WA Office » Tue Aug 02, 2016 3:39 pm
Araraukar wrote:Out of interest, why WHA, why not EPARC?
Araraukar wrote:Use EPARC or WHA, not both.
by Araraukar » Tue Aug 02, 2016 4:53 pm
States of Glory WA Office wrote:"Um, question from a newbie here: Since EPARC is a part of the WHA, does it really matter which one is used?"
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by States of Glory WA Office » Tue Aug 02, 2016 4:55 pm
Araraukar wrote:States of Glory WA Office wrote:"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!"
by Umeria » Tue Aug 02, 2016 7:45 pm
Araraukar wrote:Alrighty then, let's have a new look into the innards of this reincarnation of this beastie.
Araraukar wrote:Your first preamble clause should probably also be using "communicable disease", since you're sort of leaning onto that clause with the 2nd one.
Araraukar wrote:Or combine this with the above (I can attempt a combo text later today if you find it difficult).
Araraukar wrote:Out of interest, why WHA, why not EPARC?
Araraukar wrote:I still think you should leave it up to the nations to decide what's a serious disease and what's not.
Araraukar wrote:the "large number" is very... loopholeable.
Araraukar wrote: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
Araraukar wrote: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.
Araraukar wrote: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.
Araraukar wrote:So in other words, the loophole here is significant, because I see it as a notable problem. Got it.
Araraukar wrote: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.
Araraukar wrote: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.
Araraukar wrote:Common cold certainly lowers a nation's well-being, though not necessarily its functioning.
Araraukar wrote:Also, are these quarantines supposed to be maintained for all eternity after being created, even if the disease died out in the nation?
Araraukar wrote:the quarantine facility/area/service/whatever you're calling it now
Araraukar wrote:But not a treatment that would render them non-contagious and thus facilitate their release from one of the quarantines?
Araraukar wrote: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.
Araraukar wrote: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.
Araraukar wrote: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.
Araraukar wrote:OOC: More a question than a pointer - cabability or cababilities?
Araraukar wrote:Would a WA nation be compliant if it made one quarantine per disease, period?
Araraukar wrote: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.
Araraukar wrote: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?
Araraukar wrote: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?
by Araraukar » Tue Aug 02, 2016 8:45 pm
Araraukar wrote: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.
Araraukar wrote: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?
and I am confused as to why you think it won't sell well.
No I'm not. It's the disease that matters, not the bug causing the disease.
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.
I'm still just calling it a quarantine, despite your vehement objections otherwise.
Should I indent it?
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.
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.
Well, neither, because it's "capability" not "cabability".
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?
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).
Perfect example. They should be carted closer to home so their family could visit more often.
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?
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Araraukar » Tue Aug 02, 2016 8:59 pm
Umeria wrote:OOC: Again, I don't have time for a response now, but I will reply shortly.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Umeria » Wed Aug 03, 2016 6:49 am
Araraukar wrote:OOC: They're vivisections. The target rarely survives. And every new draft you post, is essentially a new incarnation.
Araraukar wrote:Well sorry for trying to be helpful. Won't make that mistake again.
Araraukar wrote: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.
Araraukar wrote: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?
Araraukar wrote:The others might object to the and/or, but such a change would make it more acceptable.
Araraukar wrote: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.
Araraukar wrote: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.
Araraukar wrote:OOC: Like I said before, 3 weeks passed since and blah blah blah. I would really suggest a FAQ of some sort.
Araraukar wrote: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.
Araraukar wrote: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.
Araraukar wrote: And please let nations be the ones that decide what counts as that area, since nation sizes vary so wildly.
Araraukar wrote:...I thought you already had that in there in 2.c.?
Araraukar wrote: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.
Araraukar wrote: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?
Araraukar wrote:Why are the sick people more valuable than the medical personnell?
Araraukar wrote:In fact, unless they're in direct employment of the nation's government, can they even be commanded to go work in unsafe conditions?
Araraukar wrote:Or even if they do work for the government?
Araraukar wrote: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.
Araraukar wrote: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...
by Umeria » Sat Aug 13, 2016 7:42 am
by Imperium Anglorum » Sat Aug 13, 2016 2:06 pm
by Umeria » Sat Aug 13, 2016 2:35 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:§ 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.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Otherwise, I'd say everything looks fine.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:I hope others will turn their attention here, however.
by Bananaistan » Sat Aug 13, 2016 2:52 pm
by Umeria » Sat Aug 13, 2016 3:39 pm
Bananaistan wrote:The word serious here in clause 3 could be dropped altogether so it would read "... in the event an epidemic ..."
Araraukar wrote: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.
Bananaistan wrote:and I'm not sure it's obvious what a serious enough disease is as referred to in clause 1.
Bananaistan wrote:Overall though it looks more than acceptable.
by States of Glory WA Office » Sat Aug 13, 2016 4:32 pm
by Umeria » Sun Aug 14, 2016 6:36 am
States of Glory WA Office wrote:For some reason, Clause Three seems quite clunky, for want of a better word,
States of Glory WA Office wrote: that this is a fine proposal and that we will vote 'for' in the event that this comes to vote.
by Araraukar » Sun Aug 14, 2016 10:18 am
Umeria wrote:So far, no one is opposed. This is a good start.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by WA Kitty Kops » Mon Aug 15, 2016 9:41 am
NERVUN wrote:And my life flashed in front of my eyes while I did and I honestly expected my computer to explode after I entered the warning.
by Umeria » Mon Aug 15, 2016 10:27 am
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: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;
- 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;
- an "infected person" as any person with a serious disease in a nation undergoing an epidemic of that disease;
- a "quarantine" as any area where infected persons are kept in isolation in order to halt their spread of the disease;
- a "treatment" as any action done to an infected person with the purpose of:
- ensuring the infected person does not undergo any unnecessary harm;
- ensuring the infected person is not deprived of any necessities a non-infected person would normally receive; and/or
- rendering the infected person non-contagious;
4) REQUIRES that all member nations, to the best of their capability:5) MANDATES that the EPARC cover the costs of the requirements in clause 4 for any nation has difficulty maintaining quarantines.
- create at least one quarantine per epidemic in the nation;
- move all infected persons into the appropriate quarantine that is nearest to their current location;
- 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;
- move anyone that ceases to be an infected person out of the quarantine;
- disband any quarantine that ceases to be of use; and
WA Kitty Kops wrote:can't think of a G-word for "flow" (glide doesn't count)
WA Kitty Kops wrote:how to best glue all the bits he now has, into a whole - before I poke it with anything sharp
by WA Kitty Kops » Mon Aug 15, 2016 3:01 pm
NERVUN wrote:And my life flashed in front of my eyes while I did and I honestly expected my computer to explode after I entered the warning.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement