[PASSED] Infectious Disease Control

[Goddess Relief Office]

What I meant to say is that nations can still require health certificates to for travelers. They just might not allow certification of medical precaution as part of the certificate. Your requirements are duplication of the Epidemic Response Act.

I don't see any duplication.

The proposal is fine.

~GRO~

[Bears Armed Mission]

"Are these proposed certificates also supposed to warn the health authorities in any countries visited by foreigners about any infectious diseases that the foreign bearers of the certificates are themselves specifically [as individuals, not just as visitors from lands where pandemics exist] known to be carrying, too?"

Hwa Sue,
Legal Attaché,
Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly.

[Normlpeople]

Clover hung her head as she spoke "I am afraid I must apologize, I clearly misread this the first time. Reading it now with a clear head, I do understand that it doesn't do what I thought it did. I still believe that the travel advisories would be better served, and far more impartial and truthful, should they be issued by the committee instead of the member nations themselves.

As far as point four, I would simply word it to read "Mandates the introduction of the UCMP to replace all divergent comparable travel documentation within a reasonable timeframe."

[Aah]

"Are these proposed certificates also supposed to warn the health authorities in any countries visited by foreigners about any infectious diseases that the foreign bearers of the certificates are themselves specifically [as individuals, not just as visitors from lands where pandemics exist] known to be carrying, too?"

No.

Clover hung her head as she spoke "I am afraid I must apologize, I clearly misread this the first time. Reading it now with a clear head, I do understand that it doesn't do what I thought it did. I still believe that the travel advisories would be better served, and far more impartial and truthful, should they be issued by the committee instead of the member nations themselves.

What is it you're afraid of here? Why would any reasonable nation lie about an infectious disease outbreak? Doing so would only risk spreading it and opening them up to considerable international scepticism regarding any future announcements they made; it would likely harm them economically and strategically because people would simply stop travelling there altogether.

As far as point four, I would simply word it to read "Mandates the introduction of the UCMP to replace all divergent comparable travel documentation within a reasonable timeframe."

But this is exactly the point I'm making. What each nation considers to be a "reasonable timeframe" could vary quite widely. The method we've used, of having that nation agree on a timeframe with EPARC while setting an upper limit, ensures that the timeframe will be reasonable while at the same time preventing any needless delaying.

The Schutzenphalian delegation is willing to redraft the proposal to take account of any concrete concerns, but it's an odd contradiction not to trust nations to promulgate travel advisories, yet at the same time wanting to trust nations to determine their own timeline for introducing the certificate.

[Aah]

Are there any further comments on the draft?

[Jarish Inyo]

Wasn't this already proposed within the last two weeks and received no support?

[Separatist Peoples]

Wasn't this already proposed within the last two weeks and received no support?

OOC: Lack of posting =/= lack of support. I don't post here because I don't have the background to comment intelligently. Doesn't mean I would vote against. Most players who vote never enter the GA forum.

[Jarish Inyo]

I believe this was already proposed in its current form but did not make quorum.

[Bananaistan]

I believe this was already proposed in its current form but did not make quorum.

And that is relevant, why?

[Jarish Inyo]

Its revelant because as it is, it has already failed and those that are interested in this has already made their arguments and suggestions. If the alleged author hadn't bumped it, it would have died again.

[Bananaistan]

plenty of proposals fail to make quorum, some many times more than just the once, before ending up as passed resolutions. Failing to make quorum does not automatically mean there is no support.

[Jarish Inyo]

Actually it does mean it lacks support in its current form. And I doubt that it will garner any more interest or support at this time.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Whelp, the author has my stamps to assist in a campaign, just to prove Jarish Inyo's poor read on the situation wrong.

[Jarish Inyo]

Wouldn't call it a poor reading of the situation. The thread had died twice before and was on its way to dying again.

The facts are that this thread has been opened for sometime and only has 2 pages. The author never addressed the fact that the proposal never actually resolves any of the concerns it expresses. Or a few other issues.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Wouldn't call it a poor reading of the situation. The thread had died twice before and was on its way to dying again.

The facts are that this thread has been opened for sometime and only has 2 pages. The author never addressed the fact that the proposal never actually resolves any of the concerns it expresses. Or a few other issues.

Right, because it's totally unheard of for a drafting thread to fall silent for extended periods only for its resolution to succeed later on.

Clover hung her head as she spoke "I am afraid I must apologize, I clearly misread this the first time. Reading it now with a clear head, I do understand that it doesn't do what I thought it did. I still believe that the travel advisories would be better served, and far more impartial and truthful, should they be issued by the committee instead of the member nations themselves.

What is it you're afraid of here? Why would any reasonable nation lie about an infectious disease outbreak? Doing so would only risk spreading it and opening them up to considerable international scepticism regarding any future announcements they made; it would likely harm them economically and strategically because people would simply stop travelling there altogether.

There are some nations who would indeed be quite averse to publishing disease outbreaks where 1) they have good reason to fear an immediate drop in tourism; 2) they believe they can get the outbreak under control before anyone gets wind of it (i.e. a foreigner gets infected); and 3) they don't have a sufficiently competent press to get at the truth anyway. If a nation thinks they can "run the rapids" so to speak, and clear up the problem without having to tell anyone about it, they'll always make that gamble, and keep the tourism dollars flowing.

Mind you, that's not often the rational thing to do, but it is common human sapient behavior, with a certain logic behind it.

[Aah]

What is it you're afraid of here? Why would any reasonable nation lie about an infectious disease outbreak? Doing so would only risk spreading it and opening them up to considerable international scepticism regarding any future announcements they made; it would likely harm them economically and strategically because people would simply stop travelling there altogether.

There are some nations who would indeed be quite averse to publishing disease outbreaks where 1) they have good reason to fear an immediate drop in tourism; 2) they believe they can get the outbreak under control before anyone gets wind of it (i.e. a foreigner gets infected); and 3) they don't have a sufficiently competent press to get at the truth anyway. If a nation thinks they can "run the rapids" so to speak, and clear up the problem without having to tell anyone about it, they'll always make that gamble, and keep the tourism dollars flowing.

Mind you, that's not often the rational thing to do, but it is common human sapient behavior, with a certain logic behind it.

While that has a certain internal logic to it, twisting the whole proposal to fit such an extreme - and hopefully minority - circumstance wouldn't be worthwhile. Even if the committee were the one to issue the travel advisory instead, there's no guarantee the national government would allow them access to such areas. And it's the government itself that has control over borders: let's assume most delegations, regardless of their political orientation, would be unwilling to give up that prerogative! A travel advisory is a warning issued by a government. If it's not issued by that government, it doesn't carry any such authority.

This Assembly has, at times, some very curious priorities when it comes to national sovereignty.

As a compromise, though, how about permitting the WHA to maintain a database of any active advisories and any additional unreported incidents of concern and making it publicly accessible?

[Araraukar]

As a compromise, though, how about permitting the WHA to maintain a database of any active advisories and any additional unreported incidents of concern and making it publicly accessible?

That would make nations who don't want what they consider a local problem they can solve to become a WA-wide-known problem even less likely to report anything. Also, couldn't anyone report such a concern, even if it turned out to be false? I smell a blackmailing practice in that.

[Aah]

A second draft has been updated.

[Kaboomlandia]

Hmm. It has possibilties. This may well be doable.

Will this affect say, regulation of prescriptions while abroad?

[Aah]

...no.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Taking a real-life example here; there's currently a measles epidemic both in Germany and USA. How would this proposal apply in the Real Life situations? Just to get an idea of how the legalese translates into action.

[Aah]

OOC: Taking a real-life example here; there's currently a measles epidemic both in Germany and USA. How would this proposal apply in the Real Life situations? Just to get an idea of how the legalese translates into action.

OOC: To use that example, the countries would have to:

• consult with epidemiologists and public health professionals to determine what needed to be done (for example, in the USA, they would consult with the CDC)
• issue and update travel advisories (you can see a list of current active travel advisories here)
• inform the WHA (which in RL terms is the WHO, and has a dedicated measles/rubella program)

Those are the only - fairly minimal - requirements that the resolution makes.

Beyond that is the "UCMP" - (which in RL terms is the ICV or "Carte Jaune") - but it's unlikely that this would be needed for a measles outbreak. In RL, there is only one disease for which certification of immunity is generally required: Yellow Fever.* However, writing a proposal about that specific disease would bring out a chorus of (in this case, justifiable) protest about RP species, time frames, tech levels, and so forth. It's reasonable to assume there are countries in NS where yellow fever inoculation is no longer a concern; it's also reasonable to assume there are other diseases that are of significant concern in infectious terms. (The dreaded Spon Plague, perhaps?)

Regardless of what the disease is, if a nation decides to require travellers demonstrate immunity through some form of certification, then they have to use the UCMP for this purpose (and train their personnel in how to use it, and enforce anti-fraud measures). As stated, though, it's unlikely they would use this for measles.

* And possibly cholera. I've read conflicting sources on this.

[Aah]

OOC: Are there any other thoughts on this? I was originally planning on submitting this next week, but now that another proposal is headed for quorum it can afford to be delayed a few more days.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

OOC: Are there any other thoughts on this? I was originally planning on submitting this next week, but now that another proposal is headed for quorum it can afford to be delayed a few more days.

Looks good to me from our side. Will be nice to actually see a Healthcare proposal. Gonna support this one.

Best of luck.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Thanks for the answer, my brain refused to cooperate halfway through the proposal draft, which means it looks like proper legalese, and which is why I asked for a practical application example.

In RL, there is only one disease for which certification of immunity is generally required: Yellow Fever.* However, writing a proposal about that specific disease would bring out a chorus of (in this case, justifiable) protest about RP species, time frames, tech levels, and so forth.

Oh? Someone's kept up my usual arguments while I've been away? I'm so happy now.