[Passed] Quarantine Regulation

[Bears Armed]

Re the patents: GAR #41.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Clarification: The EPARC only needs to supply the treatment to a nation if the nation already knows about the treatment. This should rule out shipping future tech drugs to pre-modern nations and other illegal roleplaying. The problem is how I'm going to put that in the proposal. Hmm. I'm working on some edits now.

I'm additionally wondering about the patent recognition resolution now, because in real life medications are a Big Thing when it comes to patents. If my memory works, in RL even WHO can't make nations produce generic versions of meds to hand out to poor people, if the meds are still patent-protected. Granted, the RLUN is pretty much toothless compared to NSWA, but still.

OOC: I am currently working in the legal department for a Pharma company. Yes, patents matter... an enormous amount, too.

[Umeria]

I'm additionally wondering about the patent recognition resolution now, because in real life medications are a Big Thing when it comes to patents. If my memory works, in RL even WHO can't make nations produce generic versions of meds to hand out to poor people, if the meds are still patent-protected. Granted, the RLUN is pretty much toothless compared to NSWA, but still.

OOC: I am currently working in the legal department for a Pharma company. Yes, patents matter... an enormous amount, too.

I never said the medications had to be a generic version. The labels don't really matter in this case, as long as they're still the right treatments. Does the proposal duplicate GAR#41 or something? Is that why you're bringing this up? I'm confused.

[Jarish Inyo]

This is being brought up because there is international law on patent rights that states the patent holder has the right to decide who gets to use said medicine for ten years. And that no one else can produce or distribute it without said patent holders expressed permission. Si unless the WHO holds the patent, you will have to convince the patent holders to give or sell and distribute it at a cost that won't bankrupt a country or the WHO.

[Araraukar]

Si unless the WHO holds the patent

OOC: Psst, the WHA for us. The Organization That Must Not Be Mentioned has WHO.

But otherwise you're right.

[Bears Armed]

This is being brought up because there is international law on patent rights that states the patent holder has the right to decide who gets to use said medicine for ten years. And that no one else can produce or distribute it without said patent holders expressed permission. Si unless the WHO holds the patent, you will have to convince the patent holders to give or sell and distribute it at a cost that won't bankrupt a country or the WHO.

Except that under GAR #41, if the patent holders won't agree within a reasonable time to a price that suits the WHA, the WHA can go ahead with having a 'generic' version of the drug produced anyhows and leave payment to the patent-holder as a matter for subsequent arbitration.

[Jarish Inyo]

Arbitration us voluntary in the WA. Both sides must agree to it. The WHA opens itself to law suits. I may be wrong, but isn't international law not suppose to contradict each other?

Besides, a nation does not have to grant the WA or the WHA access to their patent office. Just notify the WA and member nations of the patent.

Also damn convenient that an organization if the WA can simply ignore international law when it deems it appropriate.

[Araraukar]

Also damn convenient that an organization if the WA can simply ignore international law when it deems it appropriate.

OOC: That actually raises an interesting point: can the WA as an entity disobey WA resolutions? Not talking about the nations, but the organization that is the WA.

[Umeria]

Erm... so is it legal or not?

[Araraukar]

Erm... so is it legal or not?

OOC: I presented the question, because I think it's not legal, based on my opinion. But that's just my opinion, you'll need more people to weigh in.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Also damn convenient that an organization if the WA can simply ignore international law when it deems it appropriate.

OOC: That actually raises an interesting point: can the WA as an entity disobey WA resolutions? Not talking about the nations, but the organization that is the WA.

OOC: I don't see why not.

[Araraukar]

OOC: That actually raises an interesting point: can the WA as an entity disobey WA resolutions? Not talking about the nations, but the organization that is the WA.

OOC: I don't see why not.

OOC: There was a while back someone trying to make a resolution that would've touched the WA gnomes, and I think the ruling back then was that the WA couldn't pass resolutions that touched the WA's inner workings. But I'm not sure how that would work here, since the way I understood Umeria's last few comments, was that the committee would buy(?) the meds off of some place existing in the RP universe of the nation that needs them, then distributing them (without payment?) to people in need. And if the meds don't exist in the RP reality for that nation, then it wouldn't.

If that was the idea of how it would work, then the committee wouldn't be breaking the patent resolution, as it would be acquiring the meds via trade rather than manufacture them itself.

And I'm not sure one resolution is large enough to mandate both medication production (whether by a WA instance or nations with the know-how) and quarantine. Perhaps the whole "gives medications" thing should be removed?

[Umeria]

the way I understood Umeria's last few comments, was that the committee would buy(?) the meds off of some place existing in the RP universe of the nation that needs them, then distributing them (without payment?) to people in need. And if the meds don't exist in the RP reality for that nation, then it wouldn't.

Yes, that is what I intended. Of course, if they have permission to manufacture it and manufacturing would be a cheaper option, the EPARC could do that too. It's just supposed to be what's appropriate for the situation.

If that was the idea of how it would work, then the committee wouldn't be breaking the patent resolution, as it would be acquiring the meds via trade rather than manufacture them itself.

Okay, good.

And I'm not sure one resolution is large enough to mandate both medication production (whether by a WA instance or nations with the know-how) and quarantine. Perhaps the whole "gives medications" thing should be removed?

Hmm... the point of that clause was to assure that impoverished nations wouldn't be left in the dark. If a disease breaks out in a poor country that doesn't have the resources to contain it, a worldwide epidemic could ensue.

I'm going to remove the part about giving treatments, but I'll keep the part about assisting in quarantine maintenance. That should work.

[Wrapper]

Yes, that is what I intended. Of course, if they have permission to manufacture it and manufacturing would be a cheaper option, the EPARC could do that too. It's just supposed to be what's appropriate for the situation.

Not an official ruling, but EPARC is a committee. I don't see how a committee would engage in any sort of manufacturing.

[Umeria]

Wow, nearly 3 days with no one saying anything. Either we're all in a consensus or someone is writing a really long response... uh oh.

[Araraukar]

Wow, nearly 3 days with no one saying anything. Either we're all in a consensus or someone is writing a really long response... uh oh.

OOC: Or people have lives and life situations where NS just isn't all that important. A regular bump will do.

IC:

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;

Wouldn't a treatment that makes the individual non-infectous be also an appropriate medical treatment? Also, it seems to me that you're conflating medical treatment with non-medical treatment there. The latter should probably be spliced off and put into clause 3.

2) REQUIRES that all member nations, in reporting an outbreak to the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center, include a description of any possible infected individuals who are not in a quarantine;

Is this "they need to report to EPARC" stolen from GAR #53? If yes, you've got a mild house of cards, since if that resolution is ever repealed, the nations have no obligation to report anything to EPARC. If not, you need to establish that they have to report to EPARC in the first case. Considering how duplication has been recently ruled on by the Secretariat, you can probably duplicate the requirement to report to the committee without being in breach of the rules. Furthermore, you're still having the ridiculous requirement to give descriptions, instead of, say, personal ID and location info. (OOC: Think of the Interpol comparison.)

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;

Oh for fuck's sake, correct that already, would you?! The area doesn't "spread", since it's a pre-defined area. The amount of people within the area doubles instead.

b. move all infected individuals into the quarantines;

What happened to your intention to have this not include people who are undergoing treatment that makes them non-infectous? You can be infected with an infectous disease, without being infectous yourself.

4) MANDATES that the EPARC 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 as well as assist member nations that have difficulty maintaining quarantines.

You should probably split those two requirements. And put "(EPARC)" up there where you mention the long name of the committee. Furthermore, I think you'd be better off requiring the nation in question to provide for the people who were depending on the individual that's now shut it a quarantine zone. If you insist on having it in, you should make a whole new clause for non-medical treatment of people within the quarantines, as you now have literally nothing on it beyond "preventing any unnecessary harm". Because if WA is paying for welfare of individuals out of the WAGF, then something's seriously fucked up.

[Umeria]

OOC: Or people have lives and life situations where NS just isn't all that important. A regular bump will do.

Not in this case. Though not the longest I've seen, this is definitely a really long response.

Wouldn't a treatment that makes the individual non-infectous be also an appropriate medical treatment?

Done.

Also, it seems to me that you're conflating medical treatment with non-medical treatment there. The latter should probably be spliced off and put into clause 3.

Done.

Is this "they need to report to EPARC" stolen from GAR #53? If yes, you've got a mild house of cards, since if that resolution is ever repealed, the nations have no obligation to report anything to EPARC.

If ERA is repealed, the EPARC won't exist anymore... or is that not how it works? How do I, um, stabilize the house of cards?

Oh for ****'s sake, correct that already, would you?! The area doesn't "spread", since it's a pre-defined area. The amount of people within the area doubles instead.

Whenever did I say it was a pre-defined area? We had a big discussion about this already, which lead me to changing "zone" to "perimeters" to "space". It shouldn't have to be within the area; what if the infection rate stays the same but the space where that infection rate exists gets larger?

What happened to your intention to have this not include people who are undergoing treatment that makes them non-infectous? You can be infected with an infectous disease, without being infectous yourself.

Yes, but in that case, the disease they have isn't contagious. The only infected individuals that have to move into the quarantines are people that meet the definition of "infected individual" in 1(a).

You should probably split those two requirements.

Okay, done, as well as the other stuff you've said.

[Whovian Tardisia]

If ERA is repealed, the EPARC won't exist anymore... or is that not how it works? How do I, um, stabilize the house of cards?

OOC: When you expand the powers of a committee in a new proposal, that new proposal allows the continued existence of said committee when its original resolution is repealed.

[Ovybia]

"I'll say," the Ovybian ambassador remarks, "that I like the general idea however it is possible that a nation could purposely infect it's unemployed individuals in order to get them free money so to speak using the mandates of the last clause in your proposal."

[Araraukar]

"I'll say," the Ovybian ambassador remarks, "that I like the general idea however it is possible that a nation could purposely infect it's unemployed individuals in order to get them free money so to speak using the mandates of the last clause in your proposal."

It says "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", which means that clause comes into effect only if 1) the person has a job but is unable to continue due to being shunted off into quarantine, and 2) aid is not given to the quarantined person, but to their dependants. Basically if mom is the only breadwinner in the family and gets quarantined, deadbeat dad and kids get money to support them.

[Umeria]

"I'll say," the Ovybian ambassador remarks, "that I like the general idea however it is possible that a nation could purposely infect it's unemployed individuals in order to get them free money so to speak using the mandates of the last clause in your proposal."

It says "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", which means that clause comes into effect only if 1) the person has a job but is unable to continue due to being shunted off into quarantine, and 2) aid is not given to the quarantined person, but to their dependants. Basically if mom is the only breadwinner in the family and gets quarantined, deadbeat dad and kids get money to support them.

So... the clause shouldn't be changed?

[Araraukar]

So... the clause shouldn't be changed?

OOC: Not to react to Ovybia, no.

[Umeria]

I am concerned that 3(b) is too vague.

It's probably nothing.

[Araraukar]

I am concerned that 3(b) is too vague.

Wait, you're actually starting to listen to reason now?

[Umeria]

I am concerned that 3(b) is too vague.

Wait, you're actually starting to listen to reason now?

Um. Yes?

I'm going to edit it. Just in case.