[Passed] Quarantine Regulation

[SuperTronGodTopia]

Supertrongodtopia agrees that you would need a more precise, less circular definition of "serious disease" if this proposal were to be taken seriously. That part is important; you can't just leave it all up to EPARC. You should at the very least define "disease" as being a viral, bacterial, parasitic or fungal pathogen; otherwise, struggling dictatorships the world over will be appealing to the WA for assistance in containing "serious political diseases" among their peoples!

[Catalhoyuuk]

Ambassador Yan Brunik: "Catalhoyuuk thanks Umeria for their civil-minded contribution to an issue of considerable international importance. The spirit of the resolution reflects well the internationalist and democratic principles of this great and revolutionary nation. However, we advise the Assembly that we feel the resolution requires tightening in its definitions, if it is to stand, as it should, as a bedrock of international cooperation for the social good of the masses. A mandate for international standards and cooperation in quarantine measures is badly needed.

"an "epidemic" as a time, in a nation, when 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;" This does not even require that the disease be communicable. The rapid transmission of the disease is the issue here. Further, if the disease is fast enough in its transmission, it will already be too late once enough people are affected that this shows "significantly" as an economic or social deterioration. By this stage, it will already have leapt borders. Furthermore, this defines disease as a matter of the state and it's functioning, not the person and their health - and the health of others no yet infected. This definition is therefore inadequate and even detrimental to the purpose of the resolution. Epedemic needs to be defined in terms of the rapid spread of a disease through a population, usually two weeks or less. For example, in meningococcal infections, an attack rate in excess of 15 cases per 100,000 people for two consecutive weeks is considered an epidemic.

The declaration of an epidemic usually requires a good understanding of a baseline rate of incidence; epidemics for certain diseases, such as influenza, are defined as reaching some defined increase in incidence above this baseline.[2] A few cases of a very rare disease may be classified as an epidemic, while many cases of a common disease (such as the common cold) would not.

"an "infected person" as any person with a serious disease in a nation undergoing an epidemic of that disease" this definition is essentially circular since it relies on an epidemic being declared before the infected person can be defined as such.

"create at least one quarantine per epidemic in the nation;" This must be changed to require as many quarantine zones as required to contain the disease, there is no point in symbolic gestures to meet the letter of the law.

"5) Mandates that the EPARC cover the costs of the requirements in clause 4 for any member nation that has difficulty maintaining quarantines"

We support international aid covering the cost of these procedures for poor countries, but without the creation of new mechanisms for funding, this could cripple EPARC financially... especially while "difficulty" remains undefined. International aid should also be provided through EPARC for the establishment of centers of Disease Control and Schools of Infectious Disease in all underdeveloped nations.

Given all this, it pains us that we cannot support the resolution at the current time, while encouraging new or amended resolutions to fulfill the aims here mooted, and being grateful that we live in times of enlightenment and solidarity defined by these issues of fundamental development being the agenda of the GA.

[Araraukar]

So a disease is specified by this law if it needs to be quarantined, and a disease needs to be quarantined if it is specified by this law?

It is the definition of a serious disease as far as this resolution goes. I mean, think about it: if a disease outbreak is bad enough that quarantining the people who have it, would be beneficial to your nation, it's only reasonable that you would want it to be counted as serious enough to trigger the WA committee's help in case your nation's finances didn't allow your nation itself to do so.

That doesn't mean you weren't allowed to quarantine people whose diseases don't pose a serious threat to your nation's functioning. You can always go further than the WA law says, as long as you apply the resolution as the minimum guideline.

---

You should at the very least define "disease" as being a viral, bacterial, parasitic or fungal pathogen; otherwise, struggling dictatorships the world over will be appealing to the WA for assistance in containing "serious political diseases" among their peoples!

There is this thing called "Reasonable Nation Theory", or RNT, and that is the guideline for writing proposals: what would a reasonable nation do? No reasonable nation would classify dissenting political opinions as "disease", nor would the WA via EPARC be forced to accept such a "disease" as real.

Aside from which, freedom of expressing "political views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal"; freedom of assembly, as long as done peacefully, for any cause, including political; and freedom of the press are already protected by the WA, and would make classifying such a thing a disease fairly difficult.

---

However, we advise the Assembly that we feel the resolution requires tightening in its definitions

May I ask where was the Catalhoyuukian ambassador when this was in the drafting process? And also the author might benefit from knowing exactly how you feel the definitions should read instead. (OOC: Also, if you bother to read through this thread, you'll see the definitions went through quite an evolution.)

A mandate for international standards and cooperation in quarantine measures is badly needed.

Partially done by pre-existing legislation. This particular one currently at vote details measures you would apply after you have applied the measures detailed by GAR #53.

This does not even require that the disease be communicable.

I think you missed this "1) Tasks the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center to define as a "serious disease" any disease which is harmful and contagious enough to create the need of a quarantine in the case of an outbreak of the disease;".

Further, if the disease is fast enough in its transmission, it will already be too late once enough people are affected that this shows "significantly" as an economic or social deterioration. By this stage, it will already have leapt borders.

Not if your nation follows GAR #320, Infectious Disease Control resolution, which is aimed to prevent just that.

Furthermore, this defines disease as a matter of the state and it's functioning, not the person and their health - and the health of others no yet infected.

For the purposes of this resolution only. Just think: if an epidemic has gotten serious enough that it threatens your nation's functionality, then you definitely should enact quarantine measures. That doesn't mean you couldn't quarantine people a lot sooner.

Epedemic needs to be defined in terms of the rapid spread of a disease through a population, usually two weeks or less. For example, in meningococcal infections, an attack rate in excess of 15 cases per 100,000 people for two consecutive weeks is considered an epidemic.

OOC: Going to go out of in-character mode, since you specify a real life disease and its spread: exact numbers are meaningless in the NationStates multiverse, where you can easily have nations that have tens of billions of people (some are intergalactic empires), in which even 100,000 people getting sick wouldn't register very high on the national level, but might mean every single one getting sick within one of their regions, whereas a small nation might not even have 6,000 people (at the rate of 15 out of 100k you need more than 6k people for a single person to get sick).

If you read through the drafting thread, you'll find that such numbers were used initially, but were then given up on, because of the meaningless of solid numbers in the in-character multiverse of NS. Also, the direct quote from Wikipedia shows.

"an "infected person" as any person with a serious disease in a nation undergoing an epidemic of that disease" this definition is essentially circular since it relies on an epidemic being declared before the infected person can be defined as such.

For the purposes of this resolution.

"create at least one quarantine per epidemic in the nation;" This must be changed to require as many quarantine zones as required to contain the disease, there is no point in symbolic gestures to meet the letter of the law.

I think you missed that bit. Your nation is welcome to set up one in every cityblock if it thinks that's necessary. But you have the minimum requirement of one per epidemic. That's to prevent nations lumping all sick people, no matter what their disease, in the same quarantine, as such a situation would likely lead to lot of people getting a lot of different diseases.

this could cripple EPARC financially...

Actually no it couldn't. All WA committees are financed by the WA nations as a whole.

the establishment of centers of Disease Control and Schools of Infectious Disease in all underdeveloped nations.

OOC: ..."schools of infectious disease" sounds either like infectious disease schooling like fish, or schools in which infectious diseases are taught and caught.

Also, establishing CDCs has been attempted in the past, but I can't remember what destroyed that proposal that time. You're welcome to try writing one yourself.

while encouraging new or amended resolutions

Resolutions cannot be amended. To change what the WA law says about any one matter, you need to first repeal the existing resolution and then pass a new one in its stead.

[Little Tralfamadore]

Having other countries to fund the cost for those nations where it is "difficult" to pay is absurd. Among other reasons "difficult" is too vague a term.

More importantly the forced quarantines would be a horrific violation of basic rights. This law would force nations to kidnap anyone with a disease such as VODAIS and imprison them.

This of course breaks the proposed rule: ensuring the infected person is not deprived of any necessities a non-infected person would normally receive;

After all freedom and liberty is certainty a necessity.

While the idea of such a quarantine being needed in a extreme-case scenario (such as the recent zombie-infection) may be debated, to allow any nation to forcibly round up their citizens because they have a disease is wrong.

Even defining a disease and an epidemic could be an issue. Depression is a disease. One could argue that it may be communicable. Alcoholism is the same thing. A nation could declare alcoholism an epidemic and imprison all alcoholics - or at least all alcoholics that the state doesn't like

[Dubnia]

The General Assembly's resolutions cannot mandate actions to be taken by member governments, yet this text is present:\

4) Requires that all member nations, to the best of their capability:

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

5) Mandates that the EPARC cover the costs of the requirements in clause 4 for any member nation that has difficulty maintaining quarantines.

This alone should cause this resolution not to stand. It is entirely against the concept of national sovereignty, and is essentially against the rules. Only the security council is allowed to require a nation to do something and resolutions that do so are incredibly rare. If only for this reason, this resolution should not pass.

[Separatist Peoples]

"We voted against, as the author has routinely left the question of medical ethics in quarantines unanswered."

[Calladan]

The General Assembly's resolutions cannot mandate actions to be taken by member governments, yet this text is present:\

4) Requires that all member nations, to the best of their capability:

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

5) Mandates that the EPARC cover the costs of the requirements in clause 4 for any member nation that has difficulty maintaining quarantines.

This alone should cause this resolution not to stand. It is entirely against the concept of national sovereignty, and is essentially against the rules. Only the security council is allowed to require a nation to do something and resolutions that do so are incredibly rare. If only for this reason, this resolution should not pass.

WAR #4 bans any number of things - this mandates that governments MUST make laws to prevent these things from happening.
WAR #6 "REQUIRES humanitarian vessels to not initiate hostilities with any other vessel or targets unless first attacked and to not actively support offensive campaigns"
WAR #7 "Requires that all chemicals be properly labeled, and that safety information be easily accessible in all workplaces pertaining to the chemical that include but are not limited to:"
WAR #10 "REQUIRES that any nation choosing to possess nuclear weapons take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands."
WAR #18 does all of the following :-

MANDATES that all PoWs and civilian and military internees, be they held in camps or otherwise, are to be supplied, free of charge, with the following, without unreasonable discrimination:
a) Shelter, fully nutritional food, washing facilities, water, & competent medical attention
b) Replacement uniforms and/or clothing. In the case of PoWs, such uniform is to reasonably resemble the uniform with relevant insignia he is entitled to in his own force, and bear no markings to distinguish the wearer as a PoW
c) Methods by which they may contact and be contacted by relatives & friends in their homeland, although the detaining nation may censor such correspondence if desired;
d) Protection against intimidation, humiliation, insults & physical attack
e) Other facilities as a nation may deemed necessary or desirable.

I found all of this by just scrolling through the list of previously passed resolutions - I really didn't have to look that hard either.

So, with all due respect, I think you are wrong.

[Kohr]

If our sovereign lord F'Earstel or any of his associates become infected with an "epidemic" you may be assured we shan't be moving them to quarantine. The glorious Fiefdom doesn't need the World Assembly to condescend to it. Kohr shall continue to treat epidemics in the logical way- visiting voodoo doctors.

[Umeria]

If our sovereign lord F'Earstel or any of his associates become infected with an "epidemic" you may be assured we shan't be moving them to quarantine. The glorious Fiefdom doesn't need the World Assembly to condescend to it. Kohr shall continue to treat epidemics in the logical way- visiting voodoo doctors.

If your lord desires, he can make his palace it's own quarantine, all to himself. Then your voodoo doctors can administer the treatments believed to be beneficial.

"We voted against, as the author has routinely left the question of medical ethics in quarantines unanswered."

That question can be answered much more easily with another resolution.

[Kryozerkia]

The General Assembly's resolutions cannot mandate actions to be taken by member governments, yet this text is present
[...]
This alone should cause this resolution not to stand. It is entirely against the concept of national sovereignty, and is essentially against the rules. Only the security council is allowed to require a nation to do something and resolutions that do so are incredibly rare. If only for this reason, this resolution should not pass.

You're wrong. On both accounts. General Assembly resolutions must contain at least one active clause (or mandate). National sovereignty is an irrelevant concept with a proposal introducing new legislation. NatSov is only an issue with repeals as less experienced authors use it as the sole argument for the resolution's repeal rather than focus on the resolution's content to generate relevant arguments.

[Separatist Peoples]

"We voted against, as the author has routinely left the question of medical ethics in quarantines unanswered."

That question can be answered much more easily with another resolution.

"You have used approximately 2/3rds of your available character count. There was plenty of room to appropriately address this. Indeed, because a WA committee would have been essential to the process, another resolution cannot be written without trying to dance around this in order to avoid a Committee-Only violation. This was absolutely the appropriate place to include the medical ethics considerations of an enforced quarantine. You dropped the ball, ambassador, and now somebody is going to have to work that much harder to address that issue."

[Umeria]

You dropped the ball, ambassador, and now somebody is going to have to work that much harder to address that issue."

The purpose of this resolution is to make sure proper quarantines are created during an epidemic, and to ensure that those quarantines aren't death-camps. Rights of quarantined individuals are an entirely different matter, and someone writing a resolution concerning such issues will have to work just as hard as they would if Quarantine Regulation had never been drafted.

[Araraukar]

"You dropped the ball, ambassador, and now somebody is going to have to work that much harder to address that issue."

You obviously should've picked up the ball and kept throwing it at him repeatedly with increasing force, until he started to listen. Exercise, trolling another nation's ambassador and amusement all in one package!

[Umeria]

"You dropped the ball, ambassador, and now somebody is going to have to work that much harder to address that issue."

You obviously should've picked up the ball and kept throwing it at him repeatedly with increasing force, until he started to listen. Exercise, trolling another nation's ambassador and amusement all in one package!

Wait... so "the ball" isn't a harmless beach ball? Everything I know is a lie.

[Araraukar]

Wait... so "the ball" isn't a harmless beach ball? Everything I know is a lie.

...is it too late to get you to believe "yes"? (OOC: A billiard ball might be light enough for Bell to keep picking up and throwing, yet hard and small enough to make the point painfully enough. Though I think the saying originally comes from baseball?)

[Separatist Peoples]

You dropped the ball, ambassador, and now somebody is going to have to work that much harder to address that issue."

The purpose of this resolution is to make sure proper quarantines are created during an epidemic, and to ensure that those quarantines aren't death-camps. Rights of quarantined individuals are an entirely different matter, and someone writing a resolution concerning such issues will have to work just as hard as they would if Quarantine Regulation had never been drafted.

"The rights of quarantined individuals is central to the issue of ensuring that the quarantines don't become tools of oppression! How you don't see the direct connection is beyond me. Preventing them from becoming death camps involves protecting their rights, and this current version protects their rights only so far as they aren't murdered. Honestly, it doesn't do very well at that, because any state could still firebomb a quarantine zone, so long as they don't consider it a medical treatment. Nations are not even tasked with protecting the quarantined. Additionally, this could be used, via the clause regarding location of quarantines, to justify forced relocation. Obviously, the minimum standard require that these measures be taken in the case of diseases that EPARC deems sufficient, but it makes no mention regarding states going above and beyond the call of EPARC to extend justifications to unnecessary diseases. Medical ethics reviews on the international level would not only have prevented such an abuse, they very well might have protected the quarantined from any systematic abuse, which is why none of the criticisms were valid in light of my suggestions. Since you elected not to include them, you leave people guilty only of being ill at the mercy of those who are at best callous and at worst malicious.

"And before you go citing 2.d (iii), bear in mind your qualification of "unnecessary" is being applied to an inherently extreme situation: one wherein basic liberties need to be suspended for the greater good of society. In that context, unnecessary could very well mean whatever a nation wants, even assuming the Reasonable Nation Theory, because a reasonable nation has a vested interest in sustaining the population as a whole, even at the cost of a few. Any nation willing to engage in war would find that equation justifiable."

[De Dreamland]

Would you look at that a common sense proposal in the WA. I will vote for this common sense measure.

[Sardennoi]

and wishes he had brought a water bottle, like all the professional diplomats.

OOC: There's a Marco Rubio joke in there somewhere, I just know it

[Imperium Anglorum]

Always nice to see that the woodwork is not empty.

[Adytus]

From the Osiris Fraternal Order
And the office of the Sub-Vizier of World Assembly Affairs

---

---

“As Ra makes his way across the heavily sky, and the cycle of the universe continues, the people of Osiris and its prosperity of the Nile, after consulting with the community, and the gods Seshat and Ma’at, have determined to vote in favor of the current resolution. The Pharaoh will vote according to the people, and according to Ma’at. His actions are necessary in maintaining the balance between order and chaos, truth and darkness, and Osiris will follow the Pharaoh’s direction. The government of the Osiris Fraternal Order will consider no proposal without the text meeting the requirements of Ma’at. We will continue to uphold our moral responsibilities to the people, maintaining and voting in favor of any proposals that will forward the truth and honor that is expected of all who call Osiris home. Cosmic harmony is only obtainable through expressing the will of Ma’at, and the will of the Pharaoh. Although we have derived at this decision, the author of the proposal - or any party interested - is welcome to present a case that would enlighten the Pharaoh and the community to the purpose of the proposal, and perhaps change the will of the gods, the Pharaoh, and the community. If this interests you, please visit our kingdom and speak your knowledge here. All information is important, and will be presented to Seshat, the goddess of wisdom, knowledge, and writing to help direct the Pharaoh to make the right decision for the people of fraternal order. If you have any questions about Osiris in the World Assembly, please direct them to the office of the Sub-Vizier of World Assembly Affairs by sending Adytus a telegram. For more general questions regarding Osiris, please direct them to the Pharaoh, Cormactopia II. Thank you fellow ambassadors, and author of the current proposal at vote, for your time. Osiris, her people, and the office of the Sub-Vizier greatly appreciate your time, and patience.

Best Regards,
The Sub-Vizier of World Assembly Affairs, Adytus.”

[Palsada]

I wonder how effective a quarantine is in the case of a disease such as the Zika virus.

Quarantine as much as you want but it won't kill the mosquitos spreading the disease.

Meanwhile precious resources are being put into keeping people in quarantine zones.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

I wonder how effective a quarantine is in the case of a disease such as the Zika virus.

We have voted against ... however ...

Medical Definition of communicable disease. : an infectious disease transmissible (as from person to person) by direct contact with an affected individual or the individual's discharges or by indirect means (as by a vector)

Now Zika is an infectious disease ...

Infectious diseases are disorders caused by organisms — such as bacteria, viruses, fungi or parasites. Many organisms live in and on our bodies. They're normally harmless or even helpful, but under certain conditions, some organisms may cause disease. Some infectious diseases can be passed from person to person.

Since Zika can be transmitted sexually but how long it remains in semen is not well known at this time. This means it would be (at worst) only a temporary quarantine (as opposed to a more permanent quarantine like that for VODAS).

[Palsada]

I wonder how effective a quarantine is in the case of a disease such as the Zika virus.

We have voted against ... however ...

Medical Definition of communicable disease. : an infectious disease transmissible (as from person to person) by direct contact with an affected individual or the individual's discharges or by indirect means (as by a vector)

Now Zika is an infectious disease ...

Infectious diseases are disorders caused by organisms — such as bacteria, viruses, fungi or parasites. Many organisms live in and on our bodies. They're normally harmless or even helpful, but under certain conditions, some organisms may cause disease. Some infectious diseases can be passed from person to person.

Since Zika can be transmitted sexually but how long it remains in semen is not well known at this time. This means it would be (at worst) only a temporary quarantine (as opposed to a more permanent quarantine like that for VODAS).

Even better. Keep people in quarantine zones until science can find out how long they are infectious for?

Far better if this was taken on a case per case basis as opposed to a mandatory reaction to every infectious outbreak.

[Araraukar]

Far better if this was taken on a case per case basis as opposed to a mandatory reaction to every infectious outbreak.

If "case per case" means "per epidemic" then that's exactly what it does; only an epidemic serious enough to "significantly decrease the nation's functioning and/or well-being" will count as epidemic for this resolution. It's right there in 2.a., the first definition given.

[Palsada]

Far better if this was taken on a case per case basis as opposed to a mandatory reaction to every infectious outbreak.

If "case per case" means "per epidemic" then that's exactly what it does; only an epidemic serious enough to "significantly decrease the nation's functioning and/or well-being" will count as epidemic for this resolution. It's right there in 2.a., the first definition given.

So lets say Zika fits the bill.

Even if people going around having sex is infectious, rather than rounding up all of these promiscuous individuals and putting them in quarantine zones, wouldn't the proper response be bringing down the wrath of god himself on mosquitos seeing as how they are be main spreader of the disease?

Of course I'm not saying both can't be done, but pouring significant resources into the former might take resources away from the latter.