[Passed] Quarantine Regulation

[WA Kitty Kops]

OOC: Ara, you've gotta stop conflating quarantines with concentration camps. The two are totally different.

OOC: Well, technically, if you round up a bunch of people into a confined area or facility to keep them separate, I don't know how it's not a concentration camp. Literally. Don't think Nazi Germany, think of the words.

EDIT: Damnit, wrong account. Anyway, I'm off to bed, I'll have another poke at this later, but to author: If you had anything in the proposal language that suggested that if the disease could be rendered non-infectious in any given individual due to medication that that individual would then be allowed to leave the quarantine, then I might buy into your ideas. As it doesn't, you're really confining anyone with an incurable disease like HIV into the quarantine for the rest of their lives. And nothing in the proposal language suggests that they should be allowed to go to school or work or anything like that, since you refuse to define quarantines.

[Umeria]

OOC: Ara, you've gotta stop conflating quarantines with concentration camps. The two are totally different.

OOC: Well, technically, if you round up a bunch of people into a confined area or facility to keep them separate, I don't know how it's not a concentration camp. Literally. Don't think Nazi Germany, think of the words.

It's not a camp, though. It will probably already be in an urbanized area. I don't see how you could have a camp in the middle of a city.

[WA Kitty Kops]

It's not a camp, though. It will probably already be in an urbanized area. I don't see how you could have a camp in the middle of a city.

OOC: Camp, ghetto (I know SP will yell at me for using that word too), prison, quarantine... undefined, any word will do, as long as it's a place where people are rounded up and not allowed to leave.

Also, see my addition to the first WAKK post on this page.

[Umeria]

It's not a camp, though. It will probably already be in an urbanized area. I don't see how you could have a camp in the middle of a city.

OOC: Camp, ghetto (I know SP will yell at me for using that word too), prison, quarantine... undefined, any word will do, as long as it's a place where people are rounded up and not allowed to leave.

Also, see my addition to the first WAKK post on this page.

Most of the people in the quarantine will likely have been living there anyway, so there isn't much "rounding up".

If you had anything in the proposal language that suggested that if the disease could be rendered non-infectious in any given individual due to medication that that individual would then be allowed to leave the quarantine, then I might buy into your ideas. As it doesn't, you're really confining anyone with an incurable disease like HIV into the quarantine for the rest of their lives.

If a disease is rendered non-infectious in an individual, the disease is not contagious anymore, which means that person stops being an infected individual because they are not "afflicted with a contagious disease" anymore. Non-infected individuals are free to go.

And nothing in the proposal language suggests that they should be allowed to go to school or work or anything like that,

It doesn't say they shouldn't be allowed to go to school; it just says they can't go outside of the quarantine. Infected students would still have some sort of education service due to GAR#80. As for work, you don't really need to make money if all your living needs are being taken care of, and it's hard to work when you're sick. I suppose there are rare instances where everyone in the workplace gets the disease, the quarantine encompasses both their homes and the workplace, and the disease hasn't advanced far enough to impair your work, but in most cases going to work is unnecessary or impossible under the circumstances. In large-scale epidemics, it's hard to get around that.

since you refuse to define quarantines.

Okay, what? Read 1(c) and get back to me.

[Jarish Inyo]

Actually, infected students wouldn't necessarily receive education of any kind while in quarantine under GAR#80. Nothing in it would force educators into a quarantine zone. Also, a person would still have to earn a living while quarantine, One may have a family that depends on that individual's income to live.

[Umeria]

Actually, infected students wouldn't necessarily receive education of any kind while in quarantine under GAR#80. Nothing in it would force educators into a quarantine zone.

If a child is deprived of education then it would be "unnecessary harm". GAR#80 applies because the GIBE would be responsible for ensuring the educators safety.

Also, a person would still have to earn a living while quarantine, One may have a family that depends on that individual's income to live.

Good point. I edited clause 4 to include that.

[Jarish Inyo]

Actually, GIBE wouldn't be responsible for ensuring the educators safety. GIBE has no such mandate to do so. GIBE oversees the creation, accuracy and continuance of a registrar that lists all member nations that are currently deemed to be genuinely unable to economically support the requirements of basic edification based on this document. Nothing more.

Deprived a child of education is not an unnecessary harm.

[Umeria]

Actually, GIBE wouldn't be responsible for ensuring the educators safety. GIBE has no such mandate to do so. GIBE oversees the creation, accuracy and continuance of a registrar that lists all member nations that are currently deemed to be genuinely unable to economically support the requirements of basic edification based on this document. Nothing more.

Deprived a child of education is not an unnecessary harm.

Okay never mind the GIBE thing; the proposal assures they aren't infected anyway.

Depriving the child of education is harmful to the child and it did not have to be done. There are many disease cases where a child is too sick to learn, but there are also times where they can easily go to school despite their disease. Should I put something in the proposal about this to clear things up?

[Jarish Inyo]

Actually, depriving a child of an education is not harmful to a child. It just what people say when they think children need to go to school. There have been many who was deprived of an education and still became great historical figures.

A child in quarantine would not be able to attend school. The point of a quarantine is to keep the 'infected' away from the 'healthy' so the infection can not be spread. So how do you propose to ensure that 'infected' children get an education without breaking quarantine it forcing people to enter a quarantine zone against their will?

[Tinfect]

a. an "infected individual" as any person afflicted with a contagious disease that has significantly harmful long-term effects;

"That is quite a weak definition. Would you have Member States quarantine those carrying sexually transmitted diseases, simply due to said diseases being easily communicable, and, in many cases, having harmful long-term effects for its carriers?"

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

"This is quite a weak definition as well. While likely irrelevant due to the assumption that states will reasonably deal with epidemics without international requirement, perhaps usage of language better suited to an area, rather than the entirety of a Nation."

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;

"Perhaps, rather than a 'description', which may very well amount to 'if they look infected', require that symptoms be reported?"

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;

"That is quite an arbitrary number, and one that is potentially dangerous in those states with insufficient infrastructure to easily establish a quarantine, or identify infected individuals.

The Imperium is unable to provide an official position on this draft. While we applaud its goal, we see little reason it need exist, as States experiencing an epidemic of such that would necessitate a quarantine rarely require international law to be convinced to establish such. Further, its current state is somewhat less than we would find acceptable, though this may change in further drafts."

[Umeria]

Actually, depriving a child of an education is not harmful to a child. It just what people say when they think children need to go to school. There have been many who was deprived of an education and still became great historical figures.

If not going to school wasn't harmful, no one would go to school.

A child in quarantine would not be able to attend school. The point of a quarantine is to keep the 'infected' away from the 'healthy' so the infection can not be spread.

In some cases everyone in the school is infected.

So how do you propose to ensure that 'infected' children get an education without breaking quarantine it forcing people to enter a quarantine zone against their will?

There are many different ways; online courses, private tutors, whatever fits the situation.

"That is quite a weak definition. Would you have Member States quarantine those carrying sexually transmitted diseases, simply due to said diseases being easily communicable, and, in many cases, having harmful long-term effects for its carriers?"

No, because I don't think a sexually transmitted disease can spread fast enough to double the infection rate of an infected area in just 30 days.

"This is quite a weak definition as well. While likely irrelevant due to the assumption that states will reasonably deal with epidemics without international requirement, perhaps usage of language better suited to an area, rather than the entirety of a Nation."

It says "in a member nation". I think it's implied that something inside a nation does not encompass the entire nation. Is there any way to word it better?

"Perhaps, rather than a 'description', which may very well amount to 'if they look infected', require that symptoms be reported?"

Okay, I'll try "include any possible symptoms of infected individuals not in a quarantine".

"That is quite an arbitrary number

2) REQUIRES that all member nations report any outbreak to the World Health Authority EPARC if the incidence rate of a disease in any localized area reaches a level of more than twice that of the same calendar month in the previous year;

If it was good enough for ERA, it's good enough for me.

potentially dangerous in those states with insufficient infrastructure to easily establish a quarantine, or identify infected individuals.

The EPARC will assist those states due to clause 4.

we see little reason it need exist, as States experiencing an epidemic of such that would necessitate a quarantine rarely require international law to be convinced to establish such.

This is not the Quarantine Act, this is the Quarantine Standards Act. The proposal makes sure quarantines are not concentration camps or places where the government leaves all the infected individuals to rot. The Quarantine Standards Act will make quarantines a healthy, humane way to combat epidemics. It definitely needs to exist.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Actually, depriving a child of an education is not harmful to a child. It just what people say when they think children need to go to school. There have been many who was deprived of an education and still became great historical figures.

If not going to school wasn't harmful, no one would go to school.

Harm ≠ lack of benefit. The reason people go to school is because the cost of going to school is massively outweighed by the benefits from going to school. You can see this from the differences in income between graduate school graduates, university graduates, high school graduates, and non-high school graduates. Education is a massive variable in income variability and the reason why people undertake education is to earn more money. I would say there is an action-inaction distinction, so you can't have harms from this.

[Oceanias Elena Inge Dreyden]

Very good for a first proposal. You have our support.

[Umeria]

If not going to school wasn't harmful, no one would go to school.

Harm ≠ lack of benefit. The reason people go to school is because the cost of going to school is massively outweighed by the benefits from going to school. You can see this from the differences in income between graduate school graduates, university graduates, high school graduates, and non-high school graduates. Education is a massive variable in income variability and the reason why people undertake education is to earn more money. I would say there is an action-inaction distinction, so you can't have harms from this.

I put a definition in clause 1 to clear this up.

[Kaboomlandia]

What if the nation who needs to impose the quarantine doesn't have access to drugs? For example, if Ebola hits a nation that doesn't have the proper drugs to combat the disease, the nation really isn't left with any other option but to round them all up and isolate them until they all die.

[Imperium Anglorum]

What if the nation who needs to impose the quarantine doesn't have access to drugs? For example, if Ebola hits a nation that doesn't have the proper drugs to combat the disease, the nation really isn't left with any other option but to round them all up and isolate them until they all die.

Classic medical treatment. You'll get the medications tomorrow. You'll get the medications tomorrow...

[Umeria]

What if the nation who needs to impose the quarantine doesn't have access to drugs? For example, if Ebola hits a nation that doesn't have the proper drugs to combat the disease, the nation really isn't left with any other option but to round them all up and isolate them until they all die.

Classic medical treatment. You'll get the medications tomorrow. You'll get the medications tomorrow...

The EPARC will give them the drugs due to clause 4.

[Araraukar]

Classic medical treatment. You'll get the medications tomorrow. You'll get the medications tomorrow...

The EPARC will give them the drugs due to clause 4.

How the fuck do you get that idea from this?

4) MANDATES that the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center give financial aid to people dependent on an income of an infected individual rendered unable to work because of his/her containment in a quarantine as well as assist nations that have difficulty providing treatment and/or maintaining quarantines.

OOC: If you're claiming that EPARC has a panacea to dish out freely, that's 1) pure godmodding and 2) negates the whole purpose of this proposal entirely - no need for quarantine if everything can be easily cured.

[Separatist Peoples]

The EPARC will give them the drugs due to clause 4.

How the fuck do you get that idea from this?

4) MANDATES that the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center give financial aid to people dependent on an income of an infected individual rendered unable to work because of his/her containment in a quarantine as well as assist nations that have difficulty providing treatment and/or maintaining quarantines.

OOC: If you're claiming that EPARC has a panacea to dish out freely, that's 1) pure godmodding and 2) negates the whole purpose of this proposal entirely - no need for quarantine if everything can be easily cured.

"Underlined the relevant portion for you."

[Araraukar]

"Underlined the relevant portion for you."

OOC: Which is why I added this:

OOC: If you're claiming that EPARC has a panacea to dish out freely, that's 1) pure godmodding and 2) negates the whole purpose of this proposal entirely - no need for quarantine if everything can be easily cured.

Still OOC, EDIT: In case people don't know what panacea means, it's basically a "cure-all", something that cures everything. But if EPARC could hand out cures to any disease imaginable, we wouldn't need EPARC or this proposal or anything else to do with healthcare.

[Umeria]

"Underlined the relevant portion for you."

OOC: Which is why I added this:

OOC: If you're claiming that EPARC has a panacea to dish out freely, that's 1) pure godmodding and 2) negates the whole purpose of this proposal entirely - no need for quarantine if everything can be easily cured.

Still OOC, EDIT: In case people don't know what panacea means, it's basically a "cure-all", something that cures everything. But if EPARC could hand out cures to any disease imaginable, we wouldn't need EPARC or this proposal or anything else to do with healthcare.

OOC: Clause 4 doesn't say the EPARC needs to provide treatments to nations that can't, it says they have to assist nations that don't have the resources to provide the treatments themselves. If there is no treatment for a disease, the EPARC doesn't have to supply it. They only have to supply it when there is a known treatment for the disease. It's not "godmodding" if it already exists.

[Araraukar]

OOC post.

Clause 4 doesn't say the EPARC needs to provide treatments to nations that can't, it says they have to assist nations that don't have the resources to provide the treatments themselves. If there is no treatment for a disease, the EPARC doesn't have to supply it. They only have to supply it when there is a known treatment for the disease. It's not "godmodding" if it already exists.

Going to assume that was OOC as it addresses godmodding. Please mark your out-of-character posts - or parts of posts - as OOC in the future.

You literally present the godmod argument here:

What if the nation who needs to impose the quarantine doesn't have access to drugs? For example, if Ebola hits a nation that doesn't have the proper drugs to combat the disease, the nation really isn't left with any other option but to round them all up and isolate them until they all die.

The EPARC will give them the drugs due to clause 4.

Left IA's joke reply out of this, but I read Kaboom's reply as saying "what if the nation does not have the cure?" since Ebola was used as a reference. We don't currently even have a vaccine for it, not to mention a cure. Yet you claim that the EPARC will give them the drugs that don't exist for the nation in question.

It pretty much comes down to tech levels - I'm sure that one of the far-future tech level nations has cures for everything (or at least will claim to have), so if the EPARC has access to those and can freely give them to nations that don't, you're not only making your proposal redundant (since if everything has a cure freely available, you'll never have to quarantine anyone), but also eliminating the fun of having different tech levels for nations. Not everyone wants to have all possible tech handed to them; most modern-tech (pretty much where we are in the real world) nations roleplay as MT nations because they want to. Similarly future-tech nations RP as FT because they want to. And you also have past tech and alt tech and magical and whatnot nations, all of whom - I'm fairly sure anyway - would not be happy with a WA committee suddenly leveling the playing field, eliminating the tech differences.

Too long, didn't read: a WA committee handing out cures for everything probably counts as forced roleplay.

If that was not your intended message, please clarify your stance.

[Umeria]

Going to assume that was OOC as it addresses godmodding. Please mark your out-of-character posts - or parts of posts - as OOC in the future.

OOC: Okay.

Left IA's joke reply out of this, but I read Kaboom's reply as saying "what if the nation does not have the cure?" since Ebola was used as a reference. We don't currently even have a vaccine for it, not to mention a cure. Yet you claim that the EPARC will give them the drugs that don't exist for the nation in question.

Oh, I read it as "what if the nation does not have access to the cure?" If the drugs exist but the nation can't buy them or something, the EPARC needs to supply that nation. If there is no treatment, sometimes the best option is indeed to put all infected individuals in quarantines and keep them there for the rest of their short lives.

It pretty much comes down to tech levels - I'm sure that one of the far-future tech level nations has cures for everything (or at least will claim to have), so if the EPARC has access to those and can freely give them to nations that don't, you're not only making your proposal redundant (since if everything has a cure freely available, you'll never have to quarantine anyone), but also eliminating the fun of having different tech levels for nations. Not everyone wants to have all possible tech handed to them; most modern-tech (pretty much where we are in the real world) nations roleplay as MT nations because they want to. Similarly future-tech nations RP as FT because they want to. And you also have past tech and alt tech and magical and whatnot nations, all of whom - I'm fairly sure anyway - would not be happy with a WA committee suddenly leveling the playing field, eliminating the tech differences.

Too long, didn't read: a WA committee handing out cures for everything probably counts as forced roleplay.

If that was not your intended message, please clarify your stance.

Okay.

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.

[Araraukar]

If the drugs exist but the nation can't buy them or something, the EPARC needs to supply that nation.

OOC: I think you mean "if the drugs exist in the RP reality for that nation", given your clarification below.

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.

[Umeria]

If the drugs exist but the nation can't buy them or something, the EPARC needs to supply that nation.

OOC: I think you mean "if the drugs exist in the RP reality for that nation", given your clarification below.

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.

I think the edits I just made fix these problems. I hope I haven't created another loophole or something.