NationStates

The Atlae Isles wrote:

The Manticoran Empire wrote:Mr. Williamsen, a quarantine regulation that doesn't cover the disposal of materials involved is like a nuclear disarmament treaty that doesn't cover the disposal of the weapons.

Actually, since quarantines are supposed to keep bacterial material away from the public, the disposal of materials is actually not the primary concern. (Of course, it's a huge problem, which does need to be covered) It could still need a resolution to address it (if you've read page 3 of the forum, Umeria had to cut out a few parts because it had reached the character limit), and it should be fine, because it would not be conflicting with Rights of the Quarantined.

For your comparison, it would probably be more accurate to be concerned about what to do with the nuclear material you have now after dismantling all your thermonuclear weapons. Perhaps you would need a resolution (and a debate) to store it somewhere safe or convert it into nuclear energy. You can't kill two birds with one stone here.

The Atlae Isles wrote:

Death Star America wrote:Your missing part of the point Minister Williamson, true separate legislation could be written on disposal of materials, but grieving families due need to be addressed and the rights of the deceased. Obviously we can't let the two come in contact but it would be cold to just toss them in the incinerator and say "oh well". So I think the rights aspect still needs to be addressed as well as i have stated methods of humanity detaining patients and the use of lethal force in a standoff scenario. The registry issue needs to be addressed as well.

My name is Williamsen. But never mind that. It seems no one that can spell my name right.

I'm confused about what you say here, as there are way too few commas, but I assume what you're saying is that when the outbreak is done killing people, the deceased will not have anywhere to go. That is a valid concern.

Grieving families don't prevent you from introducing a proposal to dispose appropriately of the deceased. But until you do, each WA nation would not have any restrictions to practice whatever burial practice they choose. They could bury them, or they could just lock them up into the incinerator, like you have said. But that's their decision, whether subjectively right or wrong, until you write the resolution. *hint *hint.

Also, in page 3 of the transcript of this debate, you can read that when Rights of the Quarantined was being submitted, it exceeded the character limit. We can't add that cadaver burial clause. Sorry, you have to write your own.

The Manticoran Empire wrote:

The Atlae Isles wrote:
Actually, since quarantines are supposed to keep bacterial material away from the public, the disposal of materials is actually not the primary concern. (Of course, it's a huge problem, which does need to be covered) It could still need a resolution to address it (if you've read page 3 of the forum, Umeria had to cut out a few parts because it had reached the character limit), and it should be fine, because it would not be conflicting with Rights of the Quarantined.

For your comparison, it would probably be more accurate to be concerned about what to do with the nuclear material you have now after dismantling all your thermonuclear weapons. Perhaps you would need a resolution (and a debate) to store it somewhere safe or convert it into nuclear energy. You can't kill two birds with one stone here.

If you can't kill two birds with one stone, then you should probably find a different method with which to kill birds. It is completely possible to include disposal in a quarantine regulation. Leaving such legislation out could result in nations improperly disposing of biohazard materials, thus risking another epidemic.

Death Star America wrote:

The Atlae Isles wrote:
My name is Williamsen. But never mind that. It seems no one that can spell my name right.

I'm confused about what you say here, as there are way too few commas, but I assume what you're saying is that when the outbreak is done killing people, the deceased will not have anywhere to go. That is a valid concern.

Grieving families don't prevent you from introducing a proposal to dispose appropriately of the deceased. But until you do, each WA nation would not have any restrictions to practice whatever burial practice they choose. They could bury them, or they could just lock them up into the incinerator, like you have said. But that's their decision, whether subjectively right or wrong, until you write the resolution. *hint *hint.

Also, in page 3 of the transcript of this debate, you can read that when Rights of the Quarantined was being submitted, it exceeded the character limit. We can't add that cadaver burial clause. Sorry, you have to write your own.

Agreed, on the burial clause i will work on a resolution. However detainment remains an unanswered issue, especially in a standoff scenario where families will violently protect loved ones. The use of lethal force is obviously necessary in such a situation but the manner in which it is deployed is detrimental. Methods that produce more carnage spread infected materials further contaminating residencies, also quarantine protocols need to elaborate on infected family members versus non symptomatic exposed members in a separate quarantine. As I have also said a registry needs to be discussed for infected survivors and exposed persons at risk, how public would a registry be? I will work on a resolution on lethal force, marshal law, quarantine protocols in rural areas vs urban outlining infrastructure and technological obstacles versus methods of infection. I will need endorsements of course.

Bananaistan wrote:OOC: As the proposing nation is a resident in one of the four regions party to the self styled "World Assembly Accord on Campaign Spam", I will be voting against.

The Manticoran Empire wrote:"The Manticoran Empire fails to see how this resolution secures the rights of infected individuals. No where in the resolution does it clearly state what rights apply to the infected. This resolution is, in my opinion, just an extended version of the Quarantine Regulation. For this reason, the Manticoran Empire votes against this resolution."

Moderatainia wrote:

Umeria wrote:
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

Should we not leave the defining of "serious disease" to the EPARC? It would seem that, in addition to the increase in influence this mandate would give the EPARC, to give it such a definition in conjunction with this influx would leave the EPARC's attempts of enforcement open to contention with some of the, shall we say, more contentious member states; to say nothing of the fact that definition, as written, is vague. For example, athletes foot is contagious and can be damaging in cases of diabetes or a weakened immune system; for the most part, however, it is a mild annoyance. However, given the definition that written here, it would seem that the EPARC would be well within their rights, if not obligated, to quarantine a city for a possible janitorial failure at a school gymnasium.

I propose amending this definition to include: "harmful to the point of the risk the disease being terminal in most cases, and contagious to the point that normal preventative measures (as decided by EPARC or member states) cannot decrease the affliction rate by any reasonable measure."


To sum up, I believe that the definition should either be laid out in greater detail, or be left to the EPARC to parse out after the theoretical passage of this resolution.

I thank you for your time.

Death Star America wrote:Also oversight on escalation levels of force used to separate people from their families, i shudder to picture a gestapo scenario.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: ^These,

Araraukar wrote:and because you repealed the one I made you work so hard on, are my reasons for voting against.

Araraukar wrote:Will also support any repeal attempts, unless made by the author.

Umeria wrote:And I happen to like Europe, regardless of this Campaign Spam thing. I still don't see why it should affect my proposal.

Evil Eagle wrote:The funding demanded of this resolution would be better spent on helping nations develop effective facilities withing local hospitals to quarantine the infected so the nation would have permanent pandemic response forever.

Evil Eagle wrote:The need to dismantle quarantine zones after the event would be moot, and wasteful. A new pandemic, or resurgence would only cause money to be spent again.

Evil Eagle wrote:Moving a contaminated person may further increase rate of infection.

Evil Eagle wrote:There are times when quarantine in place would be more appropriate.

Evil Eagle wrote:At any rate helping to fund infection response centers at local hospitals would be the right thing to do. When a person is under hospital care, it is a given what can be expected as regarding rights, treatment and availability of necessities.

Evil Eagle wrote:This resolution is entitled Rights of the Quarantined. It would be appropriate for those rights to be delineated in this resolution. As it stands this clause is a litigation trap.

Evil Eagle wrote:EPARC would be a better service if this funding provided treatment training to local physicians who are less advanced so the nation may be prepared always to deal with their own incidents.

States of Glory WA Office wrote:Neville: Congratulations on this resolution's passage, Ambassador Lockwood.

States of Glory WA Office wrote:Fairburn: We suggest that you attempt a repeal of this resolution in about three days.

Umeria wrote:

States of Glory WA Office wrote:Fairburn: We suggest that you attempt a repeal of this resolution in about three days.

"What? Why?"

Tinhampton wrote:

Umeria wrote:"What? Why?"

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: Ambassador Fairburn might be taking the mick out of the Quarantine Regulation saga, where it was repealed due to the lack of a medical ethics board within the EPARC.

Umeria wrote:

Tinhampton wrote:Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: Ambassador Fairburn might be taking the mick out of the Quarantine Regulation saga, where it was repealed due to the lack of a medical ethics board within the EPARC.

"Well, there's no need for a repeal this time."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Umeria wrote:"Well, there's no need for a repeal this time."

"You didn't really empower the ethics board with the ability to end or alter quarantines that don't comply fully, so there is certainly a deficiency. Certainly, it isn't clear that they have that power."

OOC: But I was way too busy to participate, so I'm not going to make a big deal about it. Congrats.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Umeria wrote:"Well, there's no need for a repeal this time."

"You didn't really empower the ethics board with the ability to end or alter quarantines that don't comply fully, so there is certainly a deficiency. Certainly, it isn't clear that they have that power."

States of Glory WA Office wrote:Neville: An excellent point. Looks like we'll have to repeal this then.

Umeria wrote:Okay, clause 6 uses some vague language, but it's not repeal-worthy.

States of Glory WA Office wrote:Fairburn: The author has carelessly neglected to provide the recipe to an Orange Julius, not to mention this resolution's lack of regulation for bulian hypercurves. This oversight cannot be allowed to stand!

Umeria wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"You didn't really empower the ethics board with the ability to end or alter quarantines that don't comply fully, so there is certainly a deficiency. Certainly, it isn't clear that they have that power."

OOC: But I was way too busy to participate, so I'm not going to make a big deal about it. Congrats.

Okay, clause 6 uses some vague language, but it's not repeal-worthy. Time for me to finally depart from quarantines and start working on... other matters.