[Passed] Rights of the Quarantined

[Atomic Utopia]

Rep. Baryshnikov: Cogoria also takes issue with your definition of epedemic. We believe that the medical definition should be used rather than this monstrosity of wording. A medical term should not be redefined by political flights of fancy.

"The term is not being redefined, it just has a specific meaning for the purposes of this resolution. What exactly is wrong with the definition?"

"Allow me to interject if you will." States the U.S.A.U. ambassador while adjusting his tie. "This resolution is indeed needed, far too often disease well, gets out of hand, and having GA legislation to mandate quarantine would be indeed quite useful, especially when getting the parliament to do something.

Now, what is not useful is how this legislation goes about it. It does not define any quantitative value for significantly reduced well being, instead applying a qualitative value to the matter, a value that can be argued to no end with no absolute correct answer to the matter. To classify only diseases that "significantly decrease the nation's functioning and/or well-being" as epidemics you risk both under and over reaction to the problem.

First and foremost, let's look at the problem with your focus on the term significantly. The meaning of it, as said before, can be argued. Is a 10% reduction in productivity significant? Is a 1% reduction significant? How much is a significant decrease in functioning or well-being? Unless the value is defined it will be left up to the whims of those arguing the case for or against the protocols herein defined being implemented. This also leaves open the possibility of quarantine being imposed when it would be impractical to do so. Take for example a nation with insufficient technological advancement to eliminate common viral infections such as those of the sinuses in humans. These infections could affect a large portion of the population yearly, and thus be impractical to utilize quarantine against those illnesses, despite the fact that they could be argued to significantly alter the well-being of the nation in question. The argument could also be applied to diseases like AIDS, where the communicability is limited to pathways that do not require complete quarantine.

Secondly, this resolution makes no distinction between communicable and noncommunicable diseases. Diseases such as cancer are a problem in many well developed nations, especially in the elderly population, but they cannot be transmitted. So while they could be argued to meet your definition of epidemic, quarantine would do absolutely nothing to stop their existence, only making it harder for those living with such illnesses. So again, your definition fails here.

So I think you need to revise your definition to be more quantitative as well as targeted at diseases where quarantine presents a practical means of stopping the disease, where other means are not as or nearly as effective but without the requisite drops in productivity due to the effective imprisonment of a portion of the population."

[Umeria]

Carlyle puts the book down.

"This resolution is indeed needed, far too often disease well, gets out of hand, and having GA legislation to mandate quarantine would be indeed quite useful, especially when getting the parliament to do something.

"I'm glad you think so."

Now, what is not useful is how this legislation goes about it. It does not define any quantitative value for significantly reduced well being, instead applying a qualitative value to the matter, a value that can be argued to no end with no absolute correct answer to the matter. To classify only diseases that "significantly decrease the nation's functioning and/or well-being" as epidemics you risk both under and over reaction to the problem.

"Is this going where I think it's going?"

First and foremost, let's look at the problem with your focus on the term significantly. The meaning of it, as said before, can be argued.

"So it is. As I've said before:

Significantly? Well, uh, what does significantly mean?

significantly
adverb sig·nif·i·cant·ly \sig-ˈni-fi-kənt-lē\
Simple Definition: in a way that is large or important enough to be noticed or have an effect
—used to say that something is important or meaningful
: in a way that has a special or hidden meaning
Source: Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary

Is a 10% reduction in productivity significant?

"It depends on the epidemic."

Is a 1% reduction significant?

"It depends on the epidemic."

How much is a significant decrease in functioning or well-being?

"It depends on the epidemic."

Unless the value is defined it will be left up to the whims of those arguing the case for or against the protocols herein defined being implemented.

"Just because 'significant' doesn't have any numbers attached, doesn't mean it doesn't have meaning. Listen:

The nations do not get to decide what counts as significant. A nation can't decide that a word means something different from its definition. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask member nations to use common sense.

This also leaves open the possibility of quarantine being imposed when it would be impractical to do so.

"If the epidemic is too minor for a quarantine to be practical, then the epidemic is not significant."

Take for example a nation with insufficient technological advancement to eliminate common viral infections such as those of the sinuses in humans. These infections could affect a large portion of the population yearly, and thus be impractical to utilize quarantine against those illnesses, despite the fact that they could be argued to significantly alter the well-being of the nation in question.

"If people are commonly infected with this sinus disease, then I doubt it causes that much harm. Such a problem will be deemed by the EPARC as not needing a quarantine."

The argument could also be applied to diseases like AIDS, where the communicability is limited to pathways that do not require complete quarantine.

"If it doesn't require a quarantine, then the EPARC will say so. What is the problem?"

Secondly, this resolution makes no distinction between communicable and noncommunicable diseases.

"Yes it does. Read clause 1 of this proposal."

Diseases such as cancer are a problem in many well developed nations, especially in the elderly population, but they cannot be transmitted

"So they won't be declared quarantine-worthy, as per clause 1 of this proposal."

So while they could be argued to meet your definition of epidemic,

"No, they can't. Read clause 1 of this proposal."

quarantine would do absolutely nothing to stop their existence, only making it harder for those living with such illnesses.

"Which is why they won't be defined as quarantine-worthy, due to clause 1 of this proposal."

So again, your definition fails here.

"No it doesn't. Read clause 1 of this proposal."

So I think you need to revise your definition to be more quantitative as well as targeted at diseases where quarantine presents a practical means of stopping the disease, where other means are not as or nearly as effective but without the requisite drops in productivity due to the effective imprisonment of a portion of the population."

"Originally, the definition had a minimum of 10000 infected persons defined as an epidemic. That definition was shot down by this:

if a nation under 10,000 people in it is hit by an epidemic, this proposal wouldn't affect it at all? (OOC: This is why hard limit numbers are a bad idea.)

"We changed it to a 10% infection rate minimum defined as an epidemic. That definition was shot down by this:

So only areas that contain 10% of a nation's population, will be considered? And 50% of them need to be infected before anything gets done? That's 5% of a nation's population, which in some intergalactic nations may be tens of billions or more.

"So, trust me on this: with the vast number of diseases and situations that have to be considered, quantitative definitions don't work.

"Additionally, you seem to think that clause 2(a) of this proposal is defining what diseases are appropriate for a quarantine. I would like to make it absolutely clear: clause 1 defines, through the EPARC, what diseases are quarantine-worthy. Clause 2(a), which you seem to have been so hung up about, merely defines how many people need to be infected with such a disease in order for the problem to be classified as an epidemic."

Carlyle realizes her hands are clenched into fists. She releases them, and takes a deep breath.

"Have I answered all of your questions?"

[Cogoria]

Rep. Baryshnikov: "Or seeing as you insist the dictionary meaning of "significant" is good enough, why not use the correct dictionary and medical definition of an epidemic. Far cleverer medical minds than yours came together to define it in medical journals and textbooks, why not put away your political definition in favour of their factually sound medical one."

[Umeria]

Rep. Baryshnikov: "Or seeing as you insist the dictionary meaning of "significant" is good enough, why not use the correct dictionary and medical definition of an epidemic. Far cleverer medical minds than yours came together to define it in medical journals and textbooks, why not put away your political definition in favour of their factually sound medical one."

Cubbins opens a folder and flips through it. "Medical definition... hmm... are you referring to this:

The occurrence in a community or region of cases of an illness, specific health-related behavior, or other health-related events clearly in excess of normal expectancy; the word is also used to describe outbreaks of disease in animals or plants.

"I believe an outbreak of the common cold would fit this definition. However, such an outbreak would not be quarantine-worthy. So, our political definition is more appropriate for this proposal."

[Cogoria]

Rep. Baryshnikov: " No that is not the one I was referring to, as we in Cogoria don't believe that Wikipedia counts as a medical journal of note, though if you do I now understand why you previously had such troubles grasping the importance of medical ethics.

epidemic [ep″ĭ-dem´ik]
occuring suddenly in numbers clearly in excess of normal expectancy, in contrast to endemic or sporadic. The term is used especially of infectious diseases but is also applied to any disease, injury, or other health-related event occurring in such outbreaks.

There are other definitions in recognised medical literature, however they all fall on these general lines.

[Cogoria]

Rep. Baryshnikov: All that needs to be changed is the definition of epidemic, then mandate that in cases of serious disease related epidemics a quarantine be enforced. This also allows serious and rare diseases to be caught and quarantined early.

[Umeria]

Rep. Baryshnikov: " No that is not the one I was referring to, as we in Cogoria don't believe that Wikipedia counts as a medical journal of note, though if you do I now understand why you previously had such troubles grasping the importance of medical ethics.

OOC: I didn't use Wikipedia, but apparently what I found has the same source. Oh well.

epidemic [ep″ĭ-dem´ik]
occuring suddenly in numbers clearly in excess of normal expectancy, in contrast to endemic or sporadic. The term is used especially of infectious diseases but is also applied to any disease, injury, or other health-related event occurring in such outbreaks.

There are other definitions in recognised medical literature, however they all fall on these general lines.

IC Lockwood: "Ambassador, an outbreak of the common cold would fit this definition as well. We don't want to quarantine the common cold. Besides, you still haven't explained why our political definition is unfit for the purposes of this proposal."

[Cogoria]

The common cold would not be defined as serious by EPARC which is why I suggested wording it as a serious disease related epidemic. The reason your political definition does not work is because if the word significant. With a widely automated and uncaring population it may not be considered to affect the nation in a significant way until 99% are dead, but if a disease is present and spreading outside normal expectancy then that is undisputable. You could even allow EPARC to determine the regular expectancy while they're determining whether a disease is serious or not.

[Umeria]

The common cold would not be defined as serious by EPARC which is why I suggested wording it as a serious disease related epidemic. The reason your political definition does not work is because if the word significant. With a widely automated and uncaring population it may not be considered to affect the nation in a significant way until 99% are dead, but if a disease is present and spreading outside normal expectancy then that is undisputable. You could even allow EPARC to determine the regular expectancy while they're determining whether a disease is serious or not.

"This makes sense, but this medical definition is for the verb form of epidemic. So, instead of fully replacing it, we will change the wording of our current definition to replace the 'significantly' bit with 'clearly in excess of the normal expectancy'. If anyone wishes for us to have the EPARC define the normal expectancy as well, they should do so. I hope this satisfies your concerns."

[Cogoria]

Rep Baryshnikov: It is the best we could hope for I suppose.

[Umeria]

"Does anyone have final comments before we submit this?"

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: What exactly does Clause 6a entail, Ambassador Lockwood?

[Umeria]

Neville: What exactly does Clause 6a entail, Ambassador Lockwood?

"It establishes the issues of importance that may arise in a quarantine. Such issues will be addressed in clause 6(b)."

[Darcness]

"I'm glad to see you working so tirelessly for this resolution, Ambassador Lockwood. This is a subject of grave importance. I have a few suggestions for your consideration, if I may..."

move all infected persons into the appropriate quarantine that is nearest to their current location;

"This clause does not take into account those nations which find various groups of people to be central to their culture and government, rather than geographical divisions. Nations which are made up of Tribes, Houses, Corporations, Castes, and the like will take none too kindly to forcing quarantines based on geographical proximity. In some cases even belief structures may be offended. While I agree that, in the case of an epidemic, celerity and expediency are important, we cannot trample too harshly on the ways of our member nations. Can the last half of this clause, namely 'that is nearest to their current location' be stricken?"

disband any quarantine that ceases to be of use; and

"I can find many a use for an established quarantine area... particularly one financed by the EPARC due to Clause 5. Prison, museum, gladiatorial arena... I could go on. Might I suggest instead that quarantines be disbanded once the epidemic is over, since epidemics are defined as spans of time?"

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

"Do you mean for this financial support to somehow cover all difficulties when maintaining quarantines, or merely financial difficulties?"

[Umeria]

"This clause does not take into account those nations which find various groups of people to be central to their culture and government, rather than geographical divisions. Nations which are made up of Tribes, Houses, Corporations, Castes, and the like will take none too kindly to forcing quarantines based on geographical proximity. In some cases even belief structures may be offended. While I agree that, in the case of an epidemic, celerity and expediency are important, we cannot trample too harshly on the ways of our member nations. Can the last half of this clause, namely 'that is nearest to their current location' be stricken?"

"I think there is a misunderstanding. You can build the quarantines wherever you want. If someone is infected, they must be sent to the nearest one, to ensure efficiency. What is the problem?"

"I can find many a use for an established quarantine area... particularly one financed by the EPARC due to Clause 5. Prison, museum, gladiatorial arena... I could go on. Might I suggest instead that quarantines be disbanded once the epidemic is over, since epidemics are defined as spans of time?"

"Excellent idea."

"Do you mean for this financial support to somehow cover all difficulties when maintaining quarantines, or merely financial difficulties?"

"I doubt any difficulty will arise that isn't inherently financial."

[Umeria]

OOC: Well, I tried to submit this, but this happened:

Please correct the following:
• Proposal text is too long. The maximum is 3,500 characters. You are over the limit by 38 characters.

Any shortening ideas?

[Wallenburg]

OOC: Well, I tried to submit this, but this happened:

Please correct the following:
• Proposal text is too long. The maximum is 3,500 characters. You are over the limit by 38 characters.

Any shortening ideas?

Your preamble is quite long. I think you can go without one of those eight different clauses. Heck, if you're over the limit, you should seriously consider putting a fine-toothed comb to the entire thing, and cutting out redundancies.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The preamble is exceptionally long, that is for sure. Something much more succinct which lays out the case for the resolution quickly and clearly would be preferable.

[Tinhampton]

This proposal has been submitted.

[Umeria]

This proposal has been submitted.

But there is still time for last-minute objections.

[Umeria]

This proposal has reached quorum. Thanks again to Imperium Anglorum for his campaign help and to all the delegates that approved the proposal.

[Bananaistan]

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.

[Umeria]

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.

So, you're voting against because I happen to be in a region that follows an agreement I've never heard of. What is this "World Assembly Accord on Campaign Spam" and how does it apply to my proposal?

[Bananaistan]

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.

So, you're voting against because I happen to be in a region that follows an agreement I've never heard of. What is this "World Assembly Accord on Campaign Spam" and how does it apply to my proposal?

The accord was posted in gameplay after some controversy had arisen here in the GA: linky.

It doesn't apply to your proposal at all.

Unfortunately, I don't see that I have any other method of protest against it other than blanket opposition to (and encouraging others to also oppose) all proposals by residents of the four regions concerned.

[Wallenburg]

This resolution is now at vote.

Wallenburg will vote against this resolution. None of our concerns with "Quarantine Regulation" have been adequately addressed.