[PASSED] Disease Naming Compact

[Kyrgwalaey]

Though the nation of Kyrgwalaey feels no motivation to vote on this resolution, the improper capitalization and sentence structures as it is being passed now establish a bad example of what can and cannot be placed in law. It is for this reason that I-, No-, Kyrgwalaey is compelled to come in opposition.

-Asmofad Tajari III

-The Great and Beautiful Nation of Kyrgwalaey.

[Zoygaria]

The Commonwealth of Zoygaria believes that this disease naming compact will easily allow scientists of foreign nations and even continents to collaborate and work towards curing diseases if they have a common name. Say that Nation A's scientists are working with Nation B's scientists. Nation A calls the disease 'Typho' and Nation B calls it 'Bovari.' This creates a problem, as neither side knows if they are even working against the same disease, especially if they cannot speak each other's language.

[Outer Sparta]

We have voted against believing that diseases would already have an official scientific name and having different names would make it quite confusing.

[Waffia]

Waffia has voted against.

Without a common language for all member nations, the assigned names must still be translated. The proposal does not explain how this translation should work, so nations are free to choose any name they like. This renders the proposal useless.

[Grubville]

We have voted against believing that diseases would already have an official scientific name and having different names would make it quite confusing.

Grubville urges you to reconsider your position.

Diseases are not discovered in an already named state, the name is assigned to them by the discovering party. In the instance that a disease is discovered in more than one location at roughly the same time there is a good chance that the same disease will be known by more than one name which can lead to lead to confusion.

This legislation encourages member nations to share scientific data and agree upon a single identifying name for a disease such that a global effort to combat said disease is simplified.

[Outer Sparta]

We have voted against believing that diseases would already have an official scientific name and having different names would make it quite confusing.

Grubville urges you to reconsider your position.

Diseases are not discovered in an already named state, the name is assigned to them by the discovering party. In the instance that a disease is discovered in more than one location at roughly the same time there is a good chance that the same disease will be known by more than one name which can lead to lead to confusion.

This legislation encourages member nations to share scientific data and agree upon a single identifying name for a disease such that a global effort to combat said disease is simplified.

There are also concerns as others have raised that translating the names have no procedure.

[A mean old man]

As long as they're compact I don't care what we name them. We can't be having these names be too long, though. Confuses people.

[Grubville]

Grubville urges you to reconsider your position.

Diseases are not discovered in an already named state, the name is assigned to them by the discovering party. In the instance that a disease is discovered in more than one location at roughly the same time there is a good chance that the same disease will be known by more than one name which can lead to lead to confusion.

This legislation encourages member nations to share scientific data and agree upon a single identifying name for a disease such that a global effort to combat said disease is simplified.

There are also concerns as others have raised that translating the names have no procedure.

These concerns have no basis in fact. Translation of disease names is no different than translation of anything else. If a little translation is not understandable then an adjustment is made, just as with other methods of translation.

[Outer Sparta]

There are also concerns as others have raised that translating the names have no procedure.

These concerns have no basis in fact. Translation of disease names is no different than translation of anything else. If a little translation is not understandable then an adjustment is made, just as with other methods of translation.

How would those adjustments be made? Unless those concerns are addressed, we are steadfast in voting against.

[SuSouth Socialist Union]

It is necessary to have a convenient and clear naming.But there's a small problem,Medical names are too complicated and obscure.The name is too academic to introduce the disease to the public.For instance,what is COVID-19？it means Corona Virus Disease 2019.OH！ But,what is it？Corona is a Virus .So?The public can't know more about the disease from this name.The name of the disease should reflect its harmfulness.A disease needs to have both a biological taxonomic name and a popular name.WHO named it COVID-19 in English and China named it 新冠肺炎 . 新冠肺炎 means novel coronavirus pneumonia.We can know the symptoms and causes of this disease from this name.Ebola hemorrhagic fever also can know the symptoms and causes but using regions to name can have a discriminatory effect.We should have a unique medical name and a popular name at the same time.
We should specify a unique medical name and a popular name at the same time, and should not involve regions, races or countries. But animals can do it because they can help us understand the vector and range of the virus.Spanish flu is not good, especially when it comes from the United States.We can name it 1918 Human Flu and H1N1 1918.

[Balaslandia]

The proposal is not needed, I mean I could vote for I do see the reason for it. I vote FOR

[Kelssek]

This is a basically nonsensical, micro-managing proposal and it's regrettable that many delegations seem to be taking a knee-jerk stance in favour basically to be seen to be doing something. This is a problem that is largely imaginary and that is best left to the scientific and medical community, who have the expertise to make and use their own naming protocols where necessary.

One specific objection is with paragraph c., which regulates the name that can be used in official communications. We regard this as counterproductive. Governments must communicate to the public in the way that is most easily understandable to all citizens. If this means using a common name for an illness rather than scientific jargon, then the simpler approach is far more effective. If using the name "duck flu" is judged to be easier to get a public health message across than "Anatidae-derived H8N3", then authorities ought to be able to use what is the appropriate message for the appropriate audience.

Gérard Poullet
Ambassador to the WA

[Tinhampton]

...One specific objection is with paragraph c., which regulates the name that can be used in official communications. We regard this as counterproductive. Governments must communicate to the public in the way that is most easily understandable to all citizens. If this means using a common name for an illness rather than scientific jargon, then the simpler approach is far more effective. If using the name "duck flu" is judged to be easier to get a public health message across than "Anatidae-derived H8N3", then authorities ought to be able to use what is the appropriate message for the appropriate audience.

Gérard Poullet
Ambassador to the WA

Smith: Member states are not forbidden from using names not publicised by ABCD, only that they must also use names so publicised. If one of them wishes to pump out a pamphlet speaking of "anatidae-derived H-8-N-3, popularly known as the duck flu," then they can. Note that I did not say "only ABCD-publicised names" in Article c.

[Kenmoria]

These concerns have no basis in fact. Translation of disease names is no different than translation of anything else. If a little translation is not understandable then an adjustment is made, just as with other methods of translation.

How would those adjustments be made? Unless those concerns are addressed, we are steadfast in voting against.

(OOC: Presumably, translation of a standardised name would fall under good-faith compliance.)

[Grubville]

How would those adjustments be made? Unless those concerns are addressed, we are steadfast in voting against.

(OOC: Presumably, translation of a standardised name would fall under good-faith compliance.)

Thank you, I was struggling to find the words to express this.

[Kelssek]

Smith: Member states are not forbidden from using names not publicised by ABCD, only that they must also use names so publicised. If one of them wishes to pump out a pamphlet speaking of "anatidae-derived H-8-N-3, popularly known as the duck flu," then they can. Note that I did not say "only ABCD-publicised names" in Article c.

What is the necessity of imposing this kind of micro-managing directive? Public health authorities are in the best place to judge what wording and language best serves their needs. And indeed, since such communication is directed at the general public, it's really ancillary to the alleged problem. And does the same not apply to the medical and academic communities? What is the problem that needs to be legislated?

Dismayed that there is no international consensus on the naming of novel communicable diseases, in particular those which could cross borders, and thus no single reference point for them; so imperiling the safety of those infected and the sanity of doctors who have to slug through pages of bureaucracy simply to find out what is to be treated

While presented as fact, this is an unproven assertion. This appears to be inventing a problem to be solved. How often has the same disease been believed to be two different things solely because it has two or more different names? If "bureaucracy" is the problem, why is the solution to add a WA bureaucracy on top of what the medical and scientific communities are well-equipped to do by themselves?

If you replace the word "bureaucracy" with "research papers", it becomes very clear that any such problem has nothing to do with naming, but rather it was due to something that was not known but found out. And through a process that we usually call "literature review" or more broadly, "medical research". Creating a disease naming bureau does nothing to solve this.

Gérard Poullet
Ambassador to the WA

[Terttia]

Disease Naming Compact was passed 8,493 votes to 7,204.

Congratulations, Tin.

[Goddess Relief Office]

Oh dear, EPARC has burgeoned into a gigantic bureaucracy.

[Tinhampton]

Disease Naming Compact was passed 8,493 votes to 7,204.

Congratulations, Tin.

Thank you - yes, all of you, even the ones who voted against. I still can't believe this passed after the earlier votes came in... but I'm satisfied nonetheless

How would those adjustments be made? Unless those concerns are addressed, we are steadfast in voting against.

(OOC: Presumably, translation of a standardised name would fall under good-faith compliance.)

BINGO! That's why such a requirement was not added onto (this iteration of the) Disease Naming Compact.

Oh dear, EPARC has burgeoned into a gigantic bureaucracy.

Gigantic? Absolutely not, GRO! The Compliance Commission has spawned about three subcommittees in three-and-a-half years; your brainchild's spawned fewer despite being around for more than a decade