[SUBMITTED] General Vaccination Act

[Societatis Frigidus]

THIRD DRAFT
The World Assembly

RECOGNIZING that the Epidemic Response Act (World Assembly Resolution #53) has established rudimentary structures to provide for basic support in the event of an epidemic,
FURTHER RECOGNIZING that the World Health Assembly (World Assembly Resolution #31) has encouraged nations to research and apply methods to prevent disease,

GRAVELY CONCERNED that the currently employed measures, especially the failure of national governments to implement mandatory vaccination programs, put the lives of the innocent (citizens who cannot be vaccinated due to medical reasons) at risk,

FURTHER NOTING that the immunosuppressed are dependent on herd immunity and may otherwise die from contagious disease that is considered harmless to immunocompetent individuals,
OUTRAGED that this blatant disregard for the basic human right to life has been condoned for too long and is in direct contradiction to the spirit of these esteemed halls,

NOTING that while vaccinations will always bear some risks, an evidence-based analysis of benefit and risk in will allow a rational recommendations to be made,
FURTHER NOTING that vaccinations are a cost-effective method to prevent disease and often pose the most efficient method in containing an acute spread of contagions,

CONFIDENT that these new measures will increase social equality, while at the same time providing nations with an economical and efficient method of disease prevention,

HEREBY

• EXTENDS THE MANDATE of the World Health Authority (WHA) to allow the assignment of mandatory vaccination programs according to the recommendations set by the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center (EPARC) after evidence-based analysis of risks and benefit.
  CLARIFIES that the EPARC will denote special patients groups (e.g. pregnant, immunosuppressed individuals) that are exempt from the mandatory vaccination programs based on individual risk analysis.
• EXTENDS THE MANDATE of the World Health Authority (WHA) to provide logistics and financial support to nations who are incapable of ratifying the vaccination programs outlined in this resolution.
  
• REQUIRES nations to ratify the vaccination recommendations of the EPARC.

SECOND DRAFT
The World Assembly

RECOGNIZING that the Epidemic Response Act (World Assembly Resolution #53) has established rudimentary structures to provide for basic support in the event of an epidemic,

DISTRAUGHT that some nations refuse to implement mandatory vaccination programs due to unfounded fears or scientific illiteracy,

GRAVELY CONCERNED that the refusal to vaccinate the general populace will endanger the lives of patients who, due to medical reasons, cannot be vaccinated, thus causing inequality and threatening international order,
FURTHER NOTING that the immunosuppressed are dependent on herd immunity and may otherwise die from contagious disease that may otherwise be considered harmless,
OUTRAGED that this blatant disregard for the basic human right to life has been condoned for too long and is in direct contradiction to the spirit of these esteemed halls,

NOTING that while vaccinations will always bear some risks, an evidence-based analysis of benefit and risk in will allow a rational recommendations to be made,

HEREBY

• EXTENDS THE MANDATE of the World Health Authority (WHA) to allow the assignment of mandatory vaccination programs according to the recommendations set by the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center (EPARC) after evidence-based analysis of risks and benefit.
  CLARIFIES that the EPARC will denote special patients groups (e.g. pregnant, immunosuppressed individuals) that are exempt from the mandatory vaccination programs based on individual risk analysis.
• REQUIRES nations to ratify the vaccination recommendations of the EPARC.
• EXTENDS THE MANDATE of the World Health Authority (WHA) to provide logistics and financial support to nations who are incapable of ratifying the vaccination programs outlined in this resolution.

The World Assembly

RECOGNIZING that the Epidemic Response Act (World Assembly Resolution #53) has established rudimentary structures to provide for basic support in the event of an epidemic,

DISTRAUGHT that some nations refuse to implement mandatory vaccination programs due to unfounded fears or scientific illiteracy,

APPALLED that the refusal to vaccinate the general populace will endanger the lives patients who, due to medical reasons, cannot be vaccinated, thus causing inequality and threatening international order,

NOTING that while vaccinations will always bear some risks, an evidence-based analysis of benefit and risk in will allow a rational recommendations to be made,

HEREBY
EXTENDS THE MANDATEof the World Health Authority (WHA) to allow the assignment of mandatory vaccination programs according to the recommendations set by the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center (EPARC) after evidence-based analysis of risks and benefit.
CLARIFIES that the EPARC will denote special patients groups (e.g. pregnant, immunosuppressed individuals) that are exempt from the mandatory vaccination programs based on individual risk analysis.
EXTENDS THE MANDATE of the World Health Authority (WHA) to provide logistics and financial support to nations who are incapable of ratifying the vaccination programs outlined in this resolution.

Open for debate.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Legally, I think you have a 'committee only' problem. You need to include something irrespective of the committees, even if it's only a mild Urging. Equally, the facile revisionist interpretation of the House of Cards, serving no purpose whatsoever except to provide additional means to penalise players, is likely to trip you up, so you should - and I have to bite down to suppress the bile at saying this - probably remove the reference from the first line.

IC:

"Technically, this is a reasonable expansion of the EPARC mandate as suggested by Article 7 of the Epidemic Response Act. However, this does imply a certain moral code that I am not sure the WA is in a position to endorse. There are anarchies and minarchies that are part of the WA membership, and requiring compulsory vaccination would be one of the rare examples of the WA requiring restrictions of individual freedom; it would also be by far the biggest in terms of total effect."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Separatist Peoples]

"I have to agree with Ambassador Fungschlammer. Its an interesting moral code to enforce. It strikes me that any epidemic caused by a lack of mandatory vaccines wouldn't affect those states where vaccines are mandatory, creating, essentially, a national problem. Or, in the rare case that it spreads from one relative anarchy to another, something the ERA would be capable of handling. The argument for personal choice is as good as the argument for public health considerations.

"If you could find a way around the committee-only violation, you have some potential here, but its a delicate line to walk. I'm anxious to see this develop."

[Societatis Frigidus]

Esteemed delegates,

indeed, I too have pondered as to whether or not this proposition would exceed the popular support necessary for its passage. However, I find this proposal to be very important, nay crucial to ensure the right to life of those who can't be vaccinated due to any number of reasons including, but not limited to:

- pregnancy
- immunosuppression
- governmental restrictions

If it is not in the spirit of the World Assembly to protect the innocent, then in what spirit does this organization even work?

OOC: Hmm, I thought the fact that vaccinations are now mandatory would circumvent the committee-only problem. I currently see two very weak points in this draft:
1.) As you pointed out, the legality of mandating mandatory vaccinations via the World Health Agency - do you have any idea how to get by this? Should I add a clause that says "MANDATES that the general populace may be vaccinated against their will" or something?
2.) I see that the argument for herd immunity isn't really that well-formulated - this should be the driving point that hammers this resolution home..
Any ideas?

[Societatis Frigidus]

Added a new draft. Is this better?

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Hmm, I thought the fact that vaccinations are now mandatory would circumvent the committee-only problem. I currently see two very weak points in this draft:
1.) As you pointed out, the legality of mandating mandatory vaccinations via the World Health Agency - do you have any idea how to get by this? Should I add a clause that says "MANDATES that the general populace may be vaccinated against their will" or something?

OOC: Not really, no, because it's still dependent on the committee. Something like (this isn't a suggested wording, just a ball-park): "requires all nations to implement vaccination programs".

Will reply IC on the substance shortly.

[Societatis Frigidus]

OOC: Hmm, I thought the fact that vaccinations are now mandatory would circumvent the committee-only problem. I currently see two very weak points in this draft:
1.) As you pointed out, the legality of mandating mandatory vaccinations via the World Health Agency - do you have any idea how to get by this? Should I add a clause that says "MANDATES that the general populace may be vaccinated against their will" or something?

OOC: Not really, no, because it's still dependent on the committee. Something like (this isn't a suggested wording, just a ball-park): "requires all nations to implement vaccination programs".

Will reply IC on the substance shortly.

OOC: I had added that clause in the second draft.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Esteemed delegates,

indeed, I too have pondered as to whether or not this proposition would exceed the popular support necessary for its passage. However, I find this proposal to be very important, nay crucial to ensure the right to life of those who can't be vaccinated due to any number of reasons including, but not limited to:

- pregnancy
- immunosuppression
- governmental restrictions

If it is not in the spirit of the World Assembly to protect the innocent, then in what spirit does this organization even work?

"I understand the argument, absolutely, from an international health perspective; and The Dark Star Republic has never been greatly enamoured of libertarian political philosophy. But you undoubtedly will encounter a lot of Randroid bleating - and some more considered response, too - about the limits of personal freedom.

"So I think your preamble needs to develop more why the restriction of personal freedom associated with compulsory vaccination is justified in terms of the risk of falling below the threshold for herd immunity."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Societatis Frigidus]

"I understand the argument, absolutely, from an international health perspective; and The Dark Star Republic has never been greatly enamoured of libertarian political philosophy. But you undoubtedly will encounter a lot of Randroid bleating - and some more considered response, too - about the limits of personal freedom.

"So I think your preamble needs to develop more why the restriction of personal freedom associated with compulsory vaccination is justified in terms of the risk of falling below the threshold for herd immunity."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

I'm aware of the scientific illiteracy and fear of knowledge in these halls, and I thank you for your valued input. This resolution must pass to ensure the continued safety of the weakest and poorest of our fellow citizens.

Therefore, I can only encourage everyone to support this proposition.

[Rotwood]

Mel reads over the proposal draft before here
*I do support this in principle, as we have compulsory vaccination in Rotwood, but I feel other nations should have the choice not to vaccinate and die a horrible death... Oh, did I say that out loud?*

[TheOpressedOnes]

Category? Strength/subcategory?

[Rotwood]

Mel picks something else up
*This may seem picky, but the draft is titled Epidemic Response Act, but vaccinations are used for prevention. Except for the small remaining healthy population, vaccinations would be pretty ineffective as a response mechanism for an epidemic.*

[Separatist Peoples]

REQUIRES nations to ratify the vaccination recommendations of the EPARC.

"This clause may cause you problems. As omnipotent as the WA may be, its probably best for nations to work out their own specific vaccination recommendations. Its possible to mandate vaccinations in a different way. However, there are methods of preventing epidemics that don't require vaccination. With that in mind, why require vaccinations when none are needed? Seems dangerous to me.

"On a stylistic note, separate your committee expansions from your action clauses. It looks better, and will keep you from having to correct those just scan the text. Its a frustration we can all do without."

[The Dark Star Republic]

"I understand the argument, absolutely, from an international health perspective; and The Dark Star Republic has never been greatly enamoured of libertarian political philosophy. But you undoubtedly will encounter a lot of Randroid bleating - and some more considered response, too - about the limits of personal freedom.

"So I think your preamble needs to develop more why the restriction of personal freedom associated with compulsory vaccination is justified in terms of the risk of falling below the threshold for herd immunity."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

I'm aware of the scientific illiteracy and fear of knowledge in these halls, and I thank you for your valued input. This resolution must pass to ensure the continued safety of the weakest and poorest of our fellow citizens.

Therefore, I can only encourage everyone to support this proposition.

"The WA is, however, a political entity. Being snootily aware of scientific illiteracy accomplishes nothing if your proposal ends up failing. You want to maximise your chances of the proposal passing - and to that end, I am suggesting that you need to make it clearer to the WA voters, who have a profound libertarian bent to their voting patterns, a justification for overriding the principle of individual liberty. Unless you absolutely establish this in unambiguous terms, I fear the proposal will fail - which will help no one at all, let alone the 'weakest and poorest'.

"I'd cite, as a straightforward example:

However, there are methods of preventing epidemics that don't require vaccination. With that in mind, why require vaccinations when none are needed? Seems dangerous to me.

"Encourage away - but you clearly haven't made your case strongly enough yet."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Medai]

Well, you can use mass vaccinations to prevent the spread of an epidemic...

[Grays Harbor]

Well, you can use mass vaccinations to prevent the spread of an epidemic...

Irrelevent. Vaccinations and epidemic response are not the same thing no matter how you want to spin that top.

[Medai]

Well, you can use mass vaccinations to prevent the spread of an epidemic...

Irrelevent. Vaccinations and epidemic response are not the same thing no matter how you want to spin that top.

:/

[Goddess Relief Office]

"I have to agree with Ambassador Fungschlammer. Its an interesting moral code to enforce. It strikes me that any epidemic caused by a lack of mandatory vaccines wouldn't affect those states where vaccines are mandatory, creating, essentially, a national problem. Or, in the rare case that it spreads from one relative anarchy to another, something the ERA would be capable of handling. The argument for personal choice is as good as the argument for public health considerations.

"If you could find a way around the committee-only violation, you have some potential here, but its a delicate line to walk. I'm anxious to see this develop."

I'm with Ambassador Bell here, but let me expand my thinking. The proposal presupposes that vaccines are available before hand, which is typically not the case when dealing with epidemics/pandemics. It's a chicken and egg problem, if vaccines are available, then there wouldn't be a pandemic in the first place because going by the reasonable nation theory, most nations will vaccinate their citizens. If they don't, then it's essentially a national problem like Ambassador Bell said, ergo-- not an international problem, more of a social welfare/human rights thing and your category should reflect this. Perhaps then, the proposal should be unhinged from the Epi Response Act since we are talking about issues in different categories.

Commenting on the text itself, I think the words "where vaccines are widely available" should be worked into the draft somewhere (maybe the second clause) to denote that we are not making a blanket assumption that every epidemic/pandemic has a ready fix.

Regards,
~GRO~

[Societatis Frigidus]

Thank you all for your profound input. I am hoping to address all the different objections seperately and fully. Please do correct me if I misunderstood your critique:

1.) "Vaccinations are not a central tenet of battling epidemics"
I wholeheartedly disagree. While it is true that the development of vaccines takes some time, it is also self-evident that many vaccines are already developed and at our disposal. An epidemic not only means a new strand of a supervirus that is destined to doom the world, but also encompasses preexisting pathogens on a regional level - a chicken pox or measles epidemic that spreads across two or three countries is of serious threat to the immunosuppressed and of considerable threat to adults that aren't immunized.
Preventing the spread of an epidemic obviously contains mass vaccinations, seeing as how this is the most effective method of prevention. Other, more conventional attempts (travel restrictions, quarantine) only attempt to separate the infected populace from the at-risk populace - vaccination, however, simply reduces the at-risk populace to a point where the contagion no longer poses any threat whatsoever.
No matter what way you look at it - economically, in terms of social justice (no superfluous risk to the immunodeficient), in terms of sustainable epidemic disease management - vaccination is the strongest pillar of a good health policy.

2.) "Nations will vaccinate their citizens because they are rational. This proposal is not necessary."
I wholeheartedly disagree. Nations have time and time again shown that they are afraid of making unpopular decisions and thereby jeopardizing the lives of the disabled. The rational nation theorem only works when the populace is informed enough to make decisions based on rational thought and not fear.

3.) "The proposal needs to work on the justification of transgressing on civil liberties"
I agree with you on that point, but am lacking the experience necessary to formulate such a justification accordingly. Would the delegate enjoy helping me out on this one? I would certainly offer you co-authorship!

4.) "Separate the URGE clause from the EXTENDS MANDATE clause."
Will do once I get around to the third draft.

5.) "Add a clause that states 'where vaccines are available'"
Will do once I get around to the third draft.

6.) "Nations that do not vaccinate have a national problem. This is not WA business."
The WA business in this matter is to protect the lives of minorities who are dependent on herd immunity and therefore dependent on mass vaccinations. As such, this is not a national issue, but a matter of civil liberties.

[Rotwood]

Mel thinks this over
*Are you sure you aren't confusing vaccine with antigen? I mean, as I have said, vaccines don't help much with epidemics since the damage is already done when it gets to epidemic stage...*

[Societatis Frigidus]

Mel thinks this over
*Are you sure you aren't confusing vaccine with antigen? I mean, as I have said, vaccines don't help much with epidemics since the damage is already done when it gets to epidemic stage...*

I sincerely don't want to come off as rude, but could it be that you're confusing some of the terms?

An antigen is a protein (or, rarely, polysaccharide) structure on the surface (or, sometimes in) of a pathogen. An organism may develop antibodies that bind to the antigen, thereby (hopefully) neutralizing or at least opsonizing the pathogen.

Vaccinations can be either passive (that is the injection of antibodies) or active (that is the injection of attenuated pathogens in the hopes of eliciting an immune response with the endogenous production of antibodies).

Both active and passive vaccinations will shield the at-risk populace, granting them (if successful) immunity from being infected.
Passive vaccinations can also be used therapeutically.

[Rotwood]

Mel thinks this over
*Are you sure you aren't confusing vaccine with antigen? I mean, as I have said, vaccines don't help much with epidemics since the damage is already done when it gets to epidemic stage...*

I sincerely don't want to come off as rude, but could it be that you're confusing some of the terms?

An antigen is a protein (or, rarely, polysaccharide) structure on the surface (or, sometimes in) of a pathogen. An organism may develop antibodies that bind to the antigen, thereby (hopefully) neutralizing or at least opsonizing the pathogen.

Vaccinations can be either passive (that is the injection of antibodies) or active (that is the injection of attenuated pathogens in the hopes of eliciting an immune response with the endogenous production of antibodies).

Both active and passive vaccinations will shield the at-risk populace, granting them (if successful) immunity from being infected.
Passive vaccinations can also be used therapeutically.

*But as I've already stated, vaccinations don't mean much when a disease reaches epidemic proportions. I mean, what are you going to do for those suffering? Let them die?*

[Societatis Frigidus]

*But as I've already stated, vaccinations don't mean much when a disease reaches epidemic proportions. I mean, what are you going to do for those suffering? Let them die?*

The Epidemic Response Act already has armed the World Health Agency with a variety of possible measures to ensure treatment of the infected. It has, however, failed to implement necessary regulations that allow mandatory vaccination of the general populace. As such, it undoubtedly favors the convenience of the healthy populace over the life of those unable to protect themselves and whose lives depend on herd immunity!

Again, the biological definition of an "epidemic" is already reached when a disease exceeds the expected manifestation in terms of case numbers or regional expansion. That is to say that an increase in measles infections, for example, may already qualify as an epidemic. In this case, vaccinations mean everything in order to prevent the disease from spreading, seeing as how the incubation time of said disease is far too long to prevent the spread merely by imposing travel restrictions on symptomatic patients!

[Separatist Peoples]

Thank you all for your profound input. I am hoping to address all the different objections seperately and fully. Please do correct me if I misunderstood your critique:

1.) "Vaccinations are not a central tenet of battling epidemics"
I wholeheartedly disagree. While it is true that the development of vaccines takes some time, it is also self-evident that many vaccines are already developed and at our disposal. An epidemic not only means a new strand of a supervirus that is destined to doom the world, but also encompasses preexisting pathogens on a regional level - a chicken pox or measles epidemic that spreads across two or three countries is of serious threat to the immunosuppressed and of considerable threat to adults that aren't immunized.
Preventing the spread of an epidemic obviously contains mass vaccinations, seeing as how this is the most effective method of prevention. Other, more conventional attempts (travel restrictions, quarantine) only attempt to separate the infected populace from the at-risk populace - vaccination, however, simply reduces the at-risk populace to a point where the contagion no longer poses any threat whatsoever.
No matter what way you look at it - economically, in terms of social justice (no superfluous risk to the immunodeficient), in terms of sustainable epidemic disease management - vaccination is the strongest pillar of a good health policy.

"That's an alarmingly short-sighted decision, ambassador. There are those nations who's technical prowess is well beyond the scope of this resolution. They may be able to manipulate the environment to the point of sterilizing everything, or using transporter bio-filters to screen out infection, instead of going through the process of testing and administering vaccine to every single individual. I'm no expert on the matter, but I can't believe that vaccine is always the most effective response. I strongly suggest you either reword your title to reflect the vaccine-only approach, or adjust your bill to include vaccines to a lesser degree."

[Defwa]

Thank you all for your profound input. I am hoping to address all the different objections seperately and fully. Please do correct me if I misunderstood your critique:

1.) "Vaccinations are not a central tenet of battling epidemics"
I wholeheartedly disagree. While it is true that the development of vaccines takes some time, it is also self-evident that many vaccines are already developed and at our disposal. An epidemic not only means a new strand of a supervirus that is destined to doom the world, but also encompasses preexisting pathogens on a regional level - a chicken pox or measles epidemic that spreads across two or three countries is of serious threat to the immunosuppressed and of considerable threat to adults that aren't immunized.
Preventing the spread of an epidemic obviously contains mass vaccinations, seeing as how this is the most effective method of prevention. Other, more conventional attempts (travel restrictions, quarantine) only attempt to separate the infected populace from the at-risk populace - vaccination, however, simply reduces the at-risk populace to a point where the contagion no longer poses any threat whatsoever.
No matter what way you look at it - economically, in terms of social justice (no superfluous risk to the immunodeficient), in terms of sustainable epidemic disease management - vaccination is the strongest pillar of a good health policy.

"That's an alarmingly short-sighted decision, ambassador. There are those nations who's technical prowess is well beyond the scope of this resolution. They may be able to manipulate the environment to the point of sterilizing everything, or using transporter bio-filters to screen out infection, instead of going through the process of testing and administering vaccine to every single individual. I'm no expert on the matter, but I can't believe that vaccine is always the most effective response. I strongly suggest you either reword your title to reflect the vaccine-only approach, or adjust your bill to include vaccines to a lesser degree."

"EXTENDS THE MANDATE of the World Health Authority (WHA) to allow the assignment of mandatory vaccination programs according to the recommendations set by the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center (EPARC) after evidence-based analysis of risks and benefit."

If their methods of preventing disease are effective, they won't be required by EPARC do anything.