NationStates

Before you ask, no, this isn't any sort of anti-vaxxer crap. I like state mandated vaccinations as much as the next guy. What I don't like so much is leaving kids to starve on the streets because their parents are koo koo for cocoa puffs.

Repeal "Public Health and Vaccinations Act"

---

---

Category: Repeal || Resolution: GAR #412 || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

Acknowledging the medical and public health benefits of vaccination, and the public health risks associated with large populations of unvaccinated individuals,

Resolved to restore social order and the ability of member states to care for the health and safety of their inhabitants,

Encouraging the development of a less draconian resolution to replace GAR #412,

The World Assembly hereby repeals GAR #412, "Public Health and Vaccinations Act", for the following causes:

1. It regards unvaccinated individuals as little more than wanted criminals and second-class citizens, stripping them of previously guaranteed rights and services, regardless of whether they pose a public health hazard.
   
   
   1. As a result of its vaccination requirements, it denies all unvaccinated inhabitants of member states several crucial public services, including receiving food or monetary welfare, unemployment benefits, education grants, university education, and nonessential medical care.
      
      
   2. Should other World Assembly resolutions be repealed, its mandates shall prohibit all unvaccinated inhabitants of member states from receiving any public education, disability benefits, or any form of social welfare that is not essential to immediate survival, and even from exercising their right to vote.
      
      
   3. It encourages member states to actively sabotage the wellbeing, abilities, and opportunities of unvaccinated children by refusing them their right to an education.
2. Despite its claims, it was not enacted "by and with the advice" of the members of this Assembly, its authoring delegation having knowingly and deliberately foregone open drafting or discussion of their proposal prior to submitting it to the General Assembly Health Board.
   
   
3. Similarly, it claims to be the act of an "august" World Assembly when it was plainly passed in October.

About that “Education” thing...if you’re not vaccinated, you are actively a public health risk. Most sane governments can’t put you in a private school, so you’d go to a public one. As such, sending willingly unvaccinated people to public school is unacceptable.

Everything else works fine though. I think the restrictions in the original resolution were there to attempt to get people to vaccinate their kids, a carrot and stick kinda deal.

“Opposed. Unvaccinated children are a public health risk, and would cause the deaths of many children suffering from immunodeficiency were they allowed in public schools. I believe it is perfectly acceptable to temporarily suspend the rights of what should be a very small segment of the populace in order to save lives.”

"Just as we support GARs #128 and 286 for the amusement derived from anti-abortion entities, so too do we support the target resolution because of the amusement derived from anti-vaccination entities. Opposed."

Bump. Would there be any concern over this not receiving a prompt replacement? Finals are over now and I can afford the time to write one up, if no one else is interested.

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Just as we support GARs #128 and 286 for the amusement derived from anti-abortion entities, so too do we support the target resolution because of the amusement derived from anti-vaccination entities. Opposed."

"Pro-lifers and anti-vaxxers are not comparable, and you know that."

Wallenburg wrote:Condemning the target for denying all individuals who object to mandatory vaccination, regardless of the safety or affordability of said vaccinations, several public services, including receiving food or monetary welfare, unemployment benefits, disability benefits, education grants, university education, and nonessential medical care,

Extremely concerned that, should other World Assembly resolutions be repealed, the target shall prohibit such individuals from receiving any public education, from receiving any form of social welfare that is not essential to immediate survival, and even from exercising their right to vote,

Outraged that the target encourages member states to actively sabotage the opportunities of unvaccinated children by refusing them their right to an education, regardless of whether they pose a public health hazard,

Disgusted that the target regards unvaccinated individuals as little more than wanted criminals and second-class citizens,

"At least flat-Urrthers hurt nobody but themselves. Honestly, if these people wish to live without the benefits of modern medicine, they should feel free to fuck off to leper colonies. At the very least the rest of us shouldn't have to put ourselves at risk of debilitating illness just to humor their idiocy. Opposed as long as this sanctimonious tone remains."

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:Condemning the target for denying all individuals who object to mandatory vaccination, regardless of the safety or affordability of said vaccinations, several public services, including receiving food or monetary welfare, unemployment benefits, disability benefits, education grants, university education, and nonessential medical care,

Extremely concerned that, should other World Assembly resolutions be repealed, the target shall prohibit such individuals from receiving any public education, from receiving any form of social welfare that is not essential to immediate survival, and even from exercising their right to vote,

Outraged that the target encourages member states to actively sabotage the opportunities of unvaccinated children by refusing them their right to an education, regardless of whether they pose a public health hazard,

Disgusted that the target regards unvaccinated individuals as little more than wanted criminals and second-class citizens,

"At least flat-Urrthers hurt nobody but themselves. Honestly, if these people wish to live without the benefits of modern medicine, they should feel free to fuck off to leper colonies. At the very least the rest of us shouldn't have to put ourselves at risk of debilitating illness just to humor their idiocy. Opposed as long as this sanctimonious tone remains."

"I can see the argument he is making. The target appears to punish children for the crimes of their parents. I'm not certain what to think of this, but I'd be open to the idea if a replacement is superior, and I'm working on one with Wallenburger as we speak AMDG."

United Massachusetts wrote:"I can see the argument he is making. The target appears to punish children for the crimes of their parents. I'm not certain what to think of this, but I'd be open to the idea if a replacement is superior, and I'm working on one with Wallenburger as we speak AMDG."

"Yes, rescuing children from their parents' shitty decisions is certainly a good use of state power. My objection is to treating adults as victims of state action where a state takes prudent steps to limit public health threats by people who soberly chose an idiotic course of action. By all means let's save the children from these and similar cults."

Draft updated, so that the clauses generally flow in a consequential line of thought.

"While it is true that the target resolution does mandate vaccinations against all diseases that are sufficiently infectious and virulent - clause 1b in the resolution, this mandate is limited by the preceding clause 1, which states that all vaccines need to be safely administered and evaluated for opportunity costs. A disease that fulfills clauses 1a and 1b, but against which there is no current or possible vaccine, will be evaluated as having an infinite cost and no gain, thus failing clause 1.
Furthermore, the solution to the perceived 'draconian'-ess is to simply vaccinate everyone who does not fall under clause 2. While a few Socialists advocate against vaccines because they lack the knowledge to understand the subject, they and their children are safely vaccinated and partake in our efforts to maximise herd immunity.
We find the target resolution to be the perfect solution to diseases against which there exists vaccines, and find the proposed repeal to rely on an unreasonable reading of the resolution."

OOC: In other words, I think this sentence is dipping its toes across the line into Honest Mistake territory:

Criticizing the target for requiring vaccinations for diseases that cannot be vaccinated against,

I'm not sure you can accurately evaluate the opportunity cost of attempting to produce an impossible vaccine. However, even if you can, and even if that cost is found to be infinitely large, that qualifies as an evaluation and therefore satisfies clause 1. You see, clause 1 doesn't set an upper limit on the opportunity cost of vaccination. It only requires that the opportunity cost be evaluated. Once that occurs, member states are indeed required to safely administer all vaccines against diseases described in 1a and 1b, including those that cannot be vaccinated for.

Wallenburg wrote:I'm not sure you can accurately evaluate the opportunity cost of attempting to produce an impossible vaccine. However, even if you can, and even if that cost is found to be infinitely large, that qualifies as an evaluation and therefore satisfies clause 1. You see, clause 1 doesn't set an upper limit on the opportunity cost of vaccination. It only requires that the opportunity cost be evaluated. Once that occurs, member states are indeed required to safely administer all vaccines against diseases described in 1a and 1b, including those that cannot be vaccinated for.

It's always funky how two usually reasonable people can read a clause so differently. I disagree with your assesment: Like 'safe administration' just before it, it has to be satisfactory with regards to opportunity costs. Vaccinating everyone against the common cold would be bonkers with regards to opportunity costs, so even though that's technically possible (On a yearly basis), it isn't required. An HIV-vaccine is probably possible to develop, so there's a mandate to attempt as long as it's sensible economically.
I don't find your reading plausible. It would force nations to attempt impossible or unreasonable things (Vaccinating billions against the common cold, for example) and it would require them to just evaluate that the mandate is bonkers, rather than use the evaluation, which effectively makes the clause functionless. I don't think either is a reasonable reading, and thus I still argue that the sentence I quoted skirts the line of HM.

RNT. [2017] GAS 7.

Attempted Socialism wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:I'm not sure you can accurately evaluate the opportunity cost of attempting to produce an impossible vaccine. However, even if you can, and even if that cost is found to be infinitely large, that qualifies as an evaluation and therefore satisfies clause 1. You see, clause 1 doesn't set an upper limit on the opportunity cost of vaccination. It only requires that the opportunity cost be evaluated. Once that occurs, member states are indeed required to safely administer all vaccines against diseases described in 1a and 1b, including those that cannot be vaccinated for.

It's always funky how two usually reasonable people can read a clause so differently. I disagree with your assesment: Like 'safe administration' just before it, it has to be satisfactory with regards to opportunity costs.

Where is it written in clause 1 that the evaluation of a vaccine's opportunity cost must be favorable to the vaccine? That is written nowhere in that clause, or in the entire target resolution.

Vaccinating everyone against the common cold would be bonkers with regards to opportunity costs, so even though that's technically possible (On a yearly basis), it isn't required. An HIV-vaccine is probably possible to develop, so there's a mandate to attempt as long as it's sensible economically.

No vaccine exists for the common cold, and with our medical knowledge it is unlikely that such a vaccine will ever be developed. If you are going to argue over this subject, at least make sure you understand some basic facts about it.

I don't find your reading plausible. It would force nations to attempt impossible or unreasonable things (Vaccinating billions against the common cold, for example) and it would require them to just evaluate that the mandate is bonkers, rather than use the evaluation, which effectively makes the clause functionless. I don't think either is a reasonable reading, and thus I still argue that the sentence I quoted skirts the line of HM.

Not only is that a reasonable reading based on the text of the target (which is the only thing that should be considered in questions of legality), but it is the only reasonable reading that I can think of. At no point does the target issue exemptions to the clause 1 mandate because member states don't think that a vaccine is worth the effort. Such an exemption must be spun out of whole cloth, rather than gathered from the text of clause 1.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:RNT. [2017] GAS 7.

I'm not sure whether you are attempting to argue for or against this draft's legality, but I must point out that this is a very different circumstance from your repeal. That opinion held that it constitutes an Honest Mistake violation to argue that rational nations will independently carry out specific policies, particularly in a case where that argument assumed rational nations inherently value their natural environment's long-term health above immediate economic benefits. Such an opinion has no relevance to a question of whether the interpretation adopted in this repeal is reasonable.

Wallenburg wrote:

Attempted Socialism wrote:It's always funky how two usually reasonable people can read a clause so differently. I disagree with your assesment: Like 'safe administration' just before it, it has to be satisfactory with regards to opportunity costs.

Where is it written in clause 1 that the evaluation of a vaccine's opportunity cost must be favorable to the vaccine? That is written nowhere in that clause, or in the entire target resolution.

OOC
Agreed. That's presumably what the author intended, but they didn't say so... and "The Law is what the Law says."[one-sixth of GenSec]

OOC: what would be the point of ordering nations to evaluate opportunity costs if they aren't permitted to use them? You're telling me "given..." means basically "carry this out but don't actually utilize the results"? If the author had instead used "according to" would that make the point moot?

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: what would be the point of ordering nations to evaluate opportunity costs if they aren't permitted to use them? You're telling me "given..." means basically "carry this out but don't actually utilize the results"? If the author had instead used "according to" would that make the point moot?

OOC
Or if they'd said "satisfactory evaluation", perhaps.
I'll agree that the clause could quite reasonably be read either way... but even that, according to GenSec precedent, should be enough to prevent successful challenge for 'Honest Mistake'.

Wallenburg wrote:

Attempted Socialism wrote:Vaccinating everyone against the common cold would be bonkers with regards to opportunity costs, so even though that's technically possible (On a yearly basis), it isn't required. An HIV-vaccine is probably possible to develop, so there's a mandate to attempt as long as it's sensible economically.

No vaccine exists for the common cold, and with our medical knowledge it is unlikely that such a vaccine will ever be developed. If you are going to argue over this subject, at least make sure you understand some basic facts about it.

Yeah, I apparently messed up in editing. I had a cold, flu and HIV example and deleted/moved the wrong parts. It should have been "flu".
With IA's referenced precedent, you and two GenSec weighing in on my objection, I recognise that it has been raised and adressed.

I am on my phone so apologies for any typos.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: what would be the point of ordering nations to evaluate opportunity costs if they aren't permitted to use them? You're telling me "given..." means basically "carry this out but don't actually utilize the results"? If the author had instead used "according to" would that make the point moot?

OOC: I'd argue that the General Assembly is no stranger to pointless qualifications and requirements.

If nobody else has any comments/criticisms/questions, I will assume this draft to be divinely inspired and rush it forward after the weekend.

OOC: Support, but only because the target uses the wording "therefore, be it enacted by this august and most excellent World Assembly".

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Support, but only because the target uses the wording "therefore, be it enacted by this august and most excellent World Assembly".

OOC: I concur. This assembly is neither august nor excellent, and therefore not most excellent either. I would, however, like to see whatever replacement might be forthcoming.

IC: We see no problems. Ending WA micromanagement of the purely domestic affairs of member states is always a net positive.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Support, but only because the target uses the wording "therefore, be it enacted by this august and most excellent World Assembly".

Very good point. It was already October when the target was passed, and now we're all the way into January!