[DRAFT] Repeal "Rights Of The Quarantined"

[Urasimu wa Kati]

“The Commonwealth of Urasimu wa Kati has dealt with odd and frivolous legal issues during a current respiratory epidemic which has brought the issues with this resolution to our attention.”

---

Repeal "Rights Of The Quarantined"
Category: Repeal | Target: GA #389

---

General Assembly Resolution #389 “Rights Of The Quarantined” (Category: Health; Area of Effect; Healthcare) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Recognizing the importance of this topic, the good intentions of the resolution in question, and the good work thus far of EPARC,

Nevertheless believing that Section 4 of the resolution in particular mistakenly applies a one-size-fits-all approach to epidemic response policy,

Understanding that a quarantine as defined in Article 2c may not always be a necessary or desirable part of epidemic response policy,

Acknowledging that, for example, an epidemic may result from a sexually transmitted disease, or from a pathogen primarily spread through foodstuffs or the water supply, and that a quarantine as defined in the resolution is likely unnecessary in these cases,

Further acknowledging that in some cases, interventions like mask mandates, voluntary isolation, banning large gatherings, better hygiene practices, and/or educational campaigns may be sufficient to tame an epidemic,

Emphasizing that the Section 4 mandates for nations to "create at least one quarantine per epidemic in the nation," "move all infected persons into the appropriate quarantine," and "provide every treatment to all infected persons that are in a quarantine" are not suggestive of a definition of "quarantine" which includes isolation in one's home,

Noting that Section 5 mandates that some of these potentially unnecessary quarantines will be funded by the World Assembly nations collectively through EPARC,

Realizing that EPARC has the power to mitigate some of the unintended consequences of this resolution by not defining, for example, sexually transmitted diseases as "serious diseases," but believing this convoluted approach may result in disrespect towards victims of such diseases, as well as general confusion,

Concerned that this resolution may discourage innovation in epidemic policy response, waste the funds of World Assembly nations on unnecessary quarantines, and/or delegitimize the challenges faced by the victims of epidemics not spread via general proximity to other humans,

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#389 "Rights Of The Quarantined".

[Sancta Romana Ecclesia]

This may be a good premise. However, I should point out that this

Acknowledging that, for example, an epidemic may result from a sexually transmitted disease, or from a pathogen primarily spread through foodstuffs or the water supply, and that a quarantine as defined in the resolution is likely unnecessary in these cases,

is not a good argument to raise. The resolution you target, in 2a defines an epidemic as a time, in a nation, when there are enough people with the same serious disease (as defined by the EPARC) to be clearly in excess of the normal expectancy. While the term "serious disease" includes in normal usage also some diseases which may not require a quarantine, it is defined differently in GAR#389. Its clause 1 reads (emphasis mine):

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;

This removes those diseases which do not create the need for a quarantine from being covered here.

It's a pretty inelegant solution, but a solution nonetheless. I see that you kind of notice it yourself, except it's not really for EPARC to decide whether sexually transmitted diseases are classified as "serious" for the purposes of this resolution, it would be going against its mandate if it did classify a disease not requiring a quarantine as "serious".

OOC: Welcome to General Assembly forum! Is this your first draft here? I must say it's better than 99% of people's first drafts. It's good that you came here (it's a bit of a social norm to draft your stuff on the forum before submitting).

[Honeydewistania]

It's well written, but I disagree with the arguments and concur with the points made by the Italian ambassador above.

~Benji Hepperle

[Urasimu wa Kati]

This may be a good premise. However, I should point out that this

Acknowledging that, for example, an epidemic may result from a sexually transmitted disease, or from a pathogen primarily spread through foodstuffs or the water supply, and that a quarantine as defined in the resolution is likely unnecessary in these cases,

is not a good argument to raise. The resolution you target, in 2a defines an epidemic as a time, in a nation, when there are enough people with the same serious disease (as defined by the EPARC) to be clearly in excess of the normal expectancy. While the term "serious disease" includes in normal usage also some diseases which may not require a quarantine, it is defined differently in GAR#389. Its clause 1 reads (emphasis mine):

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;

This removes those diseases which do not create the need for a quarantine from being covered here.

It's a pretty inelegant solution, but a solution nonetheless. I see that you kind of notice it yourself, except it's not really for EPARC to decide whether sexually transmitted diseases are classified as "serious" for the purposes of this resolution, it would be going against its mandate if it did classify a disease not requiring a quarantine as "serious".

OOC: Welcome to General Assembly forum! Is this your first draft here? I must say it's better than 99% of people's first drafts. It's good that you came here (it's a bit of a social norm to draft your stuff on the forum before submitting).

Thanks for the feedback, this is a fair point. A minor change I can make is revising the wording to point out that, as you note, EPARC must not classify sexually-transmitted diseases and others as "serious diseases."

There's a bigger issue here you highlight though, which is my focus on these exceptions. Truth be told, I think maybe I was a bit too cautious in this draft. At the end of the day, I think there are almost no diseases that warrant Section 4. There are very few cases where it is useful to have a mandate such that every nation must "create at least one quarantine per epidemic in the nation."

Perhaps I need to focus on the "alternative epidemic response policies" mentioned in my draft and basically make the argument that there is virtually no epidemic where it is useful for us to require "at least one quarantine per epidemic in the nation," let alone the requirement to "move all infected persons into the appropriate quarantine."

If you think that argument could be compelling, I might try a more comprehensive rewrite that argues that Section 4 is basically never useful.

Thoughts?

OOC: Many years ago I had a WA nation (long since defunct) and I was occasionally active in the Security Council, even writing a Condemn resolution that passed. So that gives me some familiarity with the drafting process, but admittedly I am basically entirely new to the GA. But having come back, I now have to say I find the GA community and process one of the most interesting parts of the game, so I look forward to participating.

[Ardiveds]

Perhaps I need to focus on the "alternative epidemic response policies" mentioned in my draft and basically make the argument that there is virtually no epidemic where it is useful for us to require "at least one quarantine per epidemic in the nation," let alone the requirement to "move all infected persons into the appropriate quarantine."

If you think that argument could be compelling, I might try a more comprehensive rewrite that argues that Section 4 is basically never useful.

Thoughts?

OOC: Pretty sure we're going through such a epidemic in real life right now

[Urasimu wa Kati]

Perhaps I need to focus on the "alternative epidemic response policies" mentioned in my draft and basically make the argument that there is virtually no epidemic where it is useful for us to require "at least one quarantine per epidemic in the nation," let alone the requirement to "move all infected persons into the appropriate quarantine."

If you think that argument could be compelling, I might try a more comprehensive rewrite that argues that Section 4 is basically never useful.

Thoughts?

OOC: Pretty sure we're going through such a epidemic in real life right now

OOC:

I know you're being at least partially facetious, but I actually think this is an important question and gets at some of my issue with the resolution.

Do we think, in real life, that this resolution would be helpful at all, or just some confusing red tape in the current pandemic? Would this have improved the pandemic response of South Korea or Japan?

I would again highlight Section 4:

4) Requires that all member nations, to the best of their capability:

a. create at least one quarantine per epidemic in the nation;

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

c. provide every treatment to all infected persons that are in a quarantine while taking any available precaution to ensure that the people administering these treatments are not infected;

d. move anyone that ceases to be an infected person out of the quarantine;

e. disband all quarantines of a certain epidemic when the epidemic ends;

What is clear to me is this resolution assumes a definition of "quarantine" which is just so different from what we've found appropriate and feasible in real life. While I'm sure someone could pull it off, it would take some really convoluted and painful stretching of the resolution to make the above mandates fit in a reasonable way with the practice of home isolation.

If the best we can get from this resolution is stretching its technicalities so far as to at least allow the epidemic response policies that nations will pursue anyway, then I don't think that's a good reason for the red tape in this resolution to continue existing.

[Ardiveds]

OOC:

I know you're being at least partially facetious, but I actually think this is an important question and gets at some of my issue with the resolution.

Do we think, in real life, that this resolution would be helpful at all, or just some confusing red tape in the current pandemic? Would this have improved the pandemic response of South Korea or Japan?

I would again highlight Section 4:

4) Requires that all member nations, to the best of their capability:

a. create at least one quarantine per epidemic in the nation;

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

c. provide every treatment to all infected persons that are in a quarantine while taking any available precaution to ensure that the people administering these treatments are not infected;

d. move anyone that ceases to be an infected person out of the quarantine;

e. disband all quarantines of a certain epidemic when the epidemic ends;

What is clear to me is this resolution assumes a definition of "quarantine" which is just so different from what we've found appropriate and feasible in real life. While I'm sure someone could pull it off, it would take some really convoluted and painful stretching of the resolution to make the above mandates fit in a reasonable way with the practice of home isolation.

If the best we can get from this resolution is stretching its technicalities so far as to at least allow the epidemic response policies that nations will pursue anyway, then I don't think that's a good reason for the red tape in this resolution to continue existing.

OOC: Truth be told I'm not really that aware of what happened in Japan and SK since the media coverage in my country pretty much went from Wuhan to Italy and US, didn't even mention Japan. However, I know what happened in my country and the region that were hit the hardest usually the ones who didn't arrange proper quarentine so I know this would've definitely helped.
And yes, you are right. Home isolation is not 'quarantine'. However, I think a proper quarantine is far more appropriate at least in the initial stages of an epidemic, especially ones that spread this fast, and feasibility should not be an excuse given the existence of clause 5 which is not something that's there in real life.

[Urasimu wa Kati]

OOC:

I know you're being at least partially facetious, but I actually think this is an important question and gets at some of my issue with the resolution.

Do we think, in real life, that this resolution would be helpful at all, or just some confusing red tape in the current pandemic? Would this have improved the pandemic response of South Korea or Japan?

I would again highlight Section 4:



What is clear to me is this resolution assumes a definition of "quarantine" which is just so different from what we've found appropriate and feasible in real life. While I'm sure someone could pull it off, it would take some really convoluted and painful stretching of the resolution to make the above mandates fit in a reasonable way with the practice of home isolation.

If the best we can get from this resolution is stretching its technicalities so far as to at least allow the epidemic response policies that nations will pursue anyway, then I don't think that's a good reason for the red tape in this resolution to continue existing.

OOC: Truth be told I'm not really that aware of what happened in Japan and SK since the media coverage in my country pretty much went from Wuhan to Italy and US, didn't even mention Japan. However, I know what happened in my country and the region that were hit the hardest usually the ones who didn't arrange proper quarentine so I know this would've definitely helped.
And yes, you are right. Home isolation is not 'quarantine'. However, I think a proper quarantine is far more appropriate at least in the initial stages of an epidemic, especially ones that spread this fast, and feasibility should not be an excuse given the existence of clause 5 which is not something that's there in real life.

That's fair, I respect your opinion. If a heavily revised version of my draft is ever able to make it to a vote, I think you have likely given a solid preview of what the substantive (rather than technical) debate will be: should the World Assembly take it upon itself to declare that a necessary part of any nation's epidemic response must be a (non-home-isolation) quarantine? You would say yes, and again I respect that. I would say no, that this is unnecessary red tape and that nations should be relatively free to pursue whatever evidence-based epidemic response policies will be most effective in their given country.

The (OOC) context on South Korea is that as I understand it, they largely succeeded due to a combination of massive-scale testing early on, excellent contact tracing, and good voluntary practices by the citizens themselves. While I'm sure South Korea had home isolation and honor-system quarantining of travelers, I'm not aware of it having had any "quarantines" in the sense of Section 4 of this resolution, and if it did, it was not an important or necessary part of its pandemic response.