[DEFEATED] Reducing Natural Disease Reservoirs

[Goobergunchia]

Reducing Natural Disease Reservoirs
Category: Health | Area of Effect: Healthcare | Proposed by: Barfleur

---

Whereas the spread of zoonotic diseases from non-sapient beings to sapient beings poses an extraordinary danger to public health and leaves persons in member nations at risk of death, maiming, and loss of mental faculties; and

Whereas such spread is made possible, in large part, by the existence of natural reservoirs of such diseases; and

Whereas this august body has on past occasions (see, e.g., GA#389, "Rights of the Quarantined" and GA#518, "Reducing Disease Vectors") acted to reduce the prevalence and effect of infectious diseases in areas subject to its control; and

Whereas eradication of harmful zoonotic diseases is fundamentally impossible without addressing the prevalence of such diseases in their natural reservoirs, as even a successful containment campaign among sapients would not preclude a later resurgence of a zoonotic disease: now, therefore,

The World Assembly, in this present session convened, hereby enacts as follows:

1. In this Resolution:
   
   1. a "zoonotic disease" is a disease which is known to be transmitted from a non-sapient being to a sapient being and poses a substantial risk to the health or welfare of a sapient species, or of sapient populations as a whole; and
   2. a "natural reservoir" is any non-sapient being which is capable of carrying a zoonotic disease.
2. Each member nation shall:
   
   1. conduct and keep current a survey of all populations of natural reservoir species in such nation and of all zoonotic diseases which have been recorded or observed in such nation, and share such survey with the World Health Authority (WHA);
   2. require all natural reservoirs kept for domestic or commercial purposes to be immunized against all relevant zoonotic diseases for which there exists an accessible immunization, and to be treated for any zoonotic disease which is found to be present in such a reservoir;
   3. effectively and conspicuously warn persons travelling to areas populated by natural reservoirs of the relative risk that the reservoirs present in such areas present for the transmission of zoonotic diseases;
   4. test all natural reservoirs which are imported to or exported from such nation for zoonotic diseases, and treat, deny entry to, or humanely destroy any reservoir found to be carrying any zoonotic disease;
   5. forbid persons infected with a zoonotic disease to live or work in close proximity to a natural reservoir which is capable of carrying that same zoonotic disease, unless the risk of such a person becoming a vector of transmission is at a de minimis level;
   6. impose regulations on the consumption for food of natural reservoirs, including the testing of such reservoirs for zoonotic diseases before sale or consumption, and a prohibition of the sale or consumption of any reservoir which tests positive for any zoonotic disease;
   7. test all persons entering such nation who have recently been present in an area populated by natural reservoirs for all zoonotic diseases which a person travelling to such area may reasonably have acquired and which are not endemic to the testing nation, and provide appropriate treatment to any person who tests positive for such a disease; and
   8. ensure that populations which rely on natural reservoirs for food or other purposes are not adversely impacted by the actions undertaken pursuant to this section, if doing so does not substantially jeopardize any such action or create a health risk beyond a de minimis level.
3. Section 2(b) shall not apply in the case of a zoonotic disease in which the WHA has determined that the potential risk of creating more resistant, virulent, or harmful variants exceeds the benefit of reducing prevalence and transmission among natural reservoirs. In such a case, all other provisions of this Resolution shall apply.
   
   
4. In the case of pathogen which causes a zoonotic disease and which is itself infected with a zoonotic disease, actions undertaken pursuant to section 2 shall prioritize the treatment and isolation of the zoonotic disease which is deemed by the WHA to pose the greater risk to sapient health and wellbeing. Determinations under this section shall be applied uniformly, when possible.
   
   
5. The WHA shall:
   
   1. liaise with member nations and collect information on the location of natural reservoirs and the zoonotic diseases present in each member nation;
   2. provide technical assistance to nations in carrying out the mandates in section 2; and
   3. maintain a central database of all confirmed cases nonsapient-to-sapient transmission of zoonotic diseases in member nations, except that such database shall not be made publicly available and shall not contain any personally identifying information.

"Reading through our past resolutions on health, healthcare, and control of infectious diseases, I was surprised to notice a dearth of law on the matter of most zoonotic diseases. Because there currently exists no active legislation for the minimization of infectious diseases in their natural reservoirs, I am putting forward this draft as a potential supplement to what is already on the books. I appreciate any feedback, and will be happy to address any concerns."

[Barfleur]

Frequently Anticipated Questions (OOC)

1. What is a disease reservoir, and why do they matter?
A disease reservoir is an animal (or a non-sapient being, as I will call them ICly) which is capable of carrying a zoonotic disease (which in turn is a disease which can be transmitted from an animal/non-sapient being to a human/sapient being). Let's assume, for example, that there is a particular disease which is carried by horses and ticks, and can be transmitted from ticks to humans. Horses and ticks, in this case, would be the reservoirs for this disease. Even if there are no humans infected with the disease, there could be an outbreak at any time as long as there are horses and ticks infected with it. If we want to eradicate the disease, we will need to do so not only in humans, but also in horses and ticks. This proposal aims to do just that.

2. How does this not duplicate/contradict GA#518?
Good question. GA#518 only addresses disease vectors, meaning the animals/non-sapients which can directly transmit a zoonotic disease to humans/sapients. This proposal goes further, requiring treatment and isolation of animals/non-sapients which are capable of carrying a zoonotic disease, regardless of whether that particular species can transmit that particular disease to a human/non-sapient. If GA#518 comes to be repealed (and I do not see a repeal proposal, nor do I plan on writing one), I will edit this proposal to do what GA#518 does.

3. Isn't is a bit excessive to kill so many animals if they cannot be treated?
Yes. That is why I am not doing that.

Yes, I'm trying to figure out ways to not have to do that while still having the effect of eliminating all transmission (animal-animal and person-animal as well as animal-person) of zoonotic diseases. If you have a better way of doing so that does not require all these animals to be killed if there is no available treatment, I would be interested to hear it.

[Thousand Branches]

Is “natural reservoir” a common name for disease-carrying insects? I’m not an expert so genuine question here, but given that water reservoirs are also very common carriers of pathogens and disease, it was a bit unclear the subject of the resolution.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

Is “natural reservoir” a common name for disease-carrying insects? I’m not an expert so genuine question here, but given that water reservoirs are also very common carriers of pathogens and disease, it was a bit unclear the subject of the resolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_reservoir

[Thousand Branches]

Is “natural reservoir” a common name for disease-carrying insects? I’m not an expert so genuine question here, but given that water reservoirs are also very common carriers of pathogens and disease, it was a bit unclear the subject of the resolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_reservoir

Hmm fair enough, point rescinded. That is truly a weird naming scheme

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_reservoir

Hmm fair enough, point rescinded. That is truly a weird naming scheme

It is worth pointing out that the insects are likely VECTORS rather than the reservoir. For instance, the plague's reservoir is in rodentia, notably ground squirrels and rats but also hares and rabbits but is transmitted to humans via fleas or the consumption of meat. Though, as it stands, there needs to be some work done, because the worldwide eradication of rodents in response to the threat of plague is neither proportionate, possible, or ecologically viable.

[Barfleur]

Hmm fair enough, point rescinded. That is truly a weird naming scheme

It is worth pointing out that the insects are likely VECTORS rather than the reservoir. For instance, the plague's reservoir is in rodentia, notably ground squirrels and rats but also hares and rabbits but is transmitted to humans via fleas or the consumption of meat. Though, as it stands, there needs to be some work done, because the worldwide eradication of rodents in response to the threat of plague is neither proportionate, possible, or ecologically viable.

OOC (since I can't tell whether you are OOC or IC): I agree. I would much prefer a worldwide treatment of rodents to a worldwide eradication of rodents. It would be far better to cull only those rodents which are infected with the plague.

[Xanthorrhoea]

a "zoonotic disease" is a disease which is capable of being transmitted from a non-sapient being to a sapient being;

It’s late so I’ll give more detailed feedback later, but this is hugely problematic in its broadness. The IRL definition of zoonoses are diseases that are caused by pathogens that have jumped from animal to human. There is a reason.

How do you plan on measuring whether diseases are capable of being transmitted to people? What about one off mutations like HIV that crossed once/twice but since haven’t? Literally any pathogen has the potential to jump from one species to another given the right mutation. Does this mean we have to kill every animal on the planet? How do you plan to address reservoir species that are also endangered or are keystone species? What about diseases like scabies or lice that are easily treated and not life threatening? Should we collapse ecosystems to prevent tinea infections?

This proposal is simply not realistic. The economic and environmental fallout from attempting to follow this proposal as written would ruin civilisations and cause catastrophic environmental destruction. This needs to be seriously weakened to be viable.

[Barfleur]

a "zoonotic disease" is a disease which is capable of being transmitted from a non-sapient being to a sapient being;

It’s late so I’ll give more detailed feedback later, but this is hugely problematic in its broadness. The IRL definition of zoonoses are diseases that are caused by pathogens that have jumped from animal to human. There is a reason.

How do you plan on measuring whether diseases are capable of being transmitted to people? What about one off mutations like HIV that crossed once/twice but since haven’t? Literally any pathogen has the potential to jump from one species to another given the right mutation. Does this mean we have to kill every animal on the planet? How do you plan to address reservoir species that are also endangered or are keystone species? What about diseases like scabies or lice that are easily treated and not life threatening? Should we collapse ecosystems to prevent tinea infections?

This proposal is simply not realistic. The economic and environmental fallout from attempting to follow this proposal as written would ruin civilisations and cause catastrophic environmental destruction. This needs to be seriously weakened to be viable.

"Ambassador, those are good points you raise. The reason this proposal addresses pathogens known to be transmissible between sapients and non-sapients is that, if we only focus on reducing transmission among sapients once the barrier has already been jumped, it will be too late to prevent an epidemic or pandemic, and will ensure that there will always be examples of that pathogen in their natural habitats, just waiting to strike again. Clause 2(b) requires treatment to eliminate the risk of transmission, not the existence of the pathogen itself. If an animal has a disease in its system, but cannot transmit it to a sapient, it will not need to be culled. I have taken your advice and amended the definition of 'zoonotic disease' to exclude those diseases which have a de minimis effect on sapients. I have also added an exception (see clause 2(h)) for endangered and keystone species."

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

It is worth pointing out that the insects are likely VECTORS rather than the reservoir. For instance, the plague's reservoir is in rodentia, notably ground squirrels and rats but also hares and rabbits but is transmitted to humans via fleas or the consumption of meat. Though, as it stands, there needs to be some work done, because the worldwide eradication of rodents in response to the threat of plague is neither proportionate, possible, or ecologically viable.

OOC (since I can't tell whether you are OOC or IC): I agree. I would much prefer a worldwide treatment of rodents to a worldwide eradication of rodents. It would be far better to cull only those rodents which are infected with the plague.

Just as a general note for everyone: if I explicitly mention a real-life disease or construct I am probably OOC. Also, my IC posts always have my ambassador speak in the plural "we".

On topic: actually, plague is a good example of a few important facts. First is that the reservoir species may not itself be negatively affected by the pathogen (for instance, the brown rat and marmots do not, if I recall, actually contract plague themselves, though they do carry it, asymptomatic carriers).

Continuing with the plague example (because it is handy and I happen to know it well), you would suggest we embark on a campaign to treat rats for a bacterial infection that is not making them sick (there is a plague vaccine that is of limited effectiveness in humans, but I doubt it works on rats, and even if it did it is only partially effective anyway). That sounds like an excellent recipe for creating antibiotic-resistant strains of the disease when such an undertaking inevitably fails.

There is a reason, IRL, that vector control, vaccine development and deployment, and disease treatment are the usual methods for attacking zoonotic diseases unless the reservoir's identity is well established and is of a type more susceptible to easy human control. Keeping your pets and house free of fleas is generally remarkably easier and more cost-effective than addressing oneself to the rat population of, say, Nairobi.

[Barfleur]

OOC (since I can't tell whether you are OOC or IC): I agree. I would much prefer a worldwide treatment of rodents to a worldwide eradication of rodents. It would be far better to cull only those rodents which are infected with the plague.

Just as a general note for everyone: if I explicitly mention a real-life disease or construct I am probably OOC. Also, my IC posts always have my ambassador speak in the plural "we".

On topic: actually, plague is a good example of a few important facts. First is that the reservoir species may not itself be negatively affected by the pathogen (for instance, the brown rat and marmots do not, if I recall, actually contract plague themselves, though they do carry it, asymptomatic carriers).

Continuing with the plague example (because it is handy and I happen to know it well), you would suggest we embark on a campaign to treat rats for a bacterial infection that is not making them sick (there is a plague vaccine that is of limited effectiveness in humans, but I doubt it works on rats, and even if it did it is only partially effective anyway). That sounds like an excellent recipe for creating antibiotic-resistant strains of the disease when such an undertaking inevitably fails.

There is a reason, IRL, that vector control, vaccine development and deployment, and disease treatment are the usual methods for attacking zoonotic diseases unless the reservoir's identity is well established and is of a type more susceptible to easy human control. Keeping your pets and house free of fleas is generally remarkably easier and more cost-effective than addressing oneself to the rat population of, say, Nairobi.

OOC: That is a very good point. What do you think of my new clause 3? I certainly don't want this proposal to create more resistant strains, or more virulent or dangerous strains for that matter. As to whether or not the reservoir species is adversely affected by the zoonosis, I can't see that factoring in to the risk posed to humans (and other sapients).

[Araraukar]

After such a long absence, it was hard to say what was typical anymore for miss Janis Leveret, but she certainly wasn't wearing the grey suits of her temporary replacement, resembling more a caricature of a primitive jungle dweller, complete with feathers in her hair and, for some inexplicable reason, a tawny black-spotted cat lounging on her shoulder. The cat was lazily considering whether to go for one of the feathers or not.

She sat down, lifting dirty bare feet on the desk, possibly unintentionally - but probably not - knocking the sign saying "representative of Araraukar" off the desk in the process, took one look at the draft projected on the screens and then started to whittle on a small piece of wood as she spoke.

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this travesty of a draft try to require very aggressive fullscale invasion of sapients into the natural environment of, well, everything? And needing to capture and thoroughly research all organisms on a living planet to "treat" them? What about when a disease-causing organism is itself infected with something potentially deadly? Which disease do we save? And what about all the ecological destruction anything even closely resembling the actual execution of this harebrained plan of yours would require? And given even sapients like humans can be killed by a cure, how are you going to justify causing countless of extinctions?"

I'm alive! Still coping with stuff, but Janis is back! And there's signifigance to everything mentioned here...

[Barfleur]

"Ambassador Leveret makes some very good points, which I am ashamed to say I overlooked or dismissed. I have instructed the drafting office of the Mission to make all necessary adjustments to the draft. As to the new clause 2(b), are there any new problems that will arise from simply treating (when possible) without culling infected animals?"

OOC: That is a good point, Ara.

[Xanthorrhoea]

Alright, here’s a bit more detailed feedback. Some of my main concerns have been stated by others, so I’ll stick to one for now.

Clause 2b is completely impossible in any practical sense of the world and a complete waste of time.Your proposal states “eradication of harmful zoonotic diseases is fundamentally impossible without addressing the prevalence of such diseases in their natural reservoirs.” This is true, only because eradication of zoonotic diseases is fundamentally impossible without totally destroying natural reservoirs.

Throughout all of human history, there is only one disease that has ever been eradicated (smallpox). Humanity is close to eradicating another (polio), but it is proving extremely difficult. The only reason we have achieved these monumental feats is through extensive and unbelievably thorough immunisation programs to prevent the spread of these diseases. Both diseases are/were exclusively found in humans, and took decades of coordinated global efforts.

Currently, we are having trouble eradicating the last dregs of polio due to poor information, access and hesitancy in remaining areas (amongst other issues).

You fundamentally cannot eradicate a disease by treating it. A large number of diseases are infectious prior to developing obvious symptoms in humans, much less animals, meaning you are constantly playing catch-up with the disease. There is a reason than immunisation is the way out of the COVID pandemic, simply treating it is not enough. It is theoretically possible to eradicate a disease locally by isolating pockets of individuals from each other, however this is extremely difficult in people, let alone wild animals, where the size, distribution, location and disease status of the population is at best very uncertain. Approaching eradication from a purely treatment approach is simple lunacy.

As pointed out by others, simple suppression in a large and varied animal population is both extremely difficult and a perfect recipe for anti microbial resistance. The only thing you will achieve by attempting such a feat is to make our current therapies useless.

Even if you had some sort of animal vaccine to prevent infections, treating every animal population that is a reservoir for disease would be mind-bogglingly expensive, and doomed to fail. Most animal reservoir species reproduce an much faster rates than humans, meaning your already fighting an uphill battle regarding herd immunity, and that’s before considering that most reservoir species live in remote and difficult to access areas. Any progress you made with treatment or vaccination short of total eradication would be completely erased in a few years. Total eradication is about as close to impossible a task as you can get while still remaining “technically” impossible.

The intent of this resolution is noble. But that doesn’t stop it being a completely impossible goal that would be economy and environment-ruining to attempt. You will never eliminate the risk from zoonotic disease. Stick with the current observation and monitoring tactics, alongside vector/environmental controls, and other traditional methods of disease control. This proposal is a complete non-starter in its current form.

I have big problems with other sections of this proposal (e.g. clause d’s insistence on humanely destroying imported creatures instead of just treating them), but until 2B is completely scrubbed from this, there’s no real point discussing them.

[Araraukar]

Janis set the wooden miniature animal that was about just recognizable as a crocodile, on the table and started whittling another block of wood. The black-spotted tawny cat moved from her shoulders to her lap.

"If I'm not completely misunderstanding the drafter's purpose here, the idea is to reduce the chance of zoonotics from jumping from nonsapient things to sapient ones, yes? Most zoonotics that I have heard of, that aren't already endemic in sapient populations, have jumped to people from domestic animals rather than wild ones. So maybe require domestic animals to be vaccinated and treated instead? And also wild animals that are kept captive. That would at least be more sensible than destroying ecosystems on some mad impossible scheme like the original draft."

OOC: Malaria, SARS-2 (aka the current pandemic virus), many influenza viruses, etc. are endemic in people, so they wouldn't really count as zoonotics even when requiring an animal vector.

You will still have problems with aquaculture. Are fish, crustaceans and clams domestic or wild captive animals? Same goes for critters like maggots or crickets when farmed for food.

[Barfleur]

"Following the advice of the delegations from Xanthorrhoea and Araraukar, clause 2(b) has been removed and replaced with a mandate to immunize domestic- and commercially-kept animals against zoonotic diseases which they may carry and for which there exists an accessible immunization. We wonder if there are questions or criticisms regarding the other clauses of the proposal."

[Imperium Anglorum]

In general, if you had commercially-kept animals with robot attendants, there would be a significantly reduced chance of zoonotic spread. As to the effects of zoonotic disease, however, see James C Scott, Against the grain (2017). But I also appreciate that a qualifying statement for the chance of zoonotic spread runs into subjectivity questions; this bright light line is, I think, acceptable.

[Barfleur]

In general, if you had commercially-kept animals with robot attendants, there would be a significantly reduced chance of zoonotic spread. As to the effects of zoonotic disease, however, see James C Scott, Against the grain (2017). But I also appreciate that a qualifying statement for the chance of zoonotic spread runs into subjectivity questions; this bright light is, I think, acceptable.

"Ambassador Blythe, it would be quite a sight for robots to become infected with animal-borne diseases. Would that cause them to stop functioning, or to function at reduced capacity, or to lose 'limbs' or 'parts,' or to rust...? In any case, I do not think that is a prospect likely enought to warrant a new clause in the proposal."

OOC: That is something I never thought I would think about, but now I am.

[Bears Armed]

the worldwide eradication of rodents in response to the threat of plague is neither proportionate, possible, or ecologically viable.

Nor would it be in compliance with existing G.A. resolutions about not making species extinct...

[Fortress World of Cadia]

"The Fortress World of Cadia is against this on account of it would require too many resources, not be even viable, and wipe species that do provide use from existence."

[Barfleur]

"The Fortress World of Cadia is against this on account of it would require too many resources, not be even viable, and wipe species that do provide use from existence."

"This proposal, if passed, would not wipe out any species. An original draft once required all natural reservoir species that could not be immunized to be culled, but I have removed that."

[Xanthorrhoea]

This has greatly improved since the original, and it's clauses seem much more proportional. A few minor quibbles:

g. test all persons entering such nation who have recently been present in an area populated by natural reservoirs for all zoonotic diseases which a person travelling to such area may reasonably have acquired, and provide appropriate treatment to any person who tests positive for such a disease; and
h. ensure that populations which rely on natural reservoirs for food or other purposes are not adversely impacted by the actions undertaken persuant to this section, if doing so does not substantially jeopardize any such action.

Clause 2.g. is still a little strict for my taste. Some zoonotic diseases are either so widespread or so minor that testing every traveller for them is excessive. For example, IRL, Bartonella infections are distributed worldwide, so testing travellers for it is pointless - it's endemic everywhere. In the vast majority of cases, it will also only lead to a mild illness that usually resolves without treatment, and it relatively easy to treat. Testing every traveller for such a disease is completely pointless, as it's already everywhere, and even if it wasn't, you wouldn't do anything anyway in the vast majority of cases. To be honest, I think the precautions laid out in GAR#320 more than cover the subject of this clause. Anything more stingent is bordering on impractical.

Clause 2.h. is also problematic. Any degree of restriction or process related to reservoir species will in some way impact those who rely on such species. It is also overly subjective. For example, the British beef industry was decimated by the mad cow disease outbreak, which would definitely fall under the definition of 'adversely affected'. Clause h is very muddy about what to do in such a situation. Should the UK have allowed some sale of beef from infected herds if consumers were willing to take the risk? Would such actions count as 'substantially jeopardising' the actions of this proposal?

I'd like clause h to be expanded with a bit more detail and clarity. At the moment it seems a bit tokenistic and just thrown in there. At best it does nothing, at worst, it can potentially be used to undermine the entire point of the proposal.

Lastly, is there a particular reason you put clause 6 in? I didn't read the proposal as banning meat in any way, and in a cursory skim of the comments it doesn't seem to be discussed much. The wording of clause 6 effectively turns this resolution into a blocker on the WA legislating on meat consumption in the future, which seems to be a bit of an unintended side effect. I'm also not sure about the exact legal effect here, but I can see this also acting a a blocker on legislating things like cannibalism or consumption of specific types of meat, which could be problematic.

Essentially, I don't really see much reason for section 6 to exist, and I see several reasons to remove it. It would be a shame if this were repealed in the future because someone wanted to ban eating puppies or something.

Otherwise, this is much closer to something I'd vote for.

[Barfleur]

Snip

OOC: With respect to clause 2(g), I believe the definition in 1(a) qualifies the effect so as to only cover diseases which "pose[] a substantial risk to the health or welfare of a sapient species, or of sapient populations as a whole" and that there is no need to repeat something along those lines later on. As to clause 2(h), I have amended it to presume that the exception does not apply in almost all cases. And as regards clause 6, I have removed it.

[Xanthorrhoea]

Snip

OOC: With respect to clause 2(g), I believe the definition in 1(a) qualifies the effect so as to only cover diseases which "pose[] a substantial risk to the health or welfare of a sapient species, or of sapient populations as a whole" and that there is no need to repeat something along those lines later on. As to clause 2(h), I have amended it to presume that the exception does not apply in almost all cases. And as regards clause 6, I have removed it.

Good to see! I still see problems with 2g, as it still requires you to test people for diseases that may be endemic to their country anyway, which seems rather silly.

[Barfleur]

OOC: The problems noticed by Xanthorrhoea have been fixed, and this is a bump.