[Passed] Quarantine Regulation

[Umeria]

This is my first resolution.

Category: Health | Area of Effect: Healthcare

Description: The World Assembly,

Understanding that there are many communicable diseases which spread easily if they are not treated hastily;

Noting that there are times when some communicable diseases cannot be treated hastily;

Realizing that such diseases should instead be promptly contained to prevent an international epidemic;

Hereby

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;

2) Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:

1. an "epidemic" as a time, in a nation, when there are enough people with the same serious disease(as defined by the EPARC) to significantly decrease the nation's functioning and/or well-being;
2. an "infected person" as any person with a serious disease in a nation undergoing an epidemic of that disease;
3. a "quarantine" as any area where infected persons are kept in isolation in order to halt the spread of the disease;
4. a "treatment" as any action done to an infected person with the purpose of:
   
   1. curing the infected person;
   2. rendering the infected person non-contagious;
   3. ensuring the infected person does not undergo any unnecessary harm; and/or
   4. ensuring the infected person is not deprived of any necessities a non-infected person would normally receive;

3) Urges that all member nations, in the event of an epidemic in their nation, screen for any infected persons in that nation not yet known to be infected;

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

1. create at least one quarantine per epidemic in the nation;
2. move all infected persons into the appropriate quarantine that is nearest to their current location;
3. 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;
4. move anyone that ceases to be an infected person out of the quarantine;
5. disband any quarantine that ceases to be of use; and

5) Mandates that the EPARC cover the costs of the requirements in clause 4 for any member nation that has difficulty maintaining quarantines.

Category: Health
Area of Effect: Healthcare

Description: The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING that many communicable diseases spread easily if not treated hastily;

NOTING that there are cases where a communicable disease cannot easily be treated;

REALIZING that if such diseases are not properly handled they may spread quickly into other nations, and therefore should be properly contained;

HEREBY

1) TASKS the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center to label any disease serious enough for a person with the disease to be quarantined as a "serious disease";

2) DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution:

1. an "infected individual" as any person afflicted with a serious disease as labeled by the EPARC;
2. an "infected area" as any space within a member nation containing enough infected individuals to significantly decrease the nation's functioning and/or well-being;
3. a "quarantine" as any area where infected individuals, all of whom became infected individuals through the same serious disease, are kept in isolation in order to halt their spread of the serious disease;
4. an "appropriate treatment" as any action done to an infected individual with the purpose of:
   
   1. preventing any unnecessary harm to the individual;
   2. rendering the individual non-contagious; and/or
   3. assuring the individual is not deprived of any necessities a non-infected individual would normally receive;

3) URGES that all member nations, in the event of an epidemic of a serious disease in their nation, screen for any infected individuals with that serious disease in the nation not yet known to be infected;

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

1. create quarantines in all infected areas in the nation;
2. move any person known to be an infected individual within the nation into the appropriate quarantine that is nearest to their current location;
3. provide every appropriate treatment to all infected individuals that are in a quarantine while taking any available precaution to ensure that the people administering these treatments are not infected;
4. move any person that ceases to be an infected individual out of the quarantine;
5. disband any quarantine that ceases to be of use; and

5) MANDATES that the EPARC give financial aid sufficient to cover quarantine maintenance needs to member nations that have difficulty maintaining quarantines.

Does it duplicate GAR#53?
No. That resolution covers the incipient stages of an outbreak, this one comes into effect when the outbreak gets serious. Also:

Official ruling: ... There is no overlap, no duplication, and no contradiction of GAR#53 in this proposal as currently written.

Is it a house of cards due to its reuse of EPARC?
No. The EPARC's new tasks do not rely on any of its previous tasks (see GAR#53).

Is it an international issue?
Yes. A local epidemic can quickly become an international one if it isn't properly contained.

Does it force people with STDs or minor diseases like common cold into quarantines?
Most likely not. The EPARC defines the serious diseases, and they know enough to only include the ones that need to be quarantined.

Are the quarantines humane?
Yes. The infected individuals get all the necessities they need (see 2(d) 4(c)).

[Whovian Tardisia]

"We highly suggest adding some stipulations as to when quarantines should be put in place, taking into account the severity of the disease and the amount of infected individuals." comments Ambassador Pink. "A specific mandate that the EPARC be responsible for assisting nations in establishing quarantines would also help."

[Araraukar]

Did you cross-check your draft with GAR #53, Epidemic Response Act to make sure there isn't too much duplication and/or contradiction?

[Kaboomlandia]

3(d) of GA #53 basically covers this subject already.

[Umeria]

Did you cross-check your draft with GAR #53, Epidemic Response Act to make sure there isn't too much duplication and/or contradiction?

Yes, I checked it thoroughly and there aren't any duplications or contradictions.

3(d) of GA #53 basically covers this subject already.

No it doesn't. All it does is "strongly urge" nations to quarantine infected individuals in their homes or hospitals. It doesn't say anything about their locations or how to care for the people quarantined, nor does it solidify that the EPARC is needed to assist in the quarantines. This proposal is meant to bring clarity to the quarantine situation, and to assure that no harmful mistakes are made in this process because the rules weren't clear on quarantine maintenance. I assure you that this is wholly new and original.

[Sciongrad]

"Interesting idea. I'll provide some more substantive feedback shortly, but Sciongrad supports the fundamental idea behind this proposal."

[Araraukar]

Category and strength?

Also it looks like you want everyone suffering from common cold to be quarantined.

[Imperium Anglorum]

If we're going to have 'standards' on quarantines, it ought make sure that quarantines are not really just 'starve the people in there to death' or whatnot.

[Goddess Relief Office]

I think this adds detail to an area GA #53 was unable to cover. I support this.

[Umeria]

Category and strength?

Also it looks like you want everyone suffering from common cold to be quarantined.

I edited it and I think that bug is fixed now. Thank you for your input.

If we're going to have 'standards' on quarantines, it ought make sure that quarantines are not really just 'starve the people in there to death' or whatnot.

I believe "provide any appropriate treatments to infected individuals in quarantines" solves that problem.

[Araraukar]

Also it looks like you want everyone suffering from common cold to be quarantined.

I edited it and I think that bug is fixed now. Thank you for your input.

So now you instead want to isolate everyone with a serious STI, or influenza or internal parasites. Personally I think that's a good idea, but it would likely violate some resolutions elsewhere, especially as they might not know they're sick.

Were you planning on making all the member nations screen everyone within their borders for every possible infectious disease and disease vector known to sapient beings?

I believe "provide any appropriate treatments to infected individuals in quarantines" solves that problem.

And what if the "appropriate treatment" to that nation (OOC: due to culture and finances and tech level and whatnot) is to "let them die and burn the bodies"? You can't require they be cured either, as not all diseases have cures (OOC: think prion disease in RL).

Some other pointers:

1. Use the un-initialized name of EPARC in the resolution at least once before starting to use the initials.
2. "crippling and/or life-threatening disease" doesn't account for a lot of chronic diseases and infections which will eventually weaken you enough for something else to finish you off, without "crippling" you in the process (OOC: think HIV).
3. "Infected area" sounds, both as a definition and how it's used in the active clauses, like a bad idea, and the "large number" is very... loopholeable.
4. You use "quarantine" as though it means the same for everyone everywhere. Use "quarantine facility" or something like that, instead. And it might be a good idea to spell out what such a facility must contain. "Basic necessities and access to medical treatment" might be a good start.
5. Also, "infected area" is defined as a "zone", which could be reasonably be read to mean a county or state or city, or other such "normal" unit of area. How can these "spread to over twice their size"?
6. I'm not seeing much that would raise healthcare spending here. More like police spending/curbing freedoms and rights.

If you can address those sensibly and make changes, I'll do another pass with a fine-toothed comb later on.

And lastly, why should the WA use resources to hand-hold nations in dealing with an internal epidemic?

[Umeria]

So now you instead want to isolate everyone with a serious STI, or influenza or internal parasites. Personally I think that's a good idea, but it would likely violate some resolutions elsewhere, especially as they might not know they're sick.

"crippling and/or life-threatening disease" doesn't account for a lot of chronic diseases and infections which will eventually weaken you enough for something else to finish you off, without "crippling" you in the process (OOC: think HIV).

I changed it to "contagious disease that has harmful long-term effects". Would that work?

Were you planning on making all the member nations screen everyone within their borders for every possible infectious disease and disease vector known to sapient beings?

No, I said "any possible infected individuals who are not in a quarantine". They don't have to do a thorough search; they just need to report people who are likely disease victims.

And what if the "appropriate treatment" to that nation (OOC: due to culture and finances and tech level and whatnot) is to "let them die and burn the bodies"? You can't require they be cured either, as not all diseases have cures (OOC: think prion disease in RL).

I added "while assuring that the infected individuals do not undergo any unnecessary harm". This would forbid neglect or slaughter but still allow things like chemotherapy and voluntary euthanasia.

Use the un-initialized name of EPARC in the resolution at least once before starting to use the initials.

Should I also put the initialized name in parentheses right after the full name? GAR #53 did that but it might look repetitive in this case.

"Infected area" sounds, both as a definition and how it's used in the active clauses, like a bad idea, and the "large number" is very... loopholeable.

Also, "infected area" is defined as a "zone", which could be reasonably be read to mean a county or state or city, or other such "normal" unit of area. How can these "spread to over twice their size"?

I edited it to include more specifics. The size and spread of an infected are now depends on population, not the space it takes up.

You use "quarantine" as though it means the same for everyone everywhere. Use "quarantine facility" or something like that, instead.

I defined "quarantine" in 1(c). In this proposal, quarantine means "any area where infected individuals are kept in isolation in order to halt their spread of the disease" and nothing else, so it doesn't really need a separate term.

And it might be a good idea to spell out what such a facility must contain. "Basic necessities and access to medical treatment" might be a good start.

The medical supplies would be there anyway for the treatments they would need to give in 3(c). Any other supply requirements would be redundant.

I'm not seeing much that would raise healthcare spending here. More like police spending/curbing freedoms and rights.

They would need to increase healthcare spending to make the quarantines, provide the treatments, and hire people to administer the treatments. It would not be police putting people in quarantines; it would be paramedics and other medical personnel. Besides, due to 3(a) the quarantines will likely be where a lot of infected individuals live anyway. This isn't authoritarian; this is emergency support.

And lastly, why should the WA use resources to hand-hold nations in dealing with an internal epidemic?

The WA has already allocated resources; the EPARC was created specifically to deal with this sort of thing. The EPARC isn't going to hand-hold every nation with an epidemic; they're only going to assist impoverished nations incapable of maintaining the quarantines themselves. Also, an "internal" epidemic could quickly become an international one if it isn't properly contained; that is why this is an important international issue.

Thank you for your feedback on this proposal. I look forward to more comments.

[Umeria]

I'll do another pass with a fine-toothed comb later on.

Ambassador Lockwood tries to be patient, but he can't stop his foot from tapping nervously on the marble tiles of the empty conference hall. He fiddles with the papers he had spent all night preparing, and wishes he had brought a water bottle, like all the professional diplomats.

[Separatist Peoples]

I'll do another pass with a fine-toothed comb later on.

Ambassador Lockwood tries to be patient, but he can't stop his foot from tapping nervously on the marble tiles of the empty conference hall. He fiddles with the papers he had spent all night preparing, and wishes he had brought a water bottle, like all those other professional diplomats.

Bell elbows the ambassador next to him. "Hey!" He whispers loudly. "Look at how he keeps staring at our bottles. He thinks we have water in here! What a sap!"

He takes a gulp of his wood alcohol.

[Araraukar]

I'll do another pass with a fine-toothed comb later on.

Ambassador Lockwood tries to be patient

OOC: Sorry, life happened. Looking at it now.

3.d. Quarantining infected individuals in their homes or in hospitals;

Everything you have about creating quarantines and whatnot, falls foul of that bit of pre-existing legislation.

And without it, you have nothing that ERA wouldn't do better.

[Umeria]

Everything you have about creating quarantines and whatnot, falls foul of that bit of pre-existing legislation.

The full text of that clause is:
"3) STRONGLY URGES all member nations enact immediate measures to combat a local outbreak while it is still in the incipient stages, including, but not limited to, the following:
...
d. Quarantining infected individuals in their homes or in hospitals;"
There are four critical things missing here:
1. "strongly urges" sounds like a recommendation, not a rule. Nations might interpret this as: "You can make quarantines if you want, but if you don't feel like it you can just let the disease spread everywhere".
2. "to combat a local outbreak while it is still in the incipient stages" implies that one does not need quarantines for any large-scale or advanced stage disease, even if the disease could spread even further if it fails to be contained.
3.

Also it looks like you want everyone suffering from common cold to be quarantined.

This applies here too. ERA never defines "infected individual", so it seems as if nations can turn away ebola victims because their disease isn't severe enough, or lock anyone they wish in a hospital because they sneezed. Ambiguity, especially in this case, is very dangerous.
4.

If we're going to have 'standards' on quarantines, it ought make sure that quarantines are not really just 'starve the people in there to death' or whatnot.

The EPARC has inspectors, of course, but it would be easy to show them one "good" quarantine and leave all the others to starve.

These are all serious problems, and I hope to fix them with the Quarantine Standards Act. I am optimistic now because your best argument against this is that GAR #53 covers it already, and it doesn't. I am looking for loopholes/grammar errors that I overlooked, not reasons why this proposal is redundant. I have gone over previous resolutions very thoroughly and I assure you I will not be duplicating or contradicting anything.

[Pluoria]

Ambassador, something that I noticed in the orginal proposal was not specifying the quality of a qurantine zone. For all the quality control here a nation could just strongly urge their citizens to stay in the quarantine zones or facilities. As you have had to remind people multiple times I see, that a recomendation is simply not good enough when it comes to deadly diseases.

-Ambassador Fiall

[Araraukar]

"3) STRONGLY URGES all member nations enact immediate measures to combat a local outbreak while it is still in the incipient stages, including, but not limited to, the following:
...
d. Quarantining infected individuals in their homes or in hospitals;"

1. "strongly urges" sounds like a recommendation, not a rule. Nations might interpret this as: "You can make quarantines if you want, but if you don't feel like it you can just let the disease spread everywhere".

A nation can't avoid being urged, though. (OOC: It's operative language nevertheless. If you feel it's inadequate, you should try to replace and repeal.) As it is, you're in the best case trying to amend - which is illegal - an existing resolution, and in the worst case contradicting - which is illegal - existing legislation.

2. "to combat a local outbreak while it is still in the incipient stages" implies that one does not need quarantines for any large-scale or advanced stage disease, even if the disease could spread even further if it fails to be contained.

Well, if an outbreak is contained when it's still local, it never becomes a large-scale one. Do a repeal-and-replace if you don't like the ERA resolution.

3.

Also it looks like you want everyone suffering from common cold to be quarantined.

This applies here too. ERA never defines "infected individual", so it seems as if nations can turn away ebola victims because their disease isn't severe enough, or lock anyone they wish in a hospital because they sneezed. Ambiguity, especially in this case, is very dangerous.

Like I said, if you don't think the ERA resolution does enough, you should be repealing it before replacing it.

4.

If we're going to have 'standards' on quarantines, it ought make sure that quarantines are not really just 'starve the people in there to death' or whatnot.

EPARC has inspectors, of course, but it would be easy to show them one "good" quarantine and leave all the others to starve.

OOC: That would count as creative compliance and it's not something that needs to be accounted for, when drafting proposals. Nor should it be used as an excuse for why a proposal doesn't do something. Spelling out standards is far better than leaving them out "because some nation might not follow them".

I am optimistic now because your best argument against this is that GAR #53 covers it already, and it doesn't.

OOC: Where'd you come up with that idea? I just didn't bother to post my detailed analysis, because I realized it was unnecessary. There's plenty wrong with it, trust me.

I am looking for loopholes/grammar errors that I overlooked, not reasons why this proposal is redundant.

I can see that.

OOC: The legality question seems valid enough that it should get a Mod ruling. You can seek that yourself, such as posting a thread in Moderation, or sending in a Getting Help Request, because you can bet your blue socks that if you don't, once you submit, someone else will.

[Herby]

Ehhhh hang on there a sec, Janis. If a resolution says it "strongly urges" that nations do mumbledy-mumble, a new resolution can say, hey, here's the parameters of mumbledy-mumble that nations must follow when they mumbledy-mumble, then that ain't a contradiction, right?

[Umeria]

Ehhhh hang on there a sec, Janis. If a resolution says it "strongly urges" that nations do mumbledy-mumble, a new resolution can say, hey, here's the parameters of mumbledy-mumble that nations must follow when they mumbledy-mumble, then that ain't a contradiction, right?

Exactly!

All of the things I pointed out are bad because they are vague. That clause is still better than not having anything about quarantines at all. My proposal is simply to fill the gaps and loopholes with concrete, detailed legislation. Repealing ERA, as you suggested 3 times, would accomplish nothing, because there is nothing in ERA that contradicts or duplicates my proposal.

In respect to quarantines, all ERA does is recommend that they exist. My proposal requires they be created, lists the situations in which they must be created, and solidifies the standards of quality which quarantines must have. Therefore I am not amending an existing resolution; I am making a new one containing clarity and rules on a subject which was never covered in ERA. Just because a resolution briefly mentions a topic doesn't mean that no other resolutions can make laws about it.

I just didn't bother to post my detailed analysis, because I realized it was unnecessary. There's plenty wrong with it, trust me.

I think it's necessary now. I look forward to your analysis.

[Herby]

Ehhhh hang on there a sec, Janis. If a resolution says it "strongly urges" that nations do mumbledy-mumble, a new resolution can say, hey, here's the parameters of mumbledy-mumble that nations must follow when they mumbledy-mumble, then that ain't a contradiction, right?

Exactly!

All of the things I pointed out are bad because they are vague. That clause is still better than not having anything about quarantines at all. My proposal is simply to fill the gaps and loopholes with concrete, detailed legislation. Repealing ERA, as you suggested 3 times, would accomplish nothing, because there is nothing in ERA that contradicts or duplicates my proposal.

In respect to quarantines, all ERA does is recommend that they exist. My proposal requires they be created, lists the situations in which they must be created, and solidifies the standards of quality which quarantines must have. Therefore I am not amending an existing resolution; I am making a new one containing clarity and rules on a subject which was never covered in ERA. Just because a resolution briefly mentions a topic doesn't mean that no other resolutions can make laws about it.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa, that is not what I'm sayin'. If a resolution says it "strongly urges" mumbledy-mumble, then another resolution can't come along and "mandate" mumbledy-mumble. That's contradiction, 'cause nations are no longer urged if they're mandated.

I think.

Maybe.

[Umeria]

Whoa whoa whoa whoa, that is not what I'm sayin'. If a resolution says it "strongly urges" mumbledy-mumble, then another resolution can't come along and "mandate" mumbledy-mumble. That's contradiction, 'cause nations are no longer urged if they're mandated.

I think.

Maybe.

Except the resolution doesn't strongly urge quarantines. It strongly urges quarantines "in their homes or in hospitals". My proposal says that quarantines must be put in major infected areas, but it doesn't say anything what facility they should be put in. Together these resolutions would require that quarantines be put in major infected areas, and strongly urge them to be in homes or hospitals. A home or hospital can also be in an infected area. There's no contradiction because we're talking about different things.

[Araraukar]

Except the resolution doesn't strongly urge quarantines. It strongly urges quarantines "in their homes or in hospitals". My proposal says that quarantines must be put in major infected areas, but it doesn't say anything what facility they should be put in. Together these resolutions would require that quarantines be put in major infected areas, and strongly urge them to be in homes or hospitals. A home or hospital can also be in an infected area. There's no contradiction because we're talking about different things.

OOC (not awake enough for IC): First of all, sorry for disappearing for a day or two. Life happened. Secondly, I still suggest you to get a Mod ruling on whether your quarantine clause is trying to amend or contradicts the bit of the previous resolution, because if you submit it as is, I'll file that GHR. And probably so will anyone else who cares to read your draft. Proactively seeking a ruling, you will at least appear go give a shit about legality.

[Umeria]

OOC: I'm new at this. Should I just go to the Moderation forum and post the issue? Or is there some more formal process?

[Leppikania]

OOC: I'm new at this. Should I just go to the Moderation forum and post the issue? Or is there some more formal process?

It's better to file a GHR.