NationStates Jolt Archive

Amended: 3/10/25 2:12PM GMT
Reposted as Amended: 3/17/2005 17:28PM GMT

Change/Addition
Deletion/Original Text

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Eradicate Smallpox

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed By: The United States of Allemande

Description:

RECOGNIZING that the United Nations has already acted to limit the spread of contagious disease through such efforts as United Nations Resolutions #9 ("Keep the World Disease Free (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029596&postcount=10)") and #84 ("NS HIV AIDS Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8012656&postcount=85)"), AND

ACKNOWLEDGING that such acts are justified given the difficulty of containing epidemics, even in the face of prophylactic measures such as those authorized by United Nations Resolutions #34 ("No Embargoes on Medicine (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029664&postcount=34)") and #43 ("Increased Access to Medicine (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030045&postcount=43)") (among others), AND

OBSERVING that highly virulent diseases are the best source of potential templates for so-called "bioweapons" - weapons whose development and use the United Nations has attempted to limit through such acts as United Nations Resolution #17 ("Elimination of Bio Weapons (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029613&postcount=17)"), AND FINALLY

REALIZING that no concerted effort has yet been mounted to address one of the world's oldest and deadliest contagions - variola (commonly known as "smallpox") - a disease of considerable danger in its natural form and even greater danger as a bioweapon,

THE UNITED NATIONS

DECLARES ACCORDINGLY that all Member nations shall make a concerted effort to eradicate smallpox within their territory through the use of established disease eradication techniques, such as quarantine and vaccination, AND

FURTHER CALLS UPON all Member nations to increase health care spending accordingly to cover the costs of these measures, AND

ALSO FINALLY RECOMMENDS that all Member nations provide other Member nations a share of this additional spending, in a fashion entirely at their discretion, as long as such assistance would not be detrimental to their own eradication efforts, for the purpose of accelerating the pace at which this disease can be wiped out worldwide.

This is the corrected version of the proposal. The original can be found here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=403744&page=3&pp=15) (near the bottom of the page).

Comments and proposed amendments are welcome (this includes points of style, as this is our first proposed resolution). If accepted, I'll edit this post

OOC:
..must...resist...temptation...to...say..."In Soviet Russia, Smallpox eradicates you."
Oops.

Erm, anyway, it seems as though it makes sense at first glance. I'm not very good at jusging proposal's merit, so I have yet to really form an opinion, but it seems okay at first glance.

Without actually reading the proposal too completely, I would suggest social justice. On the basis that (at a guess) it is likely to be the poorer people in a nation who would benifit from this, as the rich generally don't get ill if they can buy their way out of it.

But that could be just be me thinking that.

First, kudos for a nicely formatted, easy to read proposal.

Second, I think your "Human Rights" versus "Environment" argument is wrong. There really isn't a good "humanitarianism" category, and there ought to be. In the meantime, a proposal that seeks to eradicate a species to the benefit of humanity hardly qualifies as "A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry." Human Rights is iffy, but better.
FURTHER CALLS UPON all Member nations to increase health care spending by at least 1% of GDP to cover the costs of these measures,One percent seems like such a small amount, doesn't it. Well, it's not. For this single disease, you're allocating the equivalent of ... oh, I don't know ... the Education budget. Or perhaps the entire transportation industry. Possibly even more than is spent on all of medical in some countries. Whatever, it's a LOT.

When we were trying to find a realistic figure to fund the UN budget, we dug up the RL United Nations' percentage of GNP for UN dues. For everything the UN does, the average contribution is on the order of 0.00369%. That's UNESCO, UNICEF, all the peacekeepers, missions, everything. Here's how that translates into NationStates nations and dollars (data is old)

http://home.nc.rr.com/ezjtb/images/UNFunding.gif

Let's start by dropping the 1%, OK?

I wasn't aware anything such as "Smallpox" existed in the NSUN universe. Fass doesn't have it, at least.

Second, I think your "Human Rights" versus "Environment" argument is wrong. There really isn't a good "humanitarianism" category, and there ought to be. In the meantime, a proposal that seeks to eradicate a species to the benefit of humanity hardly qualifies as "A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry." Human Rights is iffy, but better.
A resolution to eliminate a potential world health hazard.
I think I see what you've done here. You think the description line is ... well .. descriptive. It is actually a description of the in-game effect a resolution in this category would have. So if you submitted this as Environmental, "Environment" would go up, and "Industry" would take a hit.

That's why it's important to match category to proposal. Better?

Smallpox was eradicated in the 1970's, and the the two countries on Earth that own samples would simply hide it. This proposal is pointless.

Smallpox was eradicated in the 1970's, and the the two countries on Earth that own samples would simply hide it. This proposal is pointless.
this points to this being a real world issue, thus brings into question the legallity of it. also, as pointed out by Fass, i also was unaware that there was the existance of small pox in NS

OOC:

Fris beat me to it.

Why limit it to smallpox, though?

Tuberculosis, unlike smallpox, isn't wiped out yet. It could be wiped out.
Malaria isn't wiped out yet.

Mention smallpox, but don't limit it to smallpox.

Let's start by dropping the 1%, OK?Isn't it important to indicate the effect? I presume there would be some cost associated with it....

How do we know what the cost will be? I agree that 1% is overstated, but it's the smallest number that can show up in the game, right?

In the meantime, a proposal that seeks to eradicate a species to the benefit of humanity hardly qualifies as "A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry." Human Rights is iffy, but better.This is probably a compelling argument. Eradicating a species to improve the environment is a bit Orwellian, isn't it?

I think I see what you've done here. You think the description line is ... well .. descriptive. It is actually a description of the in-game effect a resolution in this category would have. So if you submitted this as Environmental, "Environment" would go up, and "Industry" would take a hit.

That's why it's important to match category to proposal. Better?I see what you're saying, and I'm willing to switch, but there's still this idea in my head that the balance here is between the expense of taking measures (which will have a negative economic impact) versus the health benefit from doing it (maybe not quite "Environment", but then again...). If I go with "Human Rights", as you suggest, a proper description line gets much harder to craft. To wit:

With the current (but Orwellian) "Environment" categorization, we get...

A proposal to improve living conditions at a cost to society

... which pretty much describes the game effect. But with "Human Rights", what can we do?

A proposal to free the world of the threat of a dangerous epidemic

... based on the idea that the Civil Right being promoted is "Freedom from Disease"?

But then, if this is a "Human Rights" resolution, repeal would be a "Moral Decency" issue. Isn't that the way these things seesaw?

Smallpox was eradicated in the 1970's, and the the two countries on Earth that own samples would simply hide it. This proposal is pointless.Smallpox was eradicated in RL in the 1970's. Does that mean it was also eliminated in NS? Or that it never existed? Or that it exists, but hasn't yet been eliminated because we haven't yet stamped it out, which this resolution would do?

OOC:

Fris beat me to it.

Why limit it to smallpox, though?

Tuberculosis, unlike smallpox, isn't wiped out yet. It could be wiped out.
Malaria isn't wiped out yet.

Mention smallpox, but don't limit it to smallpox.As implied in the resolution, there's an ulterior motive here: to "inocculate" UN members against a bioweapon. AFAIK, malaria and TB are not likely candidates for use as bioweapons.

Smallpox is.

that is if things like malaria, TB and smallpox exist in NS. which is a big assumtion

If I go with "Human Rights", as you suggest, a proper description line gets much harder to craft.
You still didn't catch what I was saying earlier. (You need to play around in the List Proposals view a bit more.) You don't get to craft the description line. It's automatically chosen by the game when you pick your category. All Human rights resolutions will contain the description line, "A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights."
How do we know what the cost will be? I agree that 1% is overstated, but it's the smallest number that can show up in the game, right?You don't determine what the effect is. The game engine will set the values based on the category. If you want, you can ask each nation to contribute 0.0000000000000000000001% or 100% in your proposal, with exactly the same in-game effect. (However, I'd bet most people would vote against it when the value is high.) The text of the proposal is totally immaterial to the effect.

Ah, now I see. So I'll drop the description and the 1%, then, adding a line about increasing funding for health care without specifying the amount, so that it will be clear that this is not a call for a shift in funds within the healthcare budget.

this points to this being a real world issue, thus brings into question the legallity of it. also, as pointed out by Fass, i also was unaware that there was the existance of small pox in NS...and...

that is if things like malaria, TB and smallpox exist in NS. which is a big assumtionUnited Nations Resolution #84 ("NS HIV AIDS Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8012656&postcount=85)") explicitly targets "AIDS"; clearly, then, we can target a RL disease, under the assumption that it also exists in NS.

If Resolution #84 had targeted "VODAIS" (the AIDS-like disease mentioned in one of the issues - I forget which number), then your argument (i.e., that "smallpox" is a RL disease and therefore can not be eradicated by the NSUN) might be persuasive. Likewise, if you can organize a repeal of Resolution #84 based on its illegality (perhaps replacing it with a new resolution targetting "VODAIS"), then I would consider withdrawing this draft resolution or replacing it with one targeting "variola alterna" (a/k/a "largepox" or Bigtopian Pox or something like that ;) ). Until then, though, I think it's safe enough to target "smallpox" and figure that it does (or could) exist.

Let me offer a thought experiment as a way of clearing this up: if I posted a thread in "International Incidents" called "Erewhon Majorica Battles Smallpox Outbreak (Open RP)" and suggested that others could RP the spread of the disease to their nations (if they wished), would people accuse me of godmoding? Or would people jump in and say, "you can't have 'smallpox', it doesn't exist in NS"?

(If one or more of the mods wants to sweep in and declare that this proposed resolution is or is not legal, that would be most appreciated. Given the "three strikes" environment here in the NSUN, one of the reasons for this thread is to ensure that Allemande does not incur a strike by bringing this proposal before the membership.)

As implied in the resolution, there's an ulterior motive here: to "inocculate" UN members against a bioweapon. AFAIK, malaria and TB are not likely candidates for use as bioweapons.

Smallpox is.
Excellent point. I had missed that in the resolution.

What about anthrax, then?

OOC: I seem to remember seeing a scientist on TV saying that in fact smallpox would not be a very effective bioweapon - I think it might have been something to do with the difficulty one would have in producing a large amount of the pathogen, or to do with it not being as contagious as other potential weapons.

OOC: I seem to remember seeing a scientist on TV saying that in fact smallpox would not be a very effective bioweapon - I think it might have been something to do with the difficulty one would have in producing a large amount of the pathogen, or to do with it not being as contagious as other potential weapons.

Not to keep quoting the same show but if this is true :-


You get it... you carry a ten foot cloud around with you. One in three people die. If 100 people in New York City got it, you’d have to encircle them with 100 million vaccinated people to contain it


then maybe the reason people think it might not be tempting is because it can be deadly, but not as deadly as other things. So governments spend all their time creating vacines for ebola, anthrax and other such fun substances, and overlook the thing that might kill them...

Excellent point. I had missed that in the resolution.

What about anthrax, then?Anthrax is far less likely to produce a "wildfire" event (to use Michael Crichton's term, from The Andromeda Strain); it's very hard for anthranx infected individuals to infect others.

OTOH, if you're asking "does anthrax exist in NS", I would say that it probably does.

OOC: I seem to remember seeing a scientist on TV saying that in fact smallpox would not be a very effective bioweapon - I think it might have been something to do with the difficulty one would have in producing a large amount of the pathogen, or to do with it not being as contagious as other potential weapons.It's hard to get and probably hard to culture, but that's in RL, where - as others have pointed out, smallpox has been "eradicated".

From what I've read, though, it's a very effective pathogen. CDC simulations of a smallpox "event" in the U.S. (they used Denver as a model) produced 50,000+ casualties in 3-4 months, and that was assuming a relatively robust response by a government with huge resources.

I'll try to find a cite.

...then maybe the reason people think it might not be tempting is because it can be deadly, but not as deadly as other things. So governments spend all their time creating vacines for ebola, anthrax and other such fun substances, and overlook the thing that might kill them...Agreed. People want something with 90-100% lethality that kills in hours. Ebola is a great example of why this is a bad idea (from a weapons design POV): as awful as Ebola is (it kills horribly in about a day), it isn't a good weapon because it's just too good. Whole villages have been wiped out by Ebola, but the losses get contained at that level because the victims don't have time to spread the disease.

Smallpox takes days to incubate, and doesn't always kill. The sick person is contagious for quite a while before showing symptoms, and can still walk around for a day or two once the disease blossoms, infecting even more people.

IOW, from a weapons design perspective, Ebola may be a devastating local weapon that can kill 75-90% of those within a small radius (10-15 miles), which could be a few thousand or even a few tens of thousands, but smallpox can kill 30% of everyone within a radius of hundreds or even thousands of miles.

Which could be millions or even tens of millions.

There's another reason why weapons manufacturers like Ebola, anthrax, etc.: limiting the impact allows controlled use. The nation with such weapons can say: "I want this to strike here, here, and here, but not here".

Smallpox is almost impossible to control. It's not a precision weapon. It's a strategic weapon, a poor man's nuke. You let it fly and laugh in your opponents face: "See you in H_ll, big fella".

It's the kind of weapon military planners hate. But that means it's the kind of weapon terrorists love.

OOC: Perhaps something targetting plague, then, as well as smallpox? Yes, there is a vaccine to bubonic plague, but there is (as far as I know) no vaccine to pneumonic or septicaemic plague.
Pneumonic plague could function as an effective bioweapon - it spreads therough sneezes and coughs, has a high death rate, and can spread quickly. Septicaemic plague on the other hand would be more like Ebola - it is just too quick.

Does anyone else think it's odd we are talking about the best type of bio-weapon and how to use it?

...and...

United Nations Resolution #84 ("NS HIV AIDS Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8012656&postcount=85)") explicitly targets "AIDS"; clearly, then, we can target a RL disease, under the assumption that it also exists in NS.

If Resolution #84 had targeted "VODAIS" (the AIDS-like disease mentioned in one of the issues - I forget which number), then your argument (i.e., that "smallpox" is a RL disease and therefore can not be eradicated by the NSUN) might be persuasive. Likewise, if you can organize a repeal of Resolution #84 based on its illegality (perhaps replacing it with a new resolution targetting "VODAIS"), then I would consider withdrawing this draft resolution or replacing it with one targeting "variola alterna" (a/k/a "largepox" or Bigtopian Pox or something like that ;) ). Until then, though, I think it's safe enough to target "smallpox" and figure that it does (or could) exist.

Let me offer a thought experiment as a way of clearing this up: if I posted a thread in "International Incidents" called "Erewhon Majorica Battles Smallpox Outbreak (Open RP)" and suggested that others could RP the spread of the disease to their nations (if they wished), would people accuse me of godmoding? Or would people jump in and say, "you can't have 'smallpox', it doesn't exist in NS"?

(If one or more of the mods wants to sweep in and declare that this proposed resolution is or is not legal, that would be most appreciated. Given the "three strikes" environment here in the NSUN, one of the reasons for this thread is to ensure that Allemande does not incur a strike by bringing this proposal before the membership.)
first of all, the part in bold i did not say, neither did i imply, i was just stating that this is a matter as to if small pox existed in NS. second, as you said, the issue of AIDS has come up in the NS issues. small pox hasnt. and thirdly, i suggest you consult the mods on the 'godmoding' issue, as to whether or not you can introduce small pox. forthly, in reference to use as a weapon, under resolution #16, this is a biological weapon, and there for is banned

Does anyone else think it's odd we are talking about the best type of bio-weapon and how to use it?
Meh. Beats going over all the old arguments.

For the record, it was determined that AIDS does in fact exist in NS. Haven't heard a discussion about smallpox. However, getting back to the resolution, if this were rewritten about VODAIS or another such event, would it be worth the UNs time, and would it receive accolades?

For the record, it was determined that AIDS does in fact exist in NS. Haven't heard a discussion about smallpox. However, getting back to the resolution, if this were rewritten about VODAIS or another such event, would it be worth the UNs time, and would it receive accolades?
good point. maybe it should be re-written with a broader base, but then again, it might be shot down on the basis that it is too hard to eradicate all deseases

At first glance, the intention of this proposal is good. Eradicating a deadly disease? That's great. But to be more realistic, we're just scaring ourselves to death. Yes, this disease is horrible and deadly. But smallpox in the environment isn't necessarily harmful. We don't need to eradicate smallpox, what we need to do is to prohibit countries from making smallpox cultures and use it to build weapons.

This ambitious cleanup would cost us more than the actual amount we could possibly spend in an actual epidemic. This proposal would push developing countries to poverty. Developing countries, even with foreign aid, would spend 1% more of their GDP to sanitize their backyards for the sole purpose of eradicating a single potential health hazard. Instead of spending on smallpox alone, why not spend the additional 1% on other deadly but common diseases? That way, we're saving a larger pool of people.

Give me the number of people killed by smallpox and compare it to people killed by heart diseases. Heart disease alone kills 710, 760 people yearly, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. And that's only in one country.

This cleanup proposal would make us less safe by focusing on a single potential health hazard and overlooking common but equally fatal diseases.

Prior to this proposal, we didn't do cleanups. And I assume not everyone of us is plagued by a smallpox epidemic. Not too many people are sick around here from smallpox exposure. If you want to go over to the hospital, I'll show you sick people. There are probably more people dying from falling down the staircase than dying from smallpox.

We're just scaring ourselves to death.

At first glance, the intention of this proposal is good. Eradicating a deadly disease? That's great. But to be more realistic, we're just scaring ourselves to death. Yes, this disease is horrible and deadly. But smallpox in the environment isn't necessarily harmful. We don't need to eradicate smallpox, what we need to do is to prohibit countries from making smallpox cultures and use it to build weapons.

This ambitious cleanup would cost us more than the actual amount we could possibly spend in an actual epidemic. This proposal would push developing countries to poverty. Developing countries, even with foreign aid, would spend 1% more of their GDP to sanitize their backyards for the sole purpose of eradicating a single potential health hazard. Instead of spending on smallpox alone, why not spend the additional 1% on other deadly but common diseases? That way, we're saving a larger pool of people.

Give me the number of people killed by smallpox and compare it to people killed by heart diseases. Heart disease alone kills 710, 760 people yearly, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. And that's only in one country.

This cleanup proposal would make us less safe by focusing on a single potential health hazard and overlooking common but equally fatal diseases.

Prior to this proposal, we didn't do cleanups. And I assume not everyone of us is plagued by a smallpox epidemic. Not too many people are sick around here from smallpox exposure. If you want to go over to the hospital, I'll show you sick people. There are probably more people dying from falling down the staircase than dying from smallpox.

We're just scaring ourselves to death.

I'm going to assume you're talking entirely In Character, because otherwise I really worry about a disturbing lack of knowledge.

Yes, you may not have smallpox. But many other nations may have it. And as it is a highly contagious disease with a period of incubation, there would be a significant chance that someone carrying smallpox could enter your nation and begin spreading the disease. Think 'Typhoid Mary'.

Does anyone else think it's odd we are talking about the best type of bio-weapon and how to use it?
Considering the fact the the UN has already banned their use, yes.

I'm going to assume you're talking entirely In Character, because otherwise I really worry about a disturbing lack of knowledge.

Yes, you may not have smallpox. But many other nations may have it. And as it is a highly contagious disease with a period of incubation, there would be a significant chance that someone carrying smallpox could enter your nation and begin spreading the disease. Think 'Typhoid Mary'.

Hmmm.... smallpox is "a highly contagious disease." So is Hepatitis A and B. A common cold is contagious too. Lots of diseases are contagious. Many nations have it. Many people have it too. It probably has affected every nation.

Smallpox indeed is "highly contagious" but why is it isolated to only a few countries? We haven't started the cleanup yet. Maybe its not as "contagious" as we think it is. Or maybe its equally contagious as a common cold. But why not propose to eradicate cold viruses too?

Why focus on smallpox alone when we got more diseases that kill obviously more people?

The reason why people are so afraid is because smallpox is a relatively rare disease. We fear rare things. Ancient people were scared of fire, but it became too common that we no longer fear it as much.

Eradication is impossible. Prevention is more realistic. You could be spending a lifetime's worth of money but still have smallpox in the environment.

This proposal is 100% economic suicide.

Vastiva does not have any biological or chemical weapons.

We do, however, have extensive research facilities dedicated to methods of combating such weapons.

As such, we find this discussion interesting.

first of all, the part in bold i did not say, neither did i imply, i was just stating that this is a matter as to if small pox existed in NS. second, as you said, the issue of AIDS has come up in the NS issues. small pox hasnt. and thirdly, i suggest you consult the mods on the 'godmoding' issue, as to whether or not you can introduce small pox. forthly, in reference to use as a weapon, under resolution #16, this is a biological weapon, and there for is banned

Yes, people could argue that smallpox doesn't exist in NS. In truth, this is more likely to manifest itself in the form of a statement that it doesn't exist in their nations, which is fair; I can't overrule them and say that they're wrong (but see below).
Unless I'm mistaken, the issues speak of VODAIS (Viral Overactive Dysfunction of the Auto-Immune System), not AIDS (and by the name, VODAIS can't be AIDS anyway; it's MS or lupus in the form of an STD). So I'll stand on my point: that Resolution #84 is an adequate precedent for this resolution.
I can introduce anything on my soil, and you can I-G-N-O-R-E it if you wish. To say that smallpox can not exist in NS because it exists in RL is as much a "godmod" (sic) as to claim it exists everywhere, if not more so (see #1 above).
If only eradicating a disease were as simply as passing a law. Smallpox is not a biological weapon; it's a disease with a history stretching back to ancient times. Just because it can be used as a weapon doesn't make it a weapon. Guffingford is trying to develop "airborne AIDS" as a weapon for RP: does that mean that we must now repeal Resolution #84, because of his actions?

On the whole, I'm content to let the mods state whether they feel that this is an illegal resolution. That's why I'm airing it. If they say it's illegal, it will be withdrawn. If not, I'll press forward.

Does anyone else think it's odd we are talking about the best type of bio-weapon and how to use it?In a sense, yes. But that's only because one of the justifications is that it would help forestall biological attack (presumably by a non-NSUN member) on the NSUN community. To assert why that is so, we need to explore the possibility.

But ...

Keep in mind that an natural outbreak would be exactly as deadly as a deliberate release. That, to me, suggests that the need to eradicate the disease is justified even without the possible bioweapons angle.

...Why focus on smallpox alone when we got more diseases that kill obviously more people?

The reason why people are so afraid is because smallpox is a relatively rare disease. We fear rare things. Ancient people were scared of fire, but it became too common that we no longer fear it as much.

Eradication is impossible.... This proposal is 100% economic suicide.Compare to RL Earth. Smallpox was once a scourge. Then, through precisely this sort of concerted effort, the world community eliminated smallpox, such that today, in RL, nobody dies of it.

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/overview/disease-facts.asp
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/smallpox/en/

Notice the second paragraph in the WHO text: "Smallpox, which is believed to have originated over 3,000 years ago in India or Egypt, is one of the most devastating diseases known to humanity. For centuries, repeated epidemics swept across continents, decimating populations and changing the course of history."

IOW, if it exists (and why shouldn't it?), it's a frightful risk.

"In 1967, when WHO launched an intensified plan to eradicate smallpox, the 'ancient scourge' threatened 60% of the world's population, killed every fourth victim, scarred or blinded most survivors, and eluded any form of treatment.... Through the success of the global eradication campaign, smallpox was finally pushed back to the horn of Africa and then to a single last natural case, which occurred in Somalia in 1977. A fatal laboratory-acquired case occurred in the United Kingdom in 1978. The global eradication of smallpox was certified, based on intense verification activities in countries, by a commission of eminent scientists in December 1979 and subsequently endorsed by the World Health Assembly in 1980."

So the reason it's not a danger today (in RL) is not because this disease is a bogeyman, one that poses little threat to humanity, but because it was wiped out by exactly the kind of concerted global effort I am calling for here.

Since the NSUN has not mounted such an effort, we can not conclude that there is little or no risk, unless we conclude that the disease doesn't exist, but the only reason for reaching that conclusion is the strange idea that RL problems don't exist in NS precisely because they're RL problems. Looking at the issues list, I have to disagree: NS is a mirror of RL. If we have skateboarding, malpractice suits, cannibalism, and road rage, we probably have smallpox, too.

As for the notion that this is an effort that would bankrupt the world, RL history suggests otherwise. Frisbeetopia has already suggested that I drop the 1% mandate, and I have (and if anyone can tell me how to produce strikethrough in a post, I'll make it even clearer that the 1% mandate is gone). It worked in RL, and it didn't bankrupt the world. It will work here, as well.

Smallpox indeed is "highly contagious" but why is it isolated to only a few countries? We haven't started the cleanup yet. Maybe its not as "contagious" as we think it is.Or maybe most of the people playing this game are too young to remember the RL world that existed before the WHO declared war on this disease in 1967.

IOW, it's perspective that says that AIDS exists and is a problem, but smallpox isn't.

Not to cut off the debate - indeed, I'd like to get on with it - but first things first.

Two questions need to be answered before we debate this on its merits:

Is this a legal resolution? It's legality has been challenged, so we need a judgement. Is there someone I should contact to get that? How is this done with other proposals?
Are amendments needed? Should the wording be changed? Or is this ready for submission as a proposal and the debate that accompanies submission?

If people aren't willing to come forward with major modifications to the wording, I'd like to move to a final draft, and then propose. Once that happens, we can dig into the debate.

Not to cut off the debate - indeed, I'd like to get on with it - but first things first.

Two questions need to be answered before we debate this on its merits:

Is this a legal resolution? It's legality has been challenged, so we need a judgement. Is there someone I should contact to get that? How is this done with other proposals?
Are amendments needed? Should the wording be changed? Or is this ready for submission as a proposal and the debate that accompanies submission?

If people aren't willing to come forward with major modifications to the wording, I'd like to move to a final draft, and then propose. Once that happens, we can dig into the debate.
i dont know about the legallity (mod ruling pending), but one suggestion is to broaden it to cover more 'life-threatening' deseases, over a period of time. if you do that, it will definatly make it legal

Not to cut off the debate - indeed, I'd like to get on with it - but first things first.

Two questions need to be answered before we debate this on its merits:

Is this a legal resolution? It's legality has been challenged, so we need a judgement. Is there someone I should contact to get that? How is this done with other proposals?
Are amendments needed? Should the wording be changed? Or is this ready for submission as a proposal and the debate that accompanies submission?

If people aren't willing to come forward with major modifications to the wording, I'd like to move to a final draft, and then propose. Once that happens, we can dig into the debate.

To answer number 1: Submit it and see if it gets deleted. Or ask a NS Admin.
To answer number 2: Yeah, it's pretty much good. I couldn't see anything wrong with it, but I would change it so that its impact is on those diseases which have the highest mortality rate among victims (smallpox, tuberculosis, etc.) and immunization against bioweapons, which are allowed in many nonUN states.

Finally, and I don't know if the people saying this have been corrected yet, but I like to be nitpicky anyway: since a virus is not alive, it's not classified as a species in formal biology.

Finally, and I don't know if the people saying this have been corrected yet, but I like to be nitpicky anyway: since a virus is not alive, it's not classified as a species in formal biology.
man, you have been on computers too long. ;) jk. seriously? viruses arnt concidered alive? but they spred and multiply dont they?

As I have said before, viruses fail every test of life. They do not reproduce via mitosis, they have no metabolism, they don't move themselves, etc.

man, you have been on computers too long. ;) jk. seriously? viruses arnt concidered alive? but they spred and multiply dont they?
There's currently some debate in scientific circles to classify them as a species, but at the moment they're not "alive." Just a point of clarification. The points you're making are the same ones that some scientists are making as well. I'll have to see if I can find an article on it later. Now - it's off to dinner!

There's dispute amongst scientists as far as I know. It all depends really on how you define life.

If you take the view that what we consider to be life is just a rather more complicated assortment of the usual chemical reactions, then "alive" just becomes an arbitrary label which we assign to certain collections of molecules and not others, and whether viruses are alive depends on where along the line of complexity you draw the line and say "this is life".

Some common definitions of life centre on processes performed, such as reproduction, metabolism, homeostasis, and response to stimuli, and viruses often don't seem to come under these definitions.

A more lenient definition is that living things are things capable of Darwinian evolution - that is, they are able to leave behind offspring whose characteristics can be refined by natural selection - viruses would appear to fall under this heading (Got this from New Scientist 12 Feb 2005 - article on attempts to create entirely new life).

Alternatively, you could take a less reductionist and a more spiritual approach and say that living things are imbued with some kind of unique force or spirit, but then you're getting more into theology or philosophy.

I've just gone off on a fairly irrelevant tangent, haven't I?

Compare to RL Earth. Smallpox was once a scourge. Then, through precisely this sort of concerted effort, the world community eliminated smallpox, such that today, in RL, nobody dies of it.

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/overview/disease-facts.asp
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/smallpox/en/

"[S]mallpox was once a scourge"? Yeah, I believe that's true. Heart diseases are a scourge too. Common colds, pneumonia, influenza, and many other diseases are the scourge of this community too.

I have no problems with this resolution calling for the quarantine and vaccination of people to prevent smallpox epidemics. I totally agree with it.

But to enforce a mandatory increase in health care spending to all member states is economic suicide. Either rewrite this proposal or scrap it entirely because I believe we do not have the feature of line-item veto.

Notice the second paragraph in the WHO text: "Smallpox, which is believed to have originated over 3,000 years ago in India or Egypt, is one of the most devastating diseases known to humanity. For centuries, repeated epidemics swept across continents, decimating populations and changing the course of history."

IOW, if it exists (and why shouldn't it?), it's a frightful risk.

"In 1967, when WHO launched an intensified plan to eradicate smallpox, the 'ancient scourge' threatened 60% of the world's population, killed every fourth victim, scarred or blinded most survivors, and eluded any form of treatment.... Through the success of the global eradication campaign, smallpox was finally pushed back to the horn of Africa and then to a single last natural case, which occurred in Somalia in 1977. A fatal laboratory-acquired case occurred in the United Kingdom in 1978. The global eradication of smallpox was certified, based on intense verification activities in countries, by a commission of eminent scientists in December 1979 and subsequently endorsed by the World Health Assembly in 1980."

What about heart diseases? Cancers? Strokes? These diseases are probably thousands old too.

Smallpox mortality rate ranged from as much as 26.8% in one RL Earth country to as low as 1.26%. While death from cardiovascular diseases made up 40% of the total deaths in one RL country, a significantly higher mortality rate than smallpox

The last naturally occuring case of smallpox epidemic in RL Earth was in 1977. While cardiovascular diseases are continuosly plaguing the world in an increasing trend.

We could probably suggest that cardiovascular diseases are more deadly than a threat of smallpox. We already have vaccines for smallpox. Vaccines are more than enough, and RL health history proved it, according to Allemende.

Why be bothered so much about smallpox when the real threat and danger are common diseases that kill hundreds of millions of people every year? The mortality rate is getting higher and higher too.

I could not imagine how we could increase spending on a disease that could be contained by vaccination alone and ignore the real health hazards around us.

Since the NSUN has not mounted such an effort, we can not conclude that there is little or no risk, unless we conclude that the disease doesn't exist, but the only reason for reaching that conclusion is the strange idea that RL problems don't exist in NS precisely because they're RL problems. Looking at the issues list, I have to disagree: NS is a mirror of RL. If we have skateboarding, malpractice suits, cannibalism, and road rage, we probably have smallpox, too.

I agree. But why not learn from RL history that smallpox was contained by vaccination and did RL solution really call for a mandatory global increase on health care spending?

As for the notion that this is an effort that would bankrupt the world, RL history suggests otherwise. Frisbeetopia has already suggested that I drop the 1% mandate, and I have (and if anyone can tell me how to produce strikethrough in a post, I'll make it even clearer that the 1% mandate is gone). It worked in RL, and it didn't bankrupt the world. It will work here, as well.

Finally, I got to this part of your message. The 1% mandatory increase is out of the proposal. Yay! I'm done debating this issue. :)

Amended: 3/10/25 2:12PM GMT

Change/Addition
Deletion/Original Text

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Eradicate Smallpox

A resolution to eliminate a potential world health hazard.

Category: Human Rights (1)
Strength: Mild
Proposed By: The United States of Allemande

Description:

RECOGNIZING that the United Nations has already acted to limit the spread of contagious disease through such efforts as United Nations Resolutions #9 ("Keep the World Disease Free (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029596&postcount=10)") and #84 ("NS HIV AIDS Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8012656&postcount=85)"), AND

ACKNOWLEDGING that such acts are justified given the difficulty of containing epidemics, even in the face of prophylactic measures such as those authorized by United Nations Resolutions #34 ("No Embargoes on Medicine (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029664&postcount=34)") and #43 ("Increased Access to Medicine (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030045&postcount=43)") (among others), AND

OBSERVING that highly virulent diseases are the best source of potential templates for so-called "bioweapons" - weapons whose development and use the United Nations has attempted to limit through such acts as United Nations Resolution #17 ("Elimination of Bio Weapons (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029613&postcount=17)"), AND FINALLY

REALIZING that no concerted effort has yet been mounted to address one of the world's oldest and deadliest contagions - variola (commonly known as "smallpox") - a disease of considerable danger in its natural form and even greater danger as a bioweapon,

THE UNITED NATIONS

DECLARES ACCORDINGLY that all Member nations shall make a concerted effort to eradicate smallpox within their territory through the use of established disease eradication techniques, such as quarantine and vaccination, AND

FURTHER CALLS UPON all Member nations to increase health care spending by at least 1% of GDP accordingly to cover the costs of these measures, AND

ALSO FINALLY RECOMMENDS that all Member nations provide other Member nations a share of this additional spending, in a fashion entirely at their discretion, as long as such assistance would not be detrimental to their own eradication efforts, for the purpose of accelerating the pace at which this disease can be wiped out worldwide.

The Submitting Ambassador's Footnotes

(1) Other public health initiatives have been classified under "Human Rights", but according to Enodia's notes on the subject of proposed resolutions (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=282176), "Human Rights" initiatives increase a nation's civil freedoms. In the sense that you're freer alive than dead, I suppose that's true; I nonetheless think that "Environment" more accurately reflects the "quality of life" issues involved (besides, would a proposal to end the effort to "Eradicate Smallpox" really fall under "Moral Decency" (the "opposite" of "Human Rights")?!?

Comments and proposed amendments are welcome (this includes points of style, as this is our first proposed resolution). If accepted, I'll edit this post