NationStates Jolt Archive

Again, we have edited it so it patches up the problems the last time we posted. We have also cut out the part on treatment, as most of this is mentioned in previous resolutions.

This would be under social justice,

------------------------------------------

The United Nations,

DESIRING to reduce unnecessary loss of life,

FROM epidemics

AND Biological attacks (Both air and water form) from National Security breaches

NOTICING the number of lives lost due to disease,

STATING that many could be prevented from simple vaccinations,

UNDERSTANDING that not everyone can afford to have vaccinations,

GOING FURTHER than Resolution #9 and #98

TO eradicate other diseases from UN Nations,

THUS HEREBY PROCLAIMING that the following vaccinations must be provided free of charge to all citizens:

1. Small Pox
2. Measles
3. Mumps
4. Typhoid
5. Rubella
6. Tetanus
7. Polio
8. Tuberculosis (TB)
9. Diphtheria
10. Whooping cough (pertussis)
11. Hib (causes cerebrospinal meningitis)
12. Meningitis B and C
13. Hepatitis A, B, C, D-agent, E, F and G
14. Cholera
15. Rabies

NOTICING that not all diseases exist in all parts of the world,

HOWEVER noticing that some vaccinations are temporary,

THUS PROCLAIMING that the following must be provided under conditions where the citizen is under threat:

1. Malaria
2. Yellow Fever

FURTHER stating that vaccines, which include diseases, will have them in a sufficiently weakened level or a dead state that will make them harmless.

PREDICTING that not every nation will have vaccines at hand immeadiately,

HOWEVER priority is given to children, the elderly and disabled when in shortage,

THEREFORE allowing the nation 10 years to respond to vaccinate all citizens.

REALISING the economies of some nations,

BELIEVING that the nations will not be ready within the 10 years deadline,

ALLOWS International Red Cross Organization (IRCO) (Created in Resolution #77) to help and aid those countries who need vaccines.

BELIEVING that this will reduce national death rates, especially infant mortality rates,

FURTHERMORE BELIEVING that if these laws are enacted, public health care standards will increase globally.

HOWEVER, stating that citizens of each respective country have the right not to be given vaccinations or treatment due to beliefs, health risks or religion.

-----------------------------------------

Please give pointers. I believe that this is almost ready, but posting in here always points out easy mistakes, so fire away :D

Typically, you can just keep these all in one thread.

Just for future reference.

This just looks really ugly as a resolution. That's not a flaw in itself - just makes it hard to read.

It's also a House of Cards - and a bad one at that, as the IRCO was created by Resolution #29, not #77.

And the shopping list of vaccines is annoying. Just go for "major infectious diseases" or something.

It's also a House of Cards - and a bad one at that, as the IRCO was created by Resolution #29, not #77.


Noted.

And the shopping list of vaccines is annoying. Just go for "major infectious diseases" or something.This is nothing more to us than a shopping list of some diseases that might or might not be a threat to member nations. Thus it needs to be dropped and simply state 'major ifectious diseases' thus leaving it up to either a committee to figure them out or each nation to figure out what they need based on the threats to their citizens and visitors.

This is nothing more to us than a shopping list of some diseases that might or might not be a threat to member nations. Thus it needs to be dropped and simply state 'major ifectious diseases' thus leaving it up to either a committee to figure them out or each nation to figure out what they need based on the threats to their citizens and visitors.
No, leave the list. The idea is so to eliminate wiggle room and hassle.

Maybe the Resolution could seek to create some kind of fund governments, companies or private citizens could donate to, which may be used to help fund the providing of these vaccinations in third-world countries?

Dr Marcus Armont
Ambassador Extraordinaire
Acting Representative to the UN

I repeat that I would rather not a specific list as the list does not address new threats nor are all those listed necessarily threats within all nations.

I agree with Gruenberg, it is a little ugly at present. Here are a couple of edits I'd put in, just to make it more elegant/clear:

- Don't put 'and biological attacks' on a new line, its an unnecessar complication
- I'd be 'concerned', not 'understanding' that people can't afford vaccinations.
- the line 'noting that some vaccines are temporary' breaks up the logic of that part, so should either be moved somewhere or deleted entirely; deleting would do no harm.
- 'realising that economies of some nations' makes no sense at all, I would replace it and the line after it with 'Understanding that the economic position of some countries may prevent their fulfilling the 10 year deadline' and then 'encourage', not allow, the IRCO to help all countries 'with the nations' consent except in such cases where IRCO intervention is necessary to the fulfilment of the deadline'.
- The last clause pretty much negates the entire resolution; you cant simultaneously innoculate all citizens AND give them the right to abstain. Thus, I propose 'all citizens' wherever applicable should be replaced with 'all consenting citizens', but make sure you define consenting as 'all those who don't object on medical or religious grounds'.
- also incidentally, 'stating that vaccines include a weakened form of the disease' etc is ENTIRELY irrelevant and adds nothing to the resolution, thus should be removed to avoid clutter.

Being an economist, I'm also obligated to point out that you might want to give some provision for how countries might be expected to provide for this; such massive innoculation programmes might well be unaffordable for some nations. Thus, maybe, a clause encouraging richer member states to provide aid either directly to member states who might not be able to afford this, or directly to the IRCO (which also can't afford to innoculate half the world without any help).

Great resolution, by the way :)

I repeat that I would rather not a specific list as the list does not address new threats nor are all those listed necessarily threats within all nations.
Perhaps a clause could be added to allow for new threats to be added to the list, and diseases no longer relevant to be removed.

I repeat that I would rather not a specific list as the list does not address new threats nor are all those listed necessarily threats within all nations.

I agree! For example, the list doesn't include VODAIS or Spon Plague, both of which are known problems in some NS nations. And some diseases that ARE on the list, such as Smallpox, are no longer a problem in Saturn Corp, though with non-UN nations creating bio-weapons, that could change.

No, leave the list. The idea is so to eliminate wiggle room and hassle.You don't understand the list only names certain diseases which many member nations don't see as a threat but they may have others that they see as such... Thus the UN will only deal with those listed here and not those that are a greater threat to all member nations.

Take rabies most nations now have something to stop it's effects just not forever.. yet this is not a vaccine so here we would be funding going on to find a vaccine when we have not gotten the cure out to everyone who needs it. Once you have the rabies cure in place where needed then work on a vaccine that might end it forever or a longer period... but first we need to get even the short term cures our first and to where they are needed. As I don't believe sealife carries rabies so nations who are seabased beings would not worry about rabies but something else not even on this list, that would be as great a threat to them as rabies to those exposed to it. So who do we help first...? Why do they get left out?

There is a proposal to repeal R113 that if you are worried about this then you need to go look at that one.. R113 deals with BioWeapons and everyone of the diseases on this list could be used if gotten under control as a BioWeapon and some have already been used as such..

I agree! For example, the list doesn't include VODAIS or Spon Plague, both of which are known problems in some NS nations. And some diseases that ARE on the list, such as Smallpox, are no longer a problem in Saturn Corp, though with non-UN nations creating bio-weapons, that could change.Here we have what we call Green River Fever Virus (RW=Gastro Intestinal Virus) that is not on your list... As for Smallpox it has been develoved into a BioWeopon as has Yellow Fever.. (RW= Believe English infected the Native Americans with one of these and dang near wiped them out in some parts America early on by accident)

You don't understand the list only names certain diseases which many member nations don't see as a threat but they may have others that they see as such... Thus the UN will only deal with those listed here and not those that are a greater threat to all member nations.

Take rabies most nations now have something to stop it's effects just not forever.. yet this is not a vaccine so here we would be funding going on to find a vaccine when we have not gotten the cure out to everyone who needs it. Once you have the rabies cure in place where needed then work on a vaccine that might end it forever or a longer period... but first we need to get even the short term cures our first and to where they are needed. As I don't believe sealife carries rabies so nations who are seabased beings would not worry about rabies but something else not even on this list, that would be as great a threat to them as rabies to those exposed to it. So who do we help first...? Why do they get left out?

There is a proposal to repeal R113 that if you are worried about this then you need to go look at that one.. R113 deals with BioWeapons and everyone of the diseases on this list could be used if gotten under control as a BioWeapon and some have already been used as such..

Here we have what we call Green River Fever Virus (RW=Gastro Intestinal Virus) that is not on your list... As for Smallpox it has been develoved into a BioWeopon as has Yellow Fever.. (RW= Believe English infected the Native Americans with one of these and dang near wiped them out in some parts America early on by accident)

----

Perhaps a clause could be added to allow for new threats to be added to the list, and diseases no longer relevant to be removed.

Perhaps a clause could be added to allow for new threats to be added to the list, and diseases no longer relevant to be removed.You might want to look into the World Heritage List to see the kind of abuses such things can generate. To say nothing of the fact that, with amendments illegal, it would be impossible to alter the Resolution without Repealing it.

Typically, being too exact is what kills Proposals. "Dangerous infectious diseases" or the like should suffice.

----Originally Posted by Rotovia-
Perhaps a clause could be added to allow for new threats to be added to the list, and diseases no longer relevant to be removed.The UN needs to establish a disease threat list not a small group of nations in the UN. As that small group of nations would not have the information the UN would have on individual members.. and some nations are biased in how they feel about other nations so they might simply not see them.


Also the term vaccine if one is assuming it means to end the threat of a disease if you get it must be looked at. There are cures for a disease some work for just to stop it that one time you get it, other might protect you for say a year... or ten... look at the flu bug that runs every year and how they have to figure out what will hit hardest as seems every year it changes and old vaccines or flu shots are no good. Due to mutations of the original virus that caused the disease. So first problem here is we are only 1/3 of the world nation wise,, they 2/3 are breading grounds for possible mutations of an old virus that we had a vaccine for. So to vaccinate all member nations is going to come back and kick us in rear maybe tommorrow or maybe ten years down or not until one hundred or one thousand years down.

My nation is in a region of 10 billion we are just 1/5 of that so there are four virus mutating out there that one day will kill us if something isn't done about it now. Look around you how many nations next to you are not in the UN and don't even have a basic health system to deal with a common flu or cold.. Think what they are for some of the ones on your list. Breeding grounds for them to mutate to where current vaccines are useless.

We do need a program but need something better than this one. This one starts of with a list that many nations have voiced is wrong and then it don't consider that 2/3 of the nations existing may not be doing anything about these threats thus are breeding grounds for them to mutate in and come back around and kick us in ass while we are relaxed because we got vaccinated two years ago for it.

You might want to look into the World Heritage List to see the kind of abuses such things can generate. To say nothing of the fact that, with amendments illegal, it would be impossible to alter the Resolution without Repealing it.

Typically, being too exact is what kills Proposals. "Dangerous infectious diseases" or the like should suffice.
It still can't hurt to have the original list, with a clause that says as diseases loose threat status they are no longer enforceable under the resolution. I just don't think leaving the diseases up to national governments is a good idea.

It still can't hurt to have the original list, with a clause that says as diseases loose threat status they are no longer enforceable under the resolution. I just don't think leaving the diseases up to national governments is a good idea.Still you have the problem that some of the diseases on this list are no threat to all nations. Thus you start out with a bad list you feel is important and many don't

OOC: I noted in an earlier post that the English early on probably infrected Native Americans with Smallpox or Yellow Fever.... well found this...

THE PEQUOT WAR (1637): European diseases, probably chicken pox, killed an estimated 90% of Native Americans in the coastal areas of Massachusetts between 1616 and 1618 (diseases were brought to New England by European fishermen who lived in temporary camps during the Spring and Summer fishing season). ==I cut the rest on the Pequot War since it didn't apply==

Also read this in same articleMexico's population may have decreased from 25 million to 3 million between 1520 and 1570. While exact population figures are still debated, historians universally agree that the Old World diseases, smallpox, yellow fever, malaria, measles, had a devastating effect on local populations. European explorers carried also carried American disease, syphilis, back to Europe. Syphilis, however, did not devastate the Old World's population. Europe's population increased from 55 million to 100 million between 1450 and 1600.

You don't even include Chickenpox or Syphilis in your list.. What if a given un member nation is at the point where they are those Native Americans and you the European UN teams going in to try and vaccinate them for all those on your list? You'd kill them but not from one on your list. Then carry syphilis back to your family at home and maybe it would be a killer there..

OK... Thanks for everyone's help. I will get on it right away.

OK... Thanks for everyone's help. I will get on it right away.The idea here is a good one but we could go on and on with other diseases that would need to be added to your list even before it got into effect.. There are areas I have been in in real life where there are diseases can see need to be considered just as big a threat as some of these on your list are... Trouble is these don't effect native populations but do visitors to that regions.. Thus when we visit anywhere we may find that there is a little dirty bug waiting to get us. When was in Europe and visiting France they said okay drink the wine avoid the water. Stuff like that as each area will have their own problems that to natives may not do much harm because they have grown a natural immunity to it so don't need a vaccine.

One such that have seen is Schistosomiasis is readily treated using a single oral megadose of the drug Praziquantel. While Praziquantel is safe and highly effective in curing an infected patient, it does not prevent re-infection by cercariae and is thus not an optimum treatment for people living in endemic areas. As with other major parasitic diseases, there is ongoing and extensive research into developing a vaccine that will prevent the parasite from completing its life cycle in humans.This is the treatment statement on something snails carry and leave for humans in stagant water most time. Where there is a problem of Malaria you also have this.. What it does is put a parasite in the body over time this thing reproduces and makes a man look pregnant once the parasites reproduce so much,, they told us it would take 20 years no treatment for it to kill you but it would. As with anything this thing could become immune to the treatment by mutating and also learn to reproduce faster so could kill in only a year. So there are a lot more disease out there that some of us are more concerned with than those on your list. Anyone been to Puerto Rico has heard of it.. especialy if they stay there a while and are native to the island as seems most of them have a natural immunity to it or so that was what I was told when was there. They use to spray for mosquitoes all time there for the possible malaria.. they carried but all they did was post signs don't swim here..Schist---asis...

May we suggest that the proposal form a UN committee to monitor world diseases and maintain a list of which diseases are likely to affect which regions? Then the resolution can mandate availablity of vaccinations for such disease in their target areas.

In this way, it isn't left up to individual nations, but there is the flexibility many are requesting.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

The United Nations,

DESIRING to reduce unnecessary loss of life,

FROM epidemics and Biological attacks (Both air and water form) from National Security breaches

NOTICING the number of lives lost due to disease,

STATING that many could be prevented from simple vaccinations,

CONCERNED that not everyone can afford to have vaccinations,

GOING FURTHER than Resolution #9 and #98

TO eradicate other diseases from UN Nations,

THUS HEREBY PROCLAIMING that any major present infectious disease must have a vaccination which is to be provided free of charge to all consenting citizens.

ALSO NOTICING that diseases may mutate,

HEREBY announce that any further malicious and infectious forms of disease, once vaccinations for these are made, must be provided free of charge to all consenting citizens.

HOWEVER priority is given to children, the elderly and disabled when in shortage,

NOTICING the world population and cost of vaccinating the consenting citizens,

THEREFORE allowing the nation 10 years to respond to vaccinate all consenting citizens.

UNDERSTANDING that the economic position of some countries may prevent their fulfilling the 10 year deadline,

BELIEVING that the nations will not be ready within the 10 years deadline,

ENCOURAGE the International Red Cross Organization (IRCO) (Created in Resolution #29) to help and aid those countries with the nation's consent,

HOWEVER the IRCO may intervene if the nation will not fulfill the needs before the deadline.

ALSO ALLOWING more developed countries and entrepreneurs to donate both money and vaccinations to the IRCO who can then distibute the donations to the countries who need it.

BELIEVING that this will reduce national death rates, especially infant mortality rates,

FURTHERMORE BELIEVING that if these laws are enacted, public health care standards will increase globally.

----------------------

This is the next draft. There are quite a lot of drastic changes, but still many people find bugs within it all. :)

Please use constructive criticism.