4 ms·

So that kind of reminds me of this comic: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-11-21 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-11-21 I really don't get how peop

So that kind of reminds me of this comic: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-11-21 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-11-21 I really don't get how people assume that the US (or anyone else for that matter) was just sitting on its hands this entire time not doing anything at all about fatal, potentially-epidemic viruses. As a matter of fact, we have been developing antivirals. The new hotness in COVID antivirals is remdesivir, which was originally developed in 2015 or so to treat Ebola and Marburg viruses. Marburg and, to an even greater extent, Ebola viruses have caused deadly outbreaks and epidemics in recent years. Tamiflu was also developed in the late 1990's as an antiviral targeted against influenza. We also have influenza vaccines that we update on an annual basis. Influenza is a massive area of research and public health work, largely inspired by the legacy of the 1918 "Spanish" flu pandemic as well as intermittent scares and smaller pandemics since then, including the H5N1 "bird" and H1N1 "swine" flu scares of the 00's--the latter of which did formally reach pandemic status. HIV is one of the fundamentally scariest viruses out there, and enormous resources have been invested in it for decades to develop effective antiviral drugs and provide them at large scale. Starting in 2003, the US government deployed massive amounts of humanitarian aid under the PEPFAR program to curb the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa, saving 18 million human lives. Tens of billions of dollars were invested in these efforts. We got kicked in the nuts with a fucking coronavirus anyway. The fact of the matter is that Mother Nature is just a real bitch sometimes.

boomboomsubban 7y ago
>Tens of billions of dollars were invested in these efforts. We got kicked in the nuts with a fucking coronavirus anyway. The fact of the matter is that Mother Nature is just a real bitch sometimes Almost none of those billions were spent on sars-like coronaviruses though, despite the risk being well established after the last time mother nature was a bitch. Antivirals are only being developed if they can immediately turn a profit.
- philwelch 7y ago
  > Almost none of those billions were spent on sars-like coronaviruses though That’s just not true. And at any rate, you’re only saying that with perfect hindsight, ignoring the other pandemic threats and actual, not potential epidemics that were addressed. There’s an equally likely scenario as the one we find ourselves in now where research prioritizes coronaviruses and, as a result, there’s an Ebola or influenza pandemic instead. Or maybe we manage to avert first-world pandemics altogether at the expense of simply letting millions of people in the Global South die from HIV/AIDS. > Antivirals are only being developed if they can immediately turn a profit. Again this is ludicrous. Developing and producing antiviral drugs to treat Ebola and HIV in sub-Saharan Africa wasn’t done for profit. There’s no profit to be made there anyway, certainly not compared to wealthier markets like Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, or South Korea that faced coronavirus outbreaks in the past. Though, as it turns out, one of the more promising COVID antivirals, remdesivir, was originally intended to treat Ebola in the first place.
  - boomboomsubban 7y ago
    >That’s just not true. And at any rate, you’re only saying that with perfect hindsight, ignoring the other pandemic threats and actual, not potential epidemics that were addressed This has been known as one of the major pandemic threats for quite some time now. Additional resources should have been spent preparing for it, but that doesn't require diverting resources from other threats. >Or maybe we manage to avert first-world pandemics altogether at the expense of simply letting millions of people in the Global South die from HIV/AIDS HIV/AIDS has killed around 800,000 people so far. If you're viewing this from a utilitarian view that is clearly the right choice. This pandemic already has the potential of killing more people in the Southern Hemisphere than HIV/AIDS has so far. And again, developing medicine for other diseases is still possible. >Developing and producing antiviral drugs to treat Ebola and HIV in sub-Saharan Africa wasn’t done for profit. Providing some relief for those in impoverished areas does not stop drug companies from making huge profits elsewhere. The US has already spent billions stockpiling for Ebola, and HIV spreads in wealthy countries as well.
    - philwelch 7y ago
      > HIV/AIDS has killed around 800,000 people so far. That’s in a single year, actually. And the annual death rate was significantly higher before PEPFAR.
      - boomboomsubban 7y ago
        I triple checked my source for that, I don't know how I still fucked that up. I blame tiredness, but my mistake.

boomboomsubban 7y ago

>Tens of billions of dollars were invested in these efforts. We got kicked in the nuts with a fucking coronavirus anyway. The fact of the matter is that Mother Nature is just a real bitch sometimes Almost none of those billions were spent on sars-like coronaviruses though, despite the risk being well established after the last time mother nature was a bitch. Antivirals are only being developed if they can immediately turn a profit.

philwelch 7y ago
> Almost none of those billions were spent on sars-like coronaviruses though That’s just not true. And at any rate, you’re only saying that with perfect hindsight, ignoring the other pandemic threats and actual, not potential epidemics that were addressed. There’s an equally likely scenario as the one we find ourselves in now where research prioritizes coronaviruses and, as a result, there’s an Ebola or influenza pandemic instead. Or maybe we manage to avert first-world pandemics altogether at the expense of simply letting millions of people in the Global South die from HIV/AIDS. > Antivirals are only being developed if they can immediately turn a profit. Again this is ludicrous. Developing and producing antiviral drugs to treat Ebola and HIV in sub-Saharan Africa wasn’t done for profit. There’s no profit to be made there anyway, certainly not compared to wealthier markets like Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, or South Korea that faced coronavirus outbreaks in the past. Though, as it turns out, one of the more promising COVID antivirals, remdesivir, was originally intended to treat Ebola in the first place.
- boomboomsubban 7y ago
  >That’s just not true. And at any rate, you’re only saying that with perfect hindsight, ignoring the other pandemic threats and actual, not potential epidemics that were addressed This has been known as one of the major pandemic threats for quite some time now. Additional resources should have been spent preparing for it, but that doesn't require diverting resources from other threats. >Or maybe we manage to avert first-world pandemics altogether at the expense of simply letting millions of people in the Global South die from HIV/AIDS HIV/AIDS has killed around 800,000 people so far. If you're viewing this from a utilitarian view that is clearly the right choice. This pandemic already has the potential of killing more people in the Southern Hemisphere than HIV/AIDS has so far. And again, developing medicine for other diseases is still possible. >Developing and producing antiviral drugs to treat Ebola and HIV in sub-Saharan Africa wasn’t done for profit. Providing some relief for those in impoverished areas does not stop drug companies from making huge profits elsewhere. The US has already spent billions stockpiling for Ebola, and HIV spreads in wealthy countries as well.
  - philwelch 7y ago
    > HIV/AIDS has killed around 800,000 people so far. That’s in a single year, actually. And the annual death rate was significantly higher before PEPFAR.
    - boomboomsubban 7y ago
      I triple checked my source for that, I don't know how I still fucked that up. I blame tiredness, but my mistake.