2 ms·

Their parents can't afford to spend $3 on a child for a one-off vaccine. Frankly I don't think dying of malaria is actually the biggest problem with this story

by roenxi 2y ago

Their parents can't afford to spend $3 on a child for a one-off vaccine. Frankly I don't think dying of malaria is actually the biggest problem with this story - it is the birth-life-death in abject poverty. If they don't die of malaria then they are going to live with nothing (and probably die of something else horrible I would suspect). The actual solution to this sort of problem is what China did - lots of sweatshop labour, slowly scaling up the business opportunities into higher value sectors to the point where they're starting to look quite competitive against European lifestyles. Charity doesn't cut it for getting big fractions of humanity from poverty into the middle class. Then they don't need some billionaire's charity to give them $3 for vaccines. They have incomes of a few thousand dollars and can afford their own medical treatment.

jvanderbot 2y ago
So you're latching onto malaria, saying they can't afford it, so it's a mercy that they die? Besides being fatalistic nonsense, and also ignoring the other net positive, poverty reducing stuff I mentioned, AND being needlessly cruel, you completely ignored the fact that we're taking about free donated vaccines, funded by a billion dollar philanthropist, not a weird market solution where only those who can afford vaccines get to live.
- roenxi 2y ago
  > So you're latching onto malaria, saying they can't afford it, so it's a mercy that they die? No, I'm not. Put it this way - the country with the lowest income per-capita on Wikipedia is Burundi with maybe $200/head [0]. If you're telling me that the country can't manage something equivalent to an effective average tax rate of 1.5% for a 100:1 ROI life saving vaccine, then the people in that country objectively have bigger problems than kids dying of malaria. Or your numbers are wrong, although I'm inclined to trust them. We're talking amounts of money so small that even Burundi can afford to make that sort of effort. I mean good on whoever is paying for the vaccines assuming it isn't taxpayers, but they're token amounts of money. Someone on an average wage could afford to make a significant impact at these dollar ranges, MacKenzie Scott being involved is cool and all but not necessary. Most people on the globe are going to get through life without charity from her - she doesn't have enough money. Add all the billionaires together and they still don't. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
  - jvanderbot 2y ago
    OK, I think we've met at a middle ground here. I understand your viewpoint. The only partial response I have is that, if you had a list of all the problems facing such a country, you might understand why a full country-wide malaria vaccine can't bubble up (but I can't speak particulars). The kinds of orgs I'm referring to have a massive triage problem to tackle with those countries, and targeted investment is always with the goal of "teaching them to fish". You can read their reports and impact statements online with a little research.

by roenxi 2y ago

jvanderbot 2y ago

So you're latching onto malaria, saying they can't afford it, so it's a mercy that they die? Besides being fatalistic nonsense, and also ignoring the other net positive, poverty reducing stuff I mentioned, AND being needlessly cruel, you completely ignored the fact that we're taking about free donated vaccines, funded by a billion dollar philanthropist, not a weird market solution where only those who can afford vaccines get to live.

roenxi 2y ago
> So you're latching onto malaria, saying they can't afford it, so it's a mercy that they die? No, I'm not. Put it this way - the country with the lowest income per-capita on Wikipedia is Burundi with maybe $200/head [0]. If you're telling me that the country can't manage something equivalent to an effective average tax rate of 1.5% for a 100:1 ROI life saving vaccine, then the people in that country objectively have bigger problems than kids dying of malaria. Or your numbers are wrong, although I'm inclined to trust them. We're talking amounts of money so small that even Burundi can afford to make that sort of effort. I mean good on whoever is paying for the vaccines assuming it isn't taxpayers, but they're token amounts of money. Someone on an average wage could afford to make a significant impact at these dollar ranges, MacKenzie Scott being involved is cool and all but not necessary. Most people on the globe are going to get through life without charity from her - she doesn't have enough money. Add all the billionaires together and they still don't. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
- jvanderbot 2y ago
  OK, I think we've met at a middle ground here. I understand your viewpoint. The only partial response I have is that, if you had a list of all the problems facing such a country, you might understand why a full country-wide malaria vaccine can't bubble up (but I can't speak particulars). The kinds of orgs I'm referring to have a massive triage problem to tackle with those countries, and targeted investment is always with the goal of "teaching them to fish". You can read their reports and impact statements online with a little research.