2 ms·

Poorer countries and generally countries with worse governance have a real trouble controlling tuberculosis. Given how much of it is asymptomatic, you have to h

Poorer countries and generally countries with worse governance have a real trouble controlling tuberculosis. Given how much of it is asymptomatic, you have to have a real screening program including X-rays in order to catch cases, and that is beyond the ability of most developing countries - which are precisely the countries where most of the population boom is taking place. I don't believe that USAID can cover, say, the whole of Africa with preventative care. The US cannot cover even all of its own citizens, for a host of reasons, much less 1,5 billion people in exotic regions far from its borders. Purge of USAID is likely to make the situation worse, but only marginally worse. The real problem is that at least third of humanity doesn't yet have any reasonable healthcare infrastructure, reliable grid (for medical machines to work), public safety (for doctors to survive), etc., etc., etc. If we had a functional recipe to solve such problems, they would likely be solved already.

leoh 2y ago
> Purge of USAID is likely to make the situation worse, but only marginally worse Do you have a degree in public health?
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  What? About a quarter of the entire humanity is infected with TBC bacteria. Two billion people, often in the most remote and poorest places in the world, like Niger or Afghanistan. You don't have to be a public health professional to calculate that USAID can put a dent to this massive problem, but cannot even dream about reducing it to, say, half of its current size.
  - pixxel 2y ago
    The answer was, no.
  - leoh 2y ago
    >but only marginally worse My point is that I don't think OP is qualified to say whether or not USAID is putting a meaningful dent in the TB problem. It's entirely possible that, for example, if you deploy resources amongst individuals that are known to travel, for example, you could significantly eliminate the probability of others being infected (including you and I in the developed world).
os2warpman 2y ago
> The US cannot cover even all of its own citizens, The US already spends enough on healthcare to provide gold-standard best-in-the-world coverage to all of its citizens. It could take any random system better than the one extant in the United States, CTRL-F the country's names in all of the rules and regulations for that system and change it to "The United States", implement that system, and have enough money left over to cure poverty, hunger, and homelessness for $0.00 in extra spending. We choose not to. There is too much money to be made so a constant campaign of disinformation and vilification is waged to stop that from happening.
- Gibbon1 2y ago
  My theory is any system you pick would work if it was run with good faith. The problem with the US system is the financial oligarchy that runs the US sees bad faith as a feature.

leoh 2y ago

> Purge of USAID is likely to make the situation worse, but only marginally worse Do you have a degree in public health?

inglor_cz 2y ago
What? About a quarter of the entire humanity is infected with TBC bacteria. Two billion people, often in the most remote and poorest places in the world, like Niger or Afghanistan. You don't have to be a public health professional to calculate that USAID can put a dent to this massive problem, but cannot even dream about reducing it to, say, half of its current size.
- pixxel 2y ago
  The answer was, no.
- leoh 2y ago
  >but only marginally worse My point is that I don't think OP is qualified to say whether or not USAID is putting a meaningful dent in the TB problem. It's entirely possible that, for example, if you deploy resources amongst individuals that are known to travel, for example, you could significantly eliminate the probability of others being infected (including you and I in the developed world).

os2warpman 2y ago

> The US cannot cover even all of its own citizens, The US already spends enough on healthcare to provide gold-standard best-in-the-world coverage to all of its citizens. It could take any random system better than the one extant in the United States, CTRL-F the country's names in all of the rules and regulations for that system and change it to "The United States", implement that system, and have enough money left over to cure poverty, hunger, and homelessness for $0.00 in extra spending. We choose not to. There is too much money to be made so a constant campaign of disinformation and vilification is waged to stop that from happening.

Gibbon1 2y ago
My theory is any system you pick would work if it was run with good faith. The problem with the US system is the financial oligarchy that runs the US sees bad faith as a feature.