4 ms·

As per the NY Times article: On Tuesday, a study in The Lancet estimated that suspending PEPFAR could lead to about one million new H.I.V. infections by 2030 a

by pmags 2y ago

As per the NY Times article: On Tuesday, a study in The Lancet estimated that suspending PEPFAR could lead to about one million new H.I.V. infections by 2030 and could lead to nearly 500,000 AIDS deaths among children and the orphaning of 2.8 million more. Here's details of the Lancet article referenced: -- Cluver et al. 20205. Protecting Africa's children from extreme risk: a runway of sustainability for PEPFAR programmes. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(25)00401-5/abstract https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

hulitu 2y ago
> Protecting Africa's children from extreme risk ... when the pharma companies is infecting their mothers and fathers in the name of science.
aerostable_slug 2y ago
From the NY Times article: > or are awaiting reassignment > These maternal health programs are still funded by the President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR. So the money is still there, so are at least some of the staff, and they're doing a reorg. It doesn't look like they're shutting down the program.
- pmags 2y ago
  You seem to have left out the critical next sentence (which is the topic of article): But without personnel to manage the initiatives or to disburse the money, it’s not clear how the work will continue.
  - aerostable_slug 2y ago
    "Not clear" doesn't mean "won't be done", and the headline misstates reality (all of the staff aren't actually being terminated) which makes me doubt the objectivity of the entire piece. A simple consolidation of program offices doesn't seem like the worst idea in the world and it (along with other relatively benign scenarios) fit with what's been observed.
    - pmags 2y ago
      The administration's record to date with respect to USAID, CDC, NIH, and Dept of Ed, suggests a vanishingly low probability of any "relatively benign scenarios". Based on past actions I think the appropriate Bayesian prior for pretty much all such public health efforts is now "they've intentionally broken it" until proven otherwise. I'm happy to update my prior if evidence to the contrary comes to light.

by pmags 2y ago

hulitu 2y ago

> Protecting Africa's children from extreme risk ... when the pharma companies is infecting their mothers and fathers in the name of science.

aerostable_slug 2y ago

From the NY Times article: > or are awaiting reassignment > These maternal health programs are still funded by the President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR. So the money is still there, so are at least some of the staff, and they're doing a reorg. It doesn't look like they're shutting down the program.

pmags 2y ago
You seem to have left out the critical next sentence (which is the topic of article): But without personnel to manage the initiatives or to disburse the money, it’s not clear how the work will continue.
- aerostable_slug 2y ago
  "Not clear" doesn't mean "won't be done", and the headline misstates reality (all of the staff aren't actually being terminated) which makes me doubt the objectivity of the entire piece. A simple consolidation of program offices doesn't seem like the worst idea in the world and it (along with other relatively benign scenarios) fit with what's been observed.
  - pmags 2y ago
    The administration's record to date with respect to USAID, CDC, NIH, and Dept of Ed, suggests a vanishingly low probability of any "relatively benign scenarios". Based on past actions I think the appropriate Bayesian prior for pretty much all such public health efforts is now "they've intentionally broken it" until proven otherwise. I'm happy to update my prior if evidence to the contrary comes to light.