2 ms·

please read my comment again, you're missing my point. humanity is voting, through their wallets, who should be treated for what. as an individual you despise i

please read my comment again, you're missing my point. humanity is voting, through their wallets, who should be treated for what. as an individual you despise it from a moral standpoint, sure, but once you reach the level of treating billions far stronger and fundamental rules takes over. very similar to the vaccination debate where an individuals opinion should not be respected for a larger goal, a vaccinated herd of people.

HarryHirsch 13y ago
Please read my comment again. "Humanity ... voting, through their wallets" is punting for short-term gains and missing the bigger picture. The economic impact of malaria and bilharziosis is immense. They place a heavy burden on already overstretched public health systems, they discourage investment, and patients cannot work or attend school. If these two could be brought under control, sub-saharan Africa would look entirely different. Let's note that the Panama Canal could only be built after yellow fever was under control in the area.
- pinaceae 13y ago
  the economic impact on those african nations is immense. but the economic impact of those nations is miniscule. that is my point. they do not research, they do not produce, they do not contribute. not just because of malaria, but because of history, hundreds, even thousands of years. diabetes will see even more attention now. why? because of china. china is economically more important to the world, short, middle and long term than africa. this is an un-emotional, completely rational statement. and the panama canal is a great example of the west's interests driving research in medics. white people started colonies, got sick, wanted cures. HIV started to become a target for research the moment famous white people got sick and started dying - and in this context someone like magic johnson is white, western. sub-saharan africa will always be a shitty place to live. climate, natural resources - all work against it. not all locations where humans settle make sense. bangladesh, etc.

HarryHirsch 13y ago

Please read my comment again. "Humanity ... voting, through their wallets" is punting for short-term gains and missing the bigger picture. The economic impact of malaria and bilharziosis is immense. They place a heavy burden on already overstretched public health systems, they discourage investment, and patients cannot work or attend school. If these two could be brought under control, sub-saharan Africa would look entirely different. Let's note that the Panama Canal could only be built after yellow fever was under control in the area.

pinaceae 13y ago
the economic impact on those african nations is immense. but the economic impact of those nations is miniscule. that is my point. they do not research, they do not produce, they do not contribute. not just because of malaria, but because of history, hundreds, even thousands of years. diabetes will see even more attention now. why? because of china. china is economically more important to the world, short, middle and long term than africa. this is an un-emotional, completely rational statement. and the panama canal is a great example of the west's interests driving research in medics. white people started colonies, got sick, wanted cures. HIV started to become a target for research the moment famous white people got sick and started dying - and in this context someone like magic johnson is white, western. sub-saharan africa will always be a shitty place to live. climate, natural resources - all work against it. not all locations where humans settle make sense. bangladesh, etc.