3 ms·

"many officials say spending billions of dollars to fight ailments such as AIDS, malaria, and polio rather than supporting basic health services has left nation

by readme 12y ago

"many officials say spending billions of dollars to fight ailments such as AIDS, malaria, and polio rather than supporting basic health services has left nations unprepared for epidemics like Ebola." So, these people are actually criticizing Gates for not strengthening the overall system? He is not God, you can't just say "Hey, great that you improved W,X, and Y, but we think you should've improved Z instead, then we'd be free of all our problems!" So sure, the critics are right: Gates should instead be an omnipotent god with knowledge of the future and the ability to improve basic healthcare services with the stroke of a pen. Maybe he thought putting his money in places with clearly defined goals was a better idea.

dogma1138 12y ago
What they are saying is that instead of spending that money on say buying malaria meds which are then distributed by western volunteers spending that money on say grants for med and nursing schools for the local population might be a better cause for the long run even tho i might not directly save anyone for a decade or two. I actually agree with the general premise of this criticism and have had similar thoughts about how the west had been dealing with the situation in Africa for quite some time. It seems that pretty much all the west does it to make Africa more and more dependent on external "help" than developing local resources. You can see this across the board from cutting direct investment to undesirable governments to blocking the formation of pan-African military alliances that could provide assistance for conflicts without needed to call in 15,000 Chinese peace keepers. On other projects especially in agriculture it seems that the West(and China too in this case) are insisting on tying African countries to life time mortgages in forms of super advanced engineered crops which African countries can't self sustain without global corporations instead of local traditional farming and homesteading which has been proven to improve communities much faster than Monsanto donating some seeds in a hope of building another captive market.
- readme 12y ago
  My point is that they are criticizing him for his good deeds which are already done, because he did not instead do a good deed which only in their hindsight appears to be a better alternative. It's purely ridiculous to criticize someone in this manner. The appropriate thing to do would be to write an open letter to Gates encouraging him to instead invest in basic services now, since what he's already done cannot be changed, nor is it worthy of such criticism.
  - dogma1138 12y ago
    This is a news article, I haven't seen any indication in the article that they actually covered a specific case of criticism. As it seems to me this is more of a case of reporters conducing research on the effects of donation and the direct intervention medical industry in Africa and presenting the negative effects it might have. The Bill and Melinda Gates tag is a "click bate" which has nothing to do with it being an internet article. Virtually every news article these days and for as long as i can remember needs a hook and this is a fairly easy one to boot. Is it completely fair? probably not, is it grossly wrong? not really...
- jeffdavis 12y ago
  "money on say grants for med and nursing schools for the local population might be a better cause for the long run even tho i might not directly save anyone for a decade or two" Building out general healthcare infrastructure could have a lot of problems. For example, the government might reduce its own funding of the infrastructure by an equal amount, effectively making the foundation a giant taxpayer. I am pleased with the progress the Gates foundation is making. If they actually eradicate polio, that will be a real step forward for all of humanity. Also, it seems like there's a lot of merit in focusing resources when dealing with contagious diseases.
  - dogma1138 12y ago
    Give a man a fish... As it currently stands it's much less about funding and more about the fact that they have no infrastructure, no doctors, no nurses, nothing. Doctors are actually in very high demand in Africa the funny thing is that you would probably get paid much more there than in the west atm (in the countries that at least some what hold it together). A class mate(from high school) of mine actually went to work in Nairobi he's getting paid about 300K US a year working a vascular surgeon(i think). On the polio thing.. sure eradicating polio might sound like a great cause (and a spiffy headline), but global polio cases in the 21st century are below 500 per year, and considering that polio causes muscle damage in less than 1% of infections, and the mortality rates of that percentage are about 10% i would dare to say that now there might be better things to spend money on. Especially considering that good sanitary conditions (clean water, sewage systems, and heck toilers) prevent the spread of polio almost as well as vaccination.
    - sanxiyn 12y ago
      I disagree with you on polio eradication. Eradication is a risky bet, but it is also one time investment that yields benefits year after year. It is risky because most of benefits are realized only if you reach zero: below 500 per year is very different from zero. In other words, it is a risky bet in part because people think like you.
- konstruktor 12y ago
  Talking about fostering independence instead of fighting Malaria is absurd. Malaria is a chronic diseased devastating to the productivity of affected individuals, and jeopardises their ability to make a living. Farming and homesteading sounds nice, but is hard when you're regularly unable to work because of yet another a Malaria relaplse.
  - dogma1138 12y ago
    You've taken 2 completely unrelated issues and mixed them into a straw man. That said the fight against malaria is proving to be counter productive, all we got so far is that every strain of malaria is now resistant to all malaria medications but one. Malaria is also not a chronic disease(although we made it now due to drug resistant strains). The only relapse you can have is either due to poor treatment(which again goes back to having limited to no healthcare infrastructure) to reinfection which again is a sanitary issue. Turning marshes into fields, stable water and sewage infrastructure, sanitary life stock control all help fight Malaria, and are probably more important in the eradication of it than just dumping more and more meds which are not properly distributed in the first place.
    - hueving 12y ago
      >You've taken 2 completely unrelated issues and mixed them into a straw man You are the one that put these issues together in the grandparent thread in the first place.
      - dogma1138 12y ago
        Please read it again the fact that i had apples and oranges in a thread doesn't mean you should compare them. It was 2 examples of how western intervention builds reliance rather than self sufficiency in Africa. By no means i said we should fund local homesteads instead of malaria drugs. I said that funding local farming might be better than funding high tech crop projects, and improving local medical services and sanitary conditions might be better than just throwing more doctors without borders at it with out thinking of the bigger pictures...
calibraxis 12y ago
Countries like the US focus power in the hands of elites, who act benevolent or not as they wish. To influence their allocation decisions, you have various methods at your disposal. In a dictatorship, you'd similarly try to influence the king; in a Soviet state, you'd influence the Party; etc. In the US, you influence capitalists and the state which serves them. If you look closer at the critiques than some news article, the Gates Foundation has been reported to give money to big pharma and strengthen intellectual property rights. Rather than more fundamental changes to the system. Feel free to look closer at the real, serious critiques.

by readme 12y ago

dogma1138 12y ago

What they are saying is that instead of spending that money on say buying malaria meds which are then distributed by western volunteers spending that money on say grants for med and nursing schools for the local population might be a better cause for the long run even tho i might not directly save anyone for a decade or two. I actually agree with the general premise of this criticism and have had similar thoughts about how the west had been dealing with the situation in Africa for quite some time. It seems that pretty much all the west does it to make Africa more and more dependent on external "help" than developing local resources. You can see this across the board from cutting direct investment to undesirable governments to blocking the formation of pan-African military alliances that could provide assistance for conflicts without needed to call in 15,000 Chinese peace keepers. On other projects especially in agriculture it seems that the West(and China too in this case) are insisting on tying African countries to life time mortgages in forms of super advanced engineered crops which African countries can't self sustain without global corporations instead of local traditional farming and homesteading which has been proven to improve communities much faster than Monsanto donating some seeds in a hope of building another captive market.

readme 12y ago
My point is that they are criticizing him for his good deeds which are already done, because he did not instead do a good deed which only in their hindsight appears to be a better alternative. It's purely ridiculous to criticize someone in this manner. The appropriate thing to do would be to write an open letter to Gates encouraging him to instead invest in basic services now, since what he's already done cannot be changed, nor is it worthy of such criticism.
- dogma1138 12y ago
  This is a news article, I haven't seen any indication in the article that they actually covered a specific case of criticism. As it seems to me this is more of a case of reporters conducing research on the effects of donation and the direct intervention medical industry in Africa and presenting the negative effects it might have. The Bill and Melinda Gates tag is a "click bate" which has nothing to do with it being an internet article. Virtually every news article these days and for as long as i can remember needs a hook and this is a fairly easy one to boot. Is it completely fair? probably not, is it grossly wrong? not really...
jeffdavis 12y ago
"money on say grants for med and nursing schools for the local population might be a better cause for the long run even tho i might not directly save anyone for a decade or two" Building out general healthcare infrastructure could have a lot of problems. For example, the government might reduce its own funding of the infrastructure by an equal amount, effectively making the foundation a giant taxpayer. I am pleased with the progress the Gates foundation is making. If they actually eradicate polio, that will be a real step forward for all of humanity. Also, it seems like there's a lot of merit in focusing resources when dealing with contagious diseases.
- dogma1138 12y ago
  Give a man a fish... As it currently stands it's much less about funding and more about the fact that they have no infrastructure, no doctors, no nurses, nothing. Doctors are actually in very high demand in Africa the funny thing is that you would probably get paid much more there than in the west atm (in the countries that at least some what hold it together). A class mate(from high school) of mine actually went to work in Nairobi he's getting paid about 300K US a year working a vascular surgeon(i think). On the polio thing.. sure eradicating polio might sound like a great cause (and a spiffy headline), but global polio cases in the 21st century are below 500 per year, and considering that polio causes muscle damage in less than 1% of infections, and the mortality rates of that percentage are about 10% i would dare to say that now there might be better things to spend money on. Especially considering that good sanitary conditions (clean water, sewage systems, and heck toilers) prevent the spread of polio almost as well as vaccination.
  - sanxiyn 12y ago
    I disagree with you on polio eradication. Eradication is a risky bet, but it is also one time investment that yields benefits year after year. It is risky because most of benefits are realized only if you reach zero: below 500 per year is very different from zero. In other words, it is a risky bet in part because people think like you.
konstruktor 12y ago
Talking about fostering independence instead of fighting Malaria is absurd. Malaria is a chronic diseased devastating to the productivity of affected individuals, and jeopardises their ability to make a living. Farming and homesteading sounds nice, but is hard when you're regularly unable to work because of yet another a Malaria relaplse.
- dogma1138 12y ago
  You've taken 2 completely unrelated issues and mixed them into a straw man. That said the fight against malaria is proving to be counter productive, all we got so far is that every strain of malaria is now resistant to all malaria medications but one. Malaria is also not a chronic disease(although we made it now due to drug resistant strains). The only relapse you can have is either due to poor treatment(which again goes back to having limited to no healthcare infrastructure) to reinfection which again is a sanitary issue. Turning marshes into fields, stable water and sewage infrastructure, sanitary life stock control all help fight Malaria, and are probably more important in the eradication of it than just dumping more and more meds which are not properly distributed in the first place.
  - hueving 12y ago
    >You've taken 2 completely unrelated issues and mixed them into a straw man You are the one that put these issues together in the grandparent thread in the first place.
    - dogma1138 12y ago
      Please read it again the fact that i had apples and oranges in a thread doesn't mean you should compare them. It was 2 examples of how western intervention builds reliance rather than self sufficiency in Africa. By no means i said we should fund local homesteads instead of malaria drugs. I said that funding local farming might be better than funding high tech crop projects, and improving local medical services and sanitary conditions might be better than just throwing more doctors without borders at it with out thinking of the bigger pictures...

calibraxis 12y ago

Countries like the US focus power in the hands of elites, who act benevolent or not as they wish. To influence their allocation decisions, you have various methods at your disposal. In a dictatorship, you'd similarly try to influence the king; in a Soviet state, you'd influence the Party; etc. In the US, you influence capitalists and the state which serves them. If you look closer at the critiques than some news article, the Gates Foundation has been reported to give money to big pharma and strengthen intellectual property rights. Rather than more fundamental changes to the system. Feel free to look closer at the real, serious critiques.