4 ms·

"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

"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.

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.