March 29, 2006

Perspective

from - smijer

WHO AIDS program not doing so well... mainly due to lack of money:

Each year, more than 570,000 children younger than 15 die of AIDS, most of them having acquired it from their mothers at birth, according to the report.

An estimated 3 million people die of acquired immune deficiency syndrome each year, and WHO officials believe that the "3 by 5" program prevented as many as 350,000 deaths in 2005.

"People have died and continue to die of what is a treatable disease," said Dr. Kevin De Cock, director of the WHO's HIV/AIDS Department.

The program was launched by the WHO and UNAIDS on World AIDS Day, Dec. 1, 2003, with high hopes that the drug benefits achieved in industrialized countries could be quickly spread to the developing world.

But within a year it was clear that the 2005 goal could not be reached, primarily because of insufficient money, the high cost of drugs and the poor health infrastructure in many of the most affected countries.


Tragically:

Nearly 2,000 babies are born with HIV each day because their virus-infected mothers do not get the treatment needed to stop transmission, the World Health Organization (WHO) said on Tuesday.

The Money Quote - from the LA Times:

Global spending on AIDS totaled $8.3 billion in 2005, up from $4.7 billion in 2003. Nearly half of that sum came from the United States through the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.

But the report predicts an $18-billion shortfall in funding for 2005-07. If treatment coverage is to continue expanding, it says, at least $22 billion a year will be required by 2008.

Now, for the perspective. That $22 billion per year is less than the cost of four months of having us a war in Iraq.

One more time... 2000 babies per day vs a "Peance, Freance" Iraq.

::

Posted by smijer at March 29, 2006 07:53 AM
Comments

What is it about this argument that works?

The are gazillions of projects that could be funded if you took the money from one project and gave it to another, but what on earth leads you to believe that if we weren't spending the money on the war in Iraq would cause this money to be spent on AIDS?

Especially since the money for the war in Iraq is over and above the budget -- i.e. deficit spending.

univar.jpg Posted by m on March 31, 2006 01:16 AM
Link to comment

It isn't an argument - it's an exercise in perspective. I don't see where the deficit matters so much - if you're going to take out the loan, it still matters how you spend it. I just wonder why it's worth spending all that money (and all those lives) on a war, when so much positive can be accomplished with less money and no lives spent.

univar.jpg Posted by smijer on April 1, 2006 12:55 PM
Link to comment
Comments for this entry are closed. Please leave your notes on a more recent comment thread.