Forums | MacLife

Farmerkev wrote:

So, how many billion should be spent on AIDS, a problem that effects a tiny percentage?
Yes, it's terrible for those it does. All the other diseases and problems are terrible for those they effect too.

It's an infectious disease.

Presumably the intent is to tackle it before it becomes larger than it is now.  Right?  Is that crazy talk or something, it seems like a no-brainer to me.

Farmerkev wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

So, how many billion should be spent on AIDS, a problem that effects a tiny percentage?
Yes, it's terrible for those it does. All the other diseases and problems are terrible for those they effect too.

It's an infectious disease.

Presumably the intent is to tackle it before it becomes larger than it is now.  Right?  Is that crazy talk or something, it seems like a no-brainer to me.

It's not all that contagious, we're not talking about the flu (which kills something like 36,000 a year in the US) but you didn't answer the question which wasn't about stopping funding or research but the appropriate level for it's share of funding.

Because the Epidemiology of HIV is such that it can spread very easily before symptoms present. In addition, most people who catch the flu (or many other similar infectious diseases) make a full recovery (or die from the disease). People infected with HIV have to rely on an expensive regimen of antiretrovirals to keep their T-cell count up.

Farmerkev wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

It's not all that contagious, we're not talking about the flu (which kills something like 36,000 a year in the US) but you didn't answer the question which wasn't about stopping funding or research but the appropriate level for it's share of funding.

Because the Epidemiology of HIV is such that it can spread very easily before symptoms present. In addition, most people who catch the flu (or many other similar infectious diseases) make a full recovery (or die from the disease). People infected with HIV have to rely on an expensive regimen of antiretrovirals to keep their T-cell count up.

Somewhat easily spread, you can't simply breath the air or touch a door and get it like the flu or a cold.
(and I don't even want to know how many trillions have been spent over the last 100 years trying to cure the cold)

yes, but for the most part, the millions infected with the flu each year do not die, they make a full recovery. The ones killed by the flu are ones with weakened immune systems, who should get inoculated each year.

There is no full recovery from HIV.

Also, as far as foreign aid goes, there are several countries where a full third of the population has this lethal disease.

I think AIDS should be pretty high on the funding list for a practical reason: I don't think it can really be cured without curing a number of other diseases in the process like cancer & Parkinson's.

Farmerkev wrote:

So how many billion do you think we should spend on it in relation to everything else?

How about you put a fair market price on it? Personally, I'm with Duke on this - prioritize this and watch many of the other horrific diseases find themselves cured.

Here's another thing to debate: how about the United States take the first big boy step and mandate that HIV/AIDS drug treatments be affordable for all those suffering with the infliction? IIRC, the daily drug treatments are $25 or more per day.

Graphic Autist wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

[Educate yourself and come back for an adult conversation.

I was merely paraphrasing what you said. You don't seem to care about HIV, and think we spend too much money. Am I wrong? Am I being childish in my assessment?

I care quite a bit about it.
I don't think it should have quite the priority it does over bigger killers but I wouldn't necessarily cut it's funding if it were up to me.
I wouldn't call it underfunded and demand more either.
So how many billion do you think it deserves and where on the list of priorities do you think it should be?

Tallgeese wrote:

res is right. Relatively speaking, AIDS is cake to cure - just find a vaccine. You don't have to solve the drug addictions or African rape cultures that make AIDS a problem - just solve the virus problem.  Malnutrition is the end result of a  lot of very difficult (and expensive) problems with no easily distributable cure.

p-shahw!

there's no money in curing. ongoing daily medication, now that's where the money is.

JF wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

But the UN total number still puts the world total at half a percent.

Actually, even this number is very, very high. The WHO stopped reporting AIDS figures in 2002, but at their last report, the number of annual AIDS cases worldwide was around 200,000. These numbers are positively dwarfed by numbers for other diseases. And, if you want to express that as a percent of the world's population, let's say divide 200,000 by 6,000,000,000, you get 3 thousandths of a percent.

J

uhh, your numbers are off there by an order of magnitude.
http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm
The WHO estimated 2 million deaths from AIDS in 2007, with 2.7 million new cases.

Farmerkev wrote:

It's not all that contagious, we're not talking about the flu (which kills something like 36,000 a year in the US) but you didn't answer the question which wasn't about stopping funding or research but the appropriate level for it's share of funding.

Would it be impossible for it to become more aggressive?

I think any funding for it is far more appropriate than how we spend much of our money.

I'm not really sure what specific funding you're referring to nor what you're comparing it against, so it's not really an easy question to answer.

bratboy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

It's not all that contagious, we're not talking about the flu (which kills something like 36,000 a year in the US) but you didn't answer the question which wasn't about stopping funding or research but the appropriate level for it's share of funding.

Would it be impossible for it to become more aggressive?

I think any funding for it is far more appropriate than how we spend much of our money.

I'm not really sure what specific funding you're referring to nor what you're comparing it against, so it's not really an easy question to answer.

It's very possible for it to mutate and become more aggressive.
The same can be said for the flu which has done that in the past and killed millions or any other virus for that matter.
Earlier in this thread I provided links to the NIH budget which shows funds per disease.
I also provided a link to mortality stats.

Farmerkev wrote:

Earlier in this thread I provided links to the NIH budget which shows funds per disease.
I also provided a link to mortality stats.

Looking over the list, the funding doesn't seem inappropriate to me.