AIDS expenditures and Nation States

[Jeff Lebowski]

OK, I'll stand up for hoyacoug. I agree that he went too far with the post Lingo refers to above. But he is generally articulate and knowledgeable and he researches many topics far more than most of us.

As for the AIDS in Africa topic today, I think he was dead-on. Yes, safe-sex would stop the epidemic, but due to the poverty, ignorance, culture, etc. described by hoya, that is not a realistic solution. At least not anytime in the near term. And the numbers of people dying there and the numbers of orphans are truly horrific. This is one of the worst plagues in human history.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by homeboy

OK, I'll stand up for hoyacoug. I agree that he went too far with the post Lingo refers to above. But he is generally articulate and knowledgeable and he researches many topics far more than most of us.

As for the AIDS in Africa topic today, I think he was dead-on. Yes, safe-sex would stop the epidemic, but due to the poverty, ignorance, culture, etc. described by hoya, that is not a realistic solution. At least not anytime in the near term. And numbers of people dying there and the numbers of orphans are truly horrific. This is one of the worst plagues in human history.

It sure is, but there is no solution, if not for safe sex. If people say, well, we want a solution for unsafe sex, then maybe they're asking too much.

That's like saying, I want a safe solution for playing Russian Roulette. How much must society pay when people are unwilling to comply with the obvious solutions?

More money is spent on AIDS than on Cancer even though our AIDS death rates pale in comparison to the Cancer death rates. Do you know which cancer receives some of the lowest proportions in funding? Prostate. In comparison to breast cancer, it outspent 9 to 1.

We have many epidemic problems and AIDS should not be the number one priority that politics of sex has made it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It sure is, but there is no solution, if not for safe sex. If people say, well, we want a solution for unsafe sex, then maybe they're asking too much.

That's like saying, I want a safe solution for playing Russian Roulette. How much must society pay when people are unwilling to comply with the obvious solutions?

More money is spent on AIDS than on Cancer even though our AIDS death rates pale in comparison to the Cancer death rates. Do you know which cancer receives some of the lowest proportions in funding? Prostate. In comparison to breast cancer, it outspent 9 to 1.

We have many epidemic problems and AIDS should not be the number one priority that politics of sex has made it.

You are making the common mistake of viewing AIDS through the lens of the U.S. experience alone. The AIDS epidemic in Africa completely dwarfs what we have experienced in the U.S. And in Africa it is spread almost exclusively through heterosexual contact.

In 2003, there were 25 million adults in sub-saharan Africa with AIDS/HIV and 12 million AIDS orphans. During that year alone, 2.2 million people died.

By comparison, there were about 40,000 deaths in the U.S. in 2003 due to breast cancer and 29,000 due to prostate cancer. Based on these stats, I think finding a cure for AIDS should be the top priority in terms of research.

That is not to say we shouldn't attempt education. We should attack the problem with everything we've got.

Links for the stats:

http://www.avert.org/subaadults.htm

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/co...he_Decline.asp

http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/prostate/prostate.htm

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by homeboy

You are making the common mistake of viewing AIDS through the lens of the U.S. experience alone. The AIDS epidemic in Africa completely dwarfs what we have experienced in the U.S. And in Africa it is spread almost exclusively through heterosexual contact.

In 2003, there were 25 million adults in sub-saharan Africa with AIDS/HIV and 12 million AIDS orphans. During that year alone, 2.2 million people died.

By comparison, there were about 40,000 deaths in the U.S. in 2003 due to breast cancer and 29,000 due to prostate cancer. Based on these stats, I think finding a cure for AIDS should be the top priority in terms of research.

That is not to say we shouldn't attempt education. We should attack the problem with everything we've got.

Links for the stats:

http://www.avert.org/subaadults.htm

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/co...he_Decline.asp

http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/prostate/prostate.htm

As a US citizen I'm not supposed to look at it from a US perspective?

Africa has so many problems, many of which are plain unfixable, why should we invest money in that if we can even fix our own problems?

I'm not trying to be inhumane, just pragmatic. Our funds are by definition limited.

[DirtyHippieUTE]

Originally Posted by Archaea

As a US citizen I'm not supposed to look at it from a US perspective?

Africa has so many problems, many of which are plain unfixable, why should we invest money in that if we can even fix our own problems?

I'm not trying to be inhumane, just pragmatic. Our funds are by definition limited.

I'm not saying it is right, but I tend to look at some of these things the same way. We all understand how Aids is spread and we all know the solution to the problem. Yes, the Aids epidemic in Africa is horrible, but how much money do you throw at a people who have the solution in hand and don't use it.

On the other hand, cancer often attacks "innocent" victims. And, while it may not kill anywhere near as many people as AIDS, it kills far more people in the US.

I feel blessed every time I watch the news. I have no idea why God put me in the rural west, but I'm safe and happy here while others are being shot at, starvig or getting sick.

I want to say we should throw all available support at ending the Aids epidemic in Africa but when do you consider it a lost cause? How far in the hole do you go to bail out a people who aren't helping themselves?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

As a US citizen I'm not supposed to look at it from a US perspective?

I was referring to your discussion of how/why there is such an emphasis on AIDS research:

Originally Posted by Archaea

We have many epidemic problems and AIDS should not be the number one priority that politics of sex has made it.

Given the scope of the catastrophe in Africa, this is a complete mischaracterization.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by DirtyHippieUTE

I'm not saying it is right, but I tend to look at some of these things the same way. We all understand how Aids is spread and we all know the solution to the problem. Yes, the Aids epidemic in Africa is horrible, but how much money do you throw at a people who have the solution in hand and don't use it.

On the other hand, cancer often attacks "innocent" victims. And, while it may not kill anywhere near as many people as AIDS, it kills far more people in the US.

Given the problems with education, culture, reality, etc. that have already been discussed, implying that they deserve this fate since they have a "solution in hand", is callous.

And since you feel they are not "innocent", how about the 12-15 million orphans? Do they deserve this?

Originally Posted by DirtyHippieUTE

I want to say we should throw all available support at ending the Aids epidemic in Africa but when do you consider it a lost cause? How far in the hole do you go to bail out a people who aren't helping themselves?

It's not a lost cause at all. Someone could find a cure any day. Given recent news reports, perhaps someone already has.

This is the worst epidemic since the bubonic plague, and may eventually surpass the bubonic plague. If this is not a worthy cause for foreign aid, then there isn't one.

[DirtyHippieUTE]

Originally Posted by homeboy

Given the problems with education, culture, reality, etc. that have already been discussed, implying that they deserve this fate since they have a "solution in hand", is callous.

And since you feel they are not "innocent", how about the 12-15 million orphans? Do they deserve this?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anybody "deserves" to get AIDS or to be an orphan because of aids. All I am saying is that it is a very dificult situation for me to look at. Part of me knows that it is our duty to care for the poor and needy (and they are the definition of poor and needy), but the other part of me looks at the things that happen right next door and wonders how can I chose one or the other. I don't know anybody in Africa, I don't know any AIDS orphans. I do know a lot of people with cancer, I know several cancer orphans. It's hard, you know what I mean?

Originally Posted by homeboy

It's not a lost cause at all. Someone could find a cure any day. Given recent news reports, perhaps someone already has.

This is the worst epidemic since the bubonic plague, and may eventually surpass the bubonic plague. If this is not a worthy cause for foreign aid, then there isn't one.

I agree 100% that this is a worthy cause, but how much $$ do you send?

On a side note... I saw an interesting thing on PBS (nova I think) about AIDS and the bubonic plague. Several researchers looked in to the history of people who were in contact with the afflicted and should have gotten sick themselves. They basically suggested that the people who didn't die of the plague were genetically pre-disposed to deal with it.

They then did studies on several people who, by their own admission, should have gotten AIDS. One man they interviewed was a gay man who had lost almost ALL of his friends to AIDS. He said that he had participated in unprotected sex with many of them and simply had no explanation why he was never infected.

The researchers believe (and did a pretty good job of connecting the dots) that there is a similarity between the two. That the reason AIDS has not spread as widly among people of european decent is because the AIDS virus works in a similar way as the bubonic plague (All of you medical people don't jump down my throat here, I'm just telling you what they said, there were graphs and diagrams and it made no sense to me).

Anyway... The point was this... The bubonic plague ripped thru europe so that most of the people who survived were genetically pre-disposed to resist it. Since HIV acts in a similar way, the euro's kids are less likely to get AIDS.

That is one of the main reasons why the AIDS epidemic has not ravaged the US and Europe like it has Africa and other "non-european" nations.

Anyway... It was a fascinating show...

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by DirtyHippieUTE

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anybody "deserves" to get AIDS or to be an orphan because of aids. All I am saying is that it is a very dificult situation for me to look at. Part of me knows that it is our duty to care for the poor and needy (and they are the definition of poor and needy), but the other part of me looks at the things that happen right next door and wonders how can I chose one or the other. I don't know anybody in Africa, I don't know any AIDS orphans. I do know a lot of people with cancer, I know several cancer orphans. It's hard, you know what I mean?

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by DirtyHippieUTE

I agree 100% that this is a worthy cause, but how much $$ do you send?

No easy answer there. But I have found the majority of people I talk with have no idea how bad things are in Africa. Or they don't care. Pretty sad. (and I am not saying I put you in this category)

Originally Posted by DirtyHippieUTE

On a side note... I saw an interesting thing on PBS (nova I think) about AIDS and the bubonic plague. Several researchers looked in to the history of people who were in contact with the afflicted and should have gotten sick themselves. They basically suggested that the people who didn't die of the plague were genetically pre-disposed to deal with it.

They then did studies on several people who, by their own admission, should have gotten AIDS. One man they interviewed was a gay man who had lost almost ALL of his friends to AIDS. He said that he had participated in unprotected sex with many of them and simply had no explanation why he was never infected.

The researchers believe (and did a pretty good job of connecting the dots) that there is a similarity between the two. That the reason AIDS has not spread as widly among people of european decent is because the AIDS virus works in a similar way as the bubonic plague (All of you medical people don't jump down my throat here, I'm just telling you what they said, there were graphs and diagrams and it made no sense to me).

Anyway... The point was this... The bubonic plague ripped thru europe so that most of the people who survived were genetically pre-disposed to resist it. Since HIV acts in a similar way, the euro's kids are less likely to get AIDS.

That is one of the main reasons why the AIDS epidemic has not ravaged the US and Europe like it has Africa and other "non-european" nations.

Anyway... It was a fascinating show...

Wow. That's interesting.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by homeboy

I was referring to your discussion of how/why there is such an emphasis on AIDS research:

Given the scope of the catastrophe in Africa, this is a complete mischaracterization.

I'm speaking about US spending on AIDS research which far exceeds cancer even though cancer deaths are about twelve times greater. We should address local problems before world problems.