I would much rather have Gates spend his money on clean energy research or infrastructure projects. This sort of spending tugs at the heart strings but unfortunately it can actually be quite counter-productive at improving the lives of people in undeveloped regions.
By decreasing the amount of wealth that is necessary for a human person to remain alive - for example by introducing a new vaccine that allows a large (5+) family in unsanitary conditions to have all of their children reach adulthood - these sorts of programs in undeveloped countries actually create more poverty then they solve. There is not a cheap-manual labor shortage in these countries. There is however an acute shortage of well-paying jobs that don't involve corruption. By allowing the supply of just-surviving people to increase, you are putting even more downward pressure on the wages of unskilled labor (they are caught in the Iron Law of wages).
Keep in mind that in these countries, with no real legal system, unskilled labor doesn't mean gardening like it does in California but violence in the form of gangs/thug-ocracies who typically control access to natural resources or drug running routes. By creating more people, you are making it easier for the systems that keep them poor to grow, in a positive feedback loop.
The problem is not that a $3 drug is too expensive, and that we need to develop a 30 cent drug, the problem is that there are people who can't afford $3 for a life-saving drug. What they really need from the US is jobs, markets, and protection from the threats of climate change that we are causing by using 25% of the world's fossil fuels (more if you count the contribution from production in China to the cheap goods that we consume).
If Gates really wanted to help these people, he would campaign for an end to developed world farm subsidies, fossil fuel subsidies, and the recreational diamond market. But that would make him unpopular in the US.
EDIT: are downvotes for disagreement or for breach of etiquette?
By decreasing the amount of wealth that is necessary for a human person to remain alive - for example by introducing a new vaccine that allows a large (5+) family in unsanitary conditions to have all of their children reach adulthood - these sorts of programs in undeveloped countries actually create more poverty then they solve. There is not a cheap-manual labor shortage in these countries. There is however an acute shortage of well-paying jobs that don't involve corruption. By allowing the supply of just-surviving people to increase, you are putting even more downward pressure on the wages of unskilled labor (they are caught in the Iron Law of wages).
I refuse to believe that the loss of life is perferable than the preservation of life. And quite frankly, arguments from classical economics seem rather cold given the subject matter.
The heart of your argument suggests that the political issues in these countries are the root of the problem. This is correct. However, history shows us that the amount of money spent on politically bankrupt states has little or no impact on making them politically sound. Gates money is useless on the third world political playing field; instead, Gates is choosing to spend it in an area which he can actually have an impact.
As far as domestic politics go, the positions you suggest that Gates take on "farm subsidies, fossil fuel subsidies, and the recreational diamond market" are all politically untenable at the moment. It's not clear Gates could have an impact there either.
This sort of spending tugs at the heart strings but unfortunately it can actually be quite counter-productive at improving the lives of people in undeveloped regions.
I could not disagree more strongly regarding vaccinations not being an effective economic development tool.
Take the polio vaccination program for instance. Polio. Polio doesn't often kill people, but it does often make them lame for the rest of their lives. So, for every person that gets polio, they are extremely limited in the economic goods that they can produce, but they are also an economic drag on the family, because they are a financial burden rather than producing income. Polio has been almost eradicated, and the economic benefits to poverty stricken countries has been huge.
Small Pox is another example. It has all been eradicated, life expectancies have gone up in the third world because of it, and more people are able to produce income for longer.
Other diseases like Malaria, Cholera, Dengue affect hundreds of millions of people world wide each year, and they aren't necessarily killer diseases. And, millions and millions of people are affected by these diseased, and when they are infected, they are an economic drain.
Preventing these diseases with a simple vaccine is going to give a much greater economic boost to poor countries than giving them clean energy technologies or superhighways.
Keep in mind that in these countries, with no real legal system, unskilled labor doesn't mean gardening like it does in California but violence in the form of gangs/thug-ocracies who typically control access to natural resources or drug running routes
That, sir borders on the racist. What countries are you referring to? There are well over a hundred developing countries with various levels of legal systems and economies. Are you saying that all developing nations are thugocracies? Are you suggesting that any and all unskilled labor in developing nations ends up leading to gangs?
By decreasing the amount of wealth that is necessary for a human person to remain alive - for example by introducing a new vaccine that allows a large (5+) family in unsanitary conditions to have all of their children reach adulthood - these sorts of programs in undeveloped countries actually create more poverty then they solve.
Stated more simply: It is good that children in poor countries are dying because if they had lived then they would have created more poverty.
How is this getting any upvotes? marciovm, Gates isn't spending this money to play up his image to the American public and to tug at America's heart strings. He's doing this because it's right. Giving people vaccines to live is right. Letting them die because it might create less poverty isn't - it's missing the point that all lives are important.
I completely agree that empowering the economies of developing nations is a very high priority. Higher GDP's lead to longer life, lower infant mortality, more education, less children per mother (because the opportunity cost of having a child is higher once the mother gets a high salary), etc. However, researching vaccines is just as important and necessary for developing countries that are crippled by HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.
>I would much rather have Gates spend his money on clean energy research or infrastructure projects.
You have to look at the margins. Is the benefit of $10 billion spent on vaccine research greater than $10 billion spent on clean energy or infrastructure? I think it is.
There are already many companies, subsidies, and grants for clean energy. Honda has revenues of about $120 billion per year and it spends 5% of that on R&D. Of course not all of that is spent on clean energy, but Honda is only one car company. $10 billion is a small fraction of the amount spent per year on clean energy research. For comparison, the WHO's yearly budget is around $1 billion.
What about infrastructure? The new bay bridge has a price tag of $6 billion. If that's anything close to the typical price of building big stuff, then vaccine research is definitely more cost-effective in terms of lives saved.
> these sorts of programs in undeveloped countries actually create more poverty then they solve.
Yes, it's a trade-off. More poor people for fewer dead people.
Living in Somalia sucks, but living in a Somalia with smallpox would be even worse. We know the problems of many 3rd world countries are more than just matters of supplying basic needs. You point out the harm caused by corruption and crime, but you neglect another reason for the lack of progress: disease. Workers can't work if they're stricken with malaria, or crippled from polio, or dead from smallpox.
It's true that many cannot afford to pay for vaccines. Luckily, philanthropists and governments like to give money to groups like the Pan American Health Organization (which eradicated smallpox and polio in the americas). If everyone had to pay for their vaccines, smallpox and polio would still kill millions.
Smallpox killed 400 million human beings in the 20th century. That's more than every war since 1900. Now it is gone. Polio crippled hundreds of millions. It remains in only four countries. There are hundreds of millions of cases of malaria each year. Several million die from it, mostly children. It is the biggest killer without a vaccine, and it's about fucking time that changed.
1) Are there any studies that support the "making people healthier would be a net loss to many societies" claim I keep seeing? It's one of those things that sounds like it makes sense, but no one really quotes any credible sources.
2) I would be utterly shocked if he did this to make himself popular in the US. You may put your own money elsewhere, but he's really a pretty smart dude who seems to do a great deal of research before making decisions. It's a little childish to write it off like that.
Clean energy is important and the US government is already spending tons of money on clean energy research. We need people like Bill who will put his money on those who are more unfortunate just because they are born in a wrong place at the wrong time. He is addressing a very important problem. Drug companies don't usually develop drugs for diseases prevalent in developing countries. This problem needs to be solved. You talking about improving economies is too ideal and vague. On come on, give Bill a break. Can't we just simply applaud Bill's great effort to save millions of lives? I am disappointed that people's first reaction is not praise but criticisms (though maybe constructive). Let's just praise this man for his great endeavor for a minute first, ok?
So we should let people die because it's better in this calculation? Out of all the ways of solving such problems isn't letting people die one of the least desirable?
Bootstrapping out of corruption, low faith in the state and minimal social infrastructure is a really hard problem. Public health, education, workforce capacity, the rule of law, and economic productivity are not separate problems that can be addressed in isolation. The problems are interdependent and really, really hard to solve. Pretending otherwise does a disservice to the people doing something to help.
You might be unaware of how much his foundation has given towards micro-lending and education in poor countries. This vaccine initiative just happens to be the largest of its kind ever.
Also, it should be noted that the foundation (according to Wikipedia) specifically targets problems "ignored by governments and other organizations".
You're right - such massive population interventions (for the better) have little precedent, so there may be some consequences that we're unaware of.
But I think you can improve lifestyle in two ways -- increase income like you mentioned, or decrease costs. It's possible for technology to bring costs down. And when costs come down, a $100 income can buy the lifestyle that $300 used to. So even if you depress wages, you can still win by depressing costs even further through technology.
Thank you, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Perhaps I'd have made it clear the problem is corruption and lack of [education on] birth control [constantly sabotaged by religious groups. (Perhaps you wouldn't agree with the last bit?)]
From a neighbour country, down south, have an upvote :)
I come from a third world country and i know that there are tens of millions who are suffering everyday. They are no different than you.We're all human beings. You're just luckier. Bill should definitely get a peace prize for his compassion and generosity.
No technical people that I'm aware of worship Steve Jobs because of his humanitarian qualities. In fact, if you were to do a broad survey using humanitarian work as a criteria, Bill Gates would be the overwhelming preference. Admiring the charisma of Steve Jobs and the generosity of Bill Gates are not mutually exclusive behaviors. By suggesting that that people "stop worshiping Steve Jobs", you seem to be claiming that they are.
Also, "you techies" strikes me as distancing language with a hostile tone. I think you're projecting a broad, unfounded stereotype on people of developed countries. Personally I've very conscious that I was born one of the most advantageous positions in the world. I donate portions of my income with that thought in mind.
For several years, I have had an idea for a nonprofit that would bring top next-gen leaders & influencers from the USA over to third world countries (in Africa, in the current plan), to open their eyes to conditions so they can learn the point you just wrote, maxwin. We're all human beings, and we need to do all we can to help our fellow (wo)man. The hope would be, these people would go on to become the Bill Gates of the next generation and would use their influence to do good.
I've purchased Windows 3.1, 95, 98, 2000 and XP. I'm finally at peace with that now that I know that part of the money has gone to people really who need it.
Sounds quite laudable, but I always wonder about the unintended consequences of things like this. Saving millions of lives, particularly in poorer regions, seems like an unpredictable situation at best.
When someone gets sick they don't just die, they are sick and requiring assistance from others for sometimes long periods of time. This might make the potential productivity of these places higher. I guess the new problem is finding them something productive to do.
I recently started thinking about this after reading Garrett Hardin's The Tragedy of the Commons essay from 1968 about the "population problem". After reading the essay I started on his 1993 book Living Within Limits: Ecology, Economics, and Population Taboos. I just passed the halfway mark in it, but I highly recommend it if you like his essay and the way he presents ideas. The book really does a good job of covering the evolution of the ideas of population control from Malthus onwards.
The essay Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor from 1974 is probably the essay available online that is more applicable to the current discussion.
I do not yet have a well-formed opinion on this one way or the other, I simply find Garrett Hardin's arguments to be thought-provoking. Saving millions of lives will mean that those millions of lives need to be sustained in some way. The resources to do this have to come from somewhere. By saving those millions of lives is that going to lower the quality of life of millions of others? It is a tough problem with, as Hardin mentions, "no technical solution".
I know you didn't mean to come off so harsh, but what you're saying sounds so very selfish.
Who's to decide that person x is to live while person y is to die? Everyone deserves a chance to be the one that lives. Yes, sure, with the famine and the wars and the political problems in these regions it is an interesting thought that perhaps more people will lead to more problems, but it is so very cruel to say that maybe it's best that people die to disease and sickness rather than be given a chance to prove themselves.
There will be no messiah to solve everything at once. You deal with these problems as you can. First the lives to be saved by vaccine are saved, and then they will be alive to face the next round. Sorry its not cleaner.
It would seem to me that focusing on only one aspect of the hardships suffered by a people is like you said, going to give rise to many unintended consequences. Granted "improving infrastructure" isn't quite as sexy as "providing vaccines", it would probably make more sense to focus on a holistic approach than an isolated problem.
I honestly believe Bill Gates is trying to use the opportunity he has to do improve the lot of humanity. Good for him.
However this is a massive opportunity for the vaccine companies who stand to gain a lot (far more than the $10bn) from this. Bill Gates might be in this to make the world better, but they are in it for the profit - and it's reasonable to question their recommendations and motivations.
For example look at the Pentavalent vaccine in india: DPT + Hib + Hep B
GAVI pays Rs 145 subsidy
India pays Rs 380 extra
Subsidy for 5 years
After that India pays Rs 525
Similarly it's suggested India include a number of new vaccines on their schedule (HPV @ Rs 9000/child, Rotavirus @ Rs 2000/child, and Pneumococcal vaccine @ Rs 650/child), but the situation in India is that 50% of the population don’t receive the basic EPI vaccines costing Rs 30. (not a typo, rs30 vs rs9000). In a nation of limited resources surely the first priority needs to be getting the basic vaccines to the rural poor. But the vaccine companies aren't interested in spending Gates' money on low margin vaccines, they want their foot in the door of a national program. And the WHO and UN unfortunately aren't immune to their pressure.
If anybody's interested I've half a dozen well cited papers and presentations on the topic of vaccines in India - and they make quite depressing reading. Email in profile.
profit in a market represents simply what people want, and how they value those things in voluntary exchanges. mixing up the concept of "profit" with racketeering, corporatism, cronyism, and making money off of various other involuntary transactions is a huge mistake since it colors your perception of the world.
RTS,S/AS01 went into Phase III trials in mid 2009. It's being tested solely as vaccination meant for young children and is being tested in East Africa. You can find more information here: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00380393
Until it's tested more extensively for travelers, don't hold your breath for a readily available vaccine. As always, evaluate the malaria risk of your destination and take the appropriate antimalarial for that area.
This kind of major undertaking is admirable, because it will reduce suffer and pain to the people who are not so fortunate.
The charity contribution I offer is limited and do the best I can through organizations like Kiva.org. I just wish that other well known and well off tech leaders e.g. Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs would be more active.
Maybe the Gates Foundation with their actions encourages them to do something on a bigger scale.
This is fantastic news. One suggestion though, I would rather spend majority of that $10B in training, building the infrastructure, etc. so that 3rd world countries can produce their own vaccine/medicine/etc.
it's sort of like the old Chinese saying: Give a person a fish, and you feed them for a day. Teach a person how to fish, and you feed them for a lifetime.
This is for image. Their foundation causes great harm indirectly by investing in incredibly evil corporations exploiting and bribing in the third world. And their "voting rights" play is a joke, they are far from significant on any firm (from what I remember, it wasn't the case when the press investigated again; I wouldn't be surprised if they ever voted on any of those evil corporations.)
Just read the first paragraphs of the original investigation:
Sorry to say rude things here. But alecco, you're such an ignorant person. How dare you saying or linking to such lies for these kind of great attempts to save millions of lives.
Gates has obviously made a calculation here, one I believe to be correct: the far greater returns generated by profit-maximizing investment can be used to do more good than the harm that might be caused by any of the companies he invests in.
[+] [-] marciovm123|16 years ago|reply
By decreasing the amount of wealth that is necessary for a human person to remain alive - for example by introducing a new vaccine that allows a large (5+) family in unsanitary conditions to have all of their children reach adulthood - these sorts of programs in undeveloped countries actually create more poverty then they solve. There is not a cheap-manual labor shortage in these countries. There is however an acute shortage of well-paying jobs that don't involve corruption. By allowing the supply of just-surviving people to increase, you are putting even more downward pressure on the wages of unskilled labor (they are caught in the Iron Law of wages).
Keep in mind that in these countries, with no real legal system, unskilled labor doesn't mean gardening like it does in California but violence in the form of gangs/thug-ocracies who typically control access to natural resources or drug running routes. By creating more people, you are making it easier for the systems that keep them poor to grow, in a positive feedback loop.
The problem is not that a $3 drug is too expensive, and that we need to develop a 30 cent drug, the problem is that there are people who can't afford $3 for a life-saving drug. What they really need from the US is jobs, markets, and protection from the threats of climate change that we are causing by using 25% of the world's fossil fuels (more if you count the contribution from production in China to the cheap goods that we consume).
If Gates really wanted to help these people, he would campaign for an end to developed world farm subsidies, fossil fuel subsidies, and the recreational diamond market. But that would make him unpopular in the US.
EDIT: are downvotes for disagreement or for breach of etiquette?
[+] [-] tsally|16 years ago|reply
I refuse to believe that the loss of life is perferable than the preservation of life. And quite frankly, arguments from classical economics seem rather cold given the subject matter.
The heart of your argument suggests that the political issues in these countries are the root of the problem. This is correct. However, history shows us that the amount of money spent on politically bankrupt states has little or no impact on making them politically sound. Gates money is useless on the third world political playing field; instead, Gates is choosing to spend it in an area which he can actually have an impact.
As far as domestic politics go, the positions you suggest that Gates take on "farm subsidies, fossil fuel subsidies, and the recreational diamond market" are all politically untenable at the moment. It's not clear Gates could have an impact there either.
[+] [-] iamelgringo|16 years ago|reply
I could not disagree more strongly regarding vaccinations not being an effective economic development tool.
Take the polio vaccination program for instance. Polio. Polio doesn't often kill people, but it does often make them lame for the rest of their lives. So, for every person that gets polio, they are extremely limited in the economic goods that they can produce, but they are also an economic drag on the family, because they are a financial burden rather than producing income. Polio has been almost eradicated, and the economic benefits to poverty stricken countries has been huge.
Small Pox is another example. It has all been eradicated, life expectancies have gone up in the third world because of it, and more people are able to produce income for longer.
Other diseases like Malaria, Cholera, Dengue affect hundreds of millions of people world wide each year, and they aren't necessarily killer diseases. And, millions and millions of people are affected by these diseased, and when they are infected, they are an economic drain.
Preventing these diseases with a simple vaccine is going to give a much greater economic boost to poor countries than giving them clean energy technologies or superhighways.
Keep in mind that in these countries, with no real legal system, unskilled labor doesn't mean gardening like it does in California but violence in the form of gangs/thug-ocracies who typically control access to natural resources or drug running routes
That, sir borders on the racist. What countries are you referring to? There are well over a hundred developing countries with various levels of legal systems and economies. Are you saying that all developing nations are thugocracies? Are you suggesting that any and all unskilled labor in developing nations ends up leading to gangs?
[+] [-] metra|16 years ago|reply
Stated more simply: It is good that children in poor countries are dying because if they had lived then they would have created more poverty.
How is this getting any upvotes? marciovm, Gates isn't spending this money to play up his image to the American public and to tug at America's heart strings. He's doing this because it's right. Giving people vaccines to live is right. Letting them die because it might create less poverty isn't - it's missing the point that all lives are important.
I completely agree that empowering the economies of developing nations is a very high priority. Higher GDP's lead to longer life, lower infant mortality, more education, less children per mother (because the opportunity cost of having a child is higher once the mother gets a high salary), etc. However, researching vaccines is just as important and necessary for developing countries that are crippled by HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.
[+] [-] AngryParsley|16 years ago|reply
You have to look at the margins. Is the benefit of $10 billion spent on vaccine research greater than $10 billion spent on clean energy or infrastructure? I think it is.
There are already many companies, subsidies, and grants for clean energy. Honda has revenues of about $120 billion per year and it spends 5% of that on R&D. Of course not all of that is spent on clean energy, but Honda is only one car company. $10 billion is a small fraction of the amount spent per year on clean energy research. For comparison, the WHO's yearly budget is around $1 billion.
What about infrastructure? The new bay bridge has a price tag of $6 billion. If that's anything close to the typical price of building big stuff, then vaccine research is definitely more cost-effective in terms of lives saved.
> these sorts of programs in undeveloped countries actually create more poverty then they solve.
Yes, it's a trade-off. More poor people for fewer dead people.
Living in Somalia sucks, but living in a Somalia with smallpox would be even worse. We know the problems of many 3rd world countries are more than just matters of supplying basic needs. You point out the harm caused by corruption and crime, but you neglect another reason for the lack of progress: disease. Workers can't work if they're stricken with malaria, or crippled from polio, or dead from smallpox.
It's true that many cannot afford to pay for vaccines. Luckily, philanthropists and governments like to give money to groups like the Pan American Health Organization (which eradicated smallpox and polio in the americas). If everyone had to pay for their vaccines, smallpox and polio would still kill millions.
Smallpox killed 400 million human beings in the 20th century. That's more than every war since 1900. Now it is gone. Polio crippled hundreds of millions. It remains in only four countries. There are hundreds of millions of cases of malaria each year. Several million die from it, mostly children. It is the biggest killer without a vaccine, and it's about fucking time that changed.
[+] [-] mrkurt|16 years ago|reply
1) Are there any studies that support the "making people healthier would be a net loss to many societies" claim I keep seeing? It's one of those things that sounds like it makes sense, but no one really quotes any credible sources.
2) I would be utterly shocked if he did this to make himself popular in the US. You may put your own money elsewhere, but he's really a pretty smart dude who seems to do a great deal of research before making decisions. It's a little childish to write it off like that.
[+] [-] maxwin|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ewanmcteagle|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hedgehog|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nathanwdavis|16 years ago|reply
Also, it should be noted that the foundation (according to Wikipedia) specifically targets problems "ignored by governments and other organizations".
[+] [-] aneesh|16 years ago|reply
But I think you can improve lifestyle in two ways -- increase income like you mentioned, or decrease costs. It's possible for technology to bring costs down. And when costs come down, a $100 income can buy the lifestyle that $300 used to. So even if you depress wages, you can still win by depressing costs even further through technology.
[+] [-] unknown|16 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Kilimanjaro|16 years ago|reply
We should be investing in all of them. But as you say, corruption gets in the way of good will.
[+] [-] alecco|16 years ago|reply
From a neighbour country, down south, have an upvote :)
Edit: Clarification in square brackets.
[+] [-] maxwin|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tsally|16 years ago|reply
Also, "you techies" strikes me as distancing language with a hostile tone. I think you're projecting a broad, unfounded stereotype on people of developed countries. Personally I've very conscious that I was born one of the most advantageous positions in the world. I donate portions of my income with that thought in mind.
[+] [-] davidmurphy|16 years ago|reply
For several years, I have had an idea for a nonprofit that would bring top next-gen leaders & influencers from the USA over to third world countries (in Africa, in the current plan), to open their eyes to conditions so they can learn the point you just wrote, maxwin. We're all human beings, and we need to do all we can to help our fellow (wo)man. The hope would be, these people would go on to become the Bill Gates of the next generation and would use their influence to do good.
Check out http://www.africafellowship.org/ (ugly design, I know, but it's a work in progress)
[+] [-] jreposa|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrtron|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dabent|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] callmeed|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mberning|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mattmiller|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fatjonny|16 years ago|reply
The essay Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor from 1974 is probably the essay available online that is more applicable to the current discussion.
I do not yet have a well-formed opinion on this one way or the other, I simply find Garrett Hardin's arguments to be thought-provoking. Saving millions of lives will mean that those millions of lives need to be sustained in some way. The resources to do this have to come from somewhere. By saving those millions of lives is that going to lower the quality of life of millions of others? It is a tough problem with, as Hardin mentions, "no technical solution".
Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor essay: http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_lifeboat_et...
Tragedy of the Commons essay: http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_tragedy_of_...
[+] [-] ComputerGuru|16 years ago|reply
Who's to decide that person x is to live while person y is to die? Everyone deserves a chance to be the one that lives. Yes, sure, with the famine and the wars and the political problems in these regions it is an interesting thought that perhaps more people will lead to more problems, but it is so very cruel to say that maybe it's best that people die to disease and sickness rather than be given a chance to prove themselves.
[+] [-] kingkawn|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FlemishBeeCycle|16 years ago|reply
It would seem to me that focusing on only one aspect of the hardships suffered by a people is like you said, going to give rise to many unintended consequences. Granted "improving infrastructure" isn't quite as sexy as "providing vaccines", it would probably make more sense to focus on a holistic approach than an isolated problem.
[+] [-] ximeng|16 years ago|reply
The video linked above talks about exactly this issue.
[+] [-] unknown|16 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] nathanwdavis|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marciovm123|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amvp|16 years ago|reply
However this is a massive opportunity for the vaccine companies who stand to gain a lot (far more than the $10bn) from this. Bill Gates might be in this to make the world better, but they are in it for the profit - and it's reasonable to question their recommendations and motivations.
For example look at the Pentavalent vaccine in india: DPT + Hib + Hep B
GAVI pays Rs 145 subsidy
India pays Rs 380 extra
Subsidy for 5 years
After that India pays Rs 525
Similarly it's suggested India include a number of new vaccines on their schedule (HPV @ Rs 9000/child, Rotavirus @ Rs 2000/child, and Pneumococcal vaccine @ Rs 650/child), but the situation in India is that 50% of the population don’t receive the basic EPI vaccines costing Rs 30. (not a typo, rs30 vs rs9000). In a nation of limited resources surely the first priority needs to be getting the basic vaccines to the rural poor. But the vaccine companies aren't interested in spending Gates' money on low margin vaccines, they want their foot in the door of a national program. And the WHO and UN unfortunately aren't immune to their pressure.
Away from India here's an article about the swine flu 'pandemic' http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,637119,00.h...
If anybody's interested I've half a dozen well cited papers and presentations on the topic of vaccines in India - and they make quite depressing reading. Email in profile.
[+] [-] nazgulnarsil|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drinian|16 years ago|reply
Are we that close to a decent malaria vaccine? I might have to delay some travel plans if that's the case. Biohackers care to comment?
[+] [-] teej|16 years ago|reply
Until it's tested more extensively for travelers, don't hold your breath for a readily available vaccine. As always, evaluate the malaria risk of your destination and take the appropriate antimalarial for that area.
[+] [-] eande|16 years ago|reply
The charity contribution I offer is limited and do the best I can through organizations like Kiva.org. I just wish that other well known and well off tech leaders e.g. Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs would be more active. Maybe the Gates Foundation with their actions encourages them to do something on a bigger scale.
[+] [-] elblanco|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ecq|16 years ago|reply
it's sort of like the old Chinese saying: Give a person a fish, and you feed them for a day. Teach a person how to fish, and you feed them for a lifetime.
[+] [-] LargeWu|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|16 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] amichail|16 years ago|reply
See: http://www.reddit.com/r/cogsci/comments/au7t7/why_not_provid...
[+] [-] alecco|16 years ago|reply
Just read the first paragraphs of the original investigation:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx0... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_&_Melinda_Gates_Founda...
[+] [-] maxwin|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kalvin|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fuzzmeister|16 years ago|reply