>A successful rollout ... could save up to 1m lives over the next five years. Yet that probably will not happen. The main reason, as rich countries slash their aid budgets, is that nobody wants to pay for it.
>The study in Kenya, Ghana and Malawi shows a drop of 13% in deaths among children who were eligible for the three shots.
>Just $4,000 spent on a programme involving R21 is enough to avert one death.
>the recommended four doses cost $15.60, which is more than many African governments spend per person on health care in a year.
While I want to make it clear that I support international aid, particularly health aid, I'm surprised that there would be any assumption or hope that rich countries ie the usa would continue this aid given the current political winds and that 4000 to save a life in Africa is apparently about 4x what the usa will spend this year to save an american life from opioids.
Why force those two to compete, uberman? assuming your stat is correct, both seem like amazing good ROI, compared to what we spend most of our money on?
so whether its $1k, or $4k, those both sound good!
So while I wouldn't assume anything about what a country might do, I might hope that we might spend our money on things that have evidence of saving lives, without unreasonable expense.
The unfortunate reality is that foreign aid is all but defunct, particularly when it co.e to Africa and if the usa is only willing to spend 1000 per victim to combat opiod deaths then I see little chance that they would spend 4x that to save African malaria victims. I'm not saying this is a good thing only that it seems like reality at the moment.
>A successful rollout ... could save up to 1m lives over the next five years. Yet that probably will not happen. The main reason, as rich countries slash their aid budgets, is that nobody wants to pay for it.
>The study in Kenya, Ghana and Malawi shows a drop of 13% in deaths among children who were eligible for the three shots.
>Just $4,000 spent on a programme involving R21 is enough to avert one death.
>the recommended four doses cost $15.60, which is more than many African governments spend per person on health care in a year.
While I want to make it clear that I support international aid, particularly health aid, I'm surprised that there would be any assumption or hope that rich countries ie the usa would continue this aid given the current political winds and that 4000 to save a life in Africa is apparently about 4x what the usa will spend this year to save an american life from opioids.
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-money-does-the-govern...
Why force those two to compete, uberman? assuming your stat is correct, both seem like amazing good ROI, compared to what we spend most of our money on?
The below lancet study (2023) puts a the cost of creating a marginal year of life in the US at >$95K https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/langlo/PIIS2214-109X...
so whether its $1k, or $4k, those both sound good!
So while I wouldn't assume anything about what a country might do, I might hope that we might spend our money on things that have evidence of saving lives, without unreasonable expense.
The unfortunate reality is that foreign aid is all but defunct, particularly when it co.e to Africa and if the usa is only willing to spend 1000 per victim to combat opiod deaths then I see little chance that they would spend 4x that to save African malaria victims. I'm not saying this is a good thing only that it seems like reality at the moment.
no paywall: https://archive.is/cn2lD
[dead]