Anything Forums

Should the West pour billions of dollars into trying to halt the spread of HIV in Africa? Should the West reinvest its dollars into other diseases/conditions such as cancer, or other easily treatable conditions in the world with basic pharmaceuticals?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3185, old post ID:58596

I really don't know...

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3185, old post ID:58697

If we spend all that money to help somthing that cannot be stopped, were just hurting ourselves, and when humans are desperate they wont want to help others.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3185, old post ID:59154

How do you know it can't be stopped? I bet there have been plenty of things that we said couldn't be stopped and we stopped them.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3185, old post ID:59155

I think they need to take a good look at what Africa really needs in terms of medicine, instead of focus on a big name disease like AIDS. Stopping the spread of AIDS in Africa is important, but that's not the only disease people are dying of down there.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3185, old post ID:59162

Yes. There are a number of other diseases like malaria, TB, etc. where a stronger investment in assistance would likely have more dramatic effect than something often terminal (but manageable for medium-long term with treatment) like HIV.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3185, old post ID:59164

The idea of City Hall trying to prevent HIV seems nice, but there's a great possibility that City Hall won't be able to prevent HIV from spreading, because the population of Africans is like trying to get rid of all the fish in the sea.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3185, old post ID:59190

Reaper wrote: How do you know it can't be stopped? I bet there have been plenty of things that we said couldn't be stopped and we stopped them.

Ya you are right Reaper and I agree with what you said!!!!!!!

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3185, old post ID:59740

Aids may not be easy to cure but its easy to prevent. Cancer is not really easy to prevent, some cancers have ways, such as lung cancer caused by smoking, so don't smoke, but some cancers just apear no matter what. So I say the money should go towards cancer and other such deseises.

I can't recall last time I heard someone die of aids, but I can probably run out of fingers if I think of people I know/don't know who died of cancer recently. I'm not saying nobody dies of aids since I'm sure there are a lot, but just that cancer is a much bigger problem.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3185, old post ID:59743

Red Squirrel wrote: I can't recall last time I heard someone die of aids, but I can probably run out of fingers if I think of people I know/don't know who died of cancer recently.  I'm not saying nobody dies of aids since I'm sure there are a lot, but just that cancer is a much bigger problem.

But I suspect that if you talked to someone in Africa, they would know more people with AIDS than with cancer.


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3185, old post ID:59750

yeah, unless you live in africa then who you know doesnt count. lol. AIDS isnt as big of a problem here as it is in africa.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3185, old post ID:59753

Clueless wrote: yeah, unless you live in africa then who you know doesnt count. lol. AIDS isnt as big of a problem here as it is in africa.

So why should we be paying large sums of money to combat it in Africa?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3185, old post ID:59755

i dont know. cuz we're nice?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3185, old post ID:59769

The problem is that there is so much corruption in African regimes. Of course, there's corruption everywhere to some extent, but it's difficult to track how much donated money is going where it's meant to. And because HIV transmission is largely done through the behavior of those involved, not only does the medication have to be paid for, but long-term public health campaigns and so on. Also, treating HIV is like treating diabetes or taking anti-rejection medication after receiving an organ - it has to be done for the rest of the individual's life. So, not only does the problem have a massive number of people already affected, there will be many more going forward. The huge expense for such a thing seems hard to justify when we have problems here that need more funding. Or at least, if we are going to send lots of medical aid to Africa, do it for conditions that don't require huge public health campaigns or life-long treatment - as I mentioned above, drugs to combat malaria, TB, and so on, I think, could have a profound effect on African lifespans, insofar as they're at least kept from going lower than they already have been due to HIV infection. However, if the West is going to send medication/treatment resources to Africa, focus on providing it to the children who inherited it from their mothers.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3185, old post ID:59772